cdumler

It's not useful, nor is it open source. It's a leaked copy of the Windows source code from a long time ago that has been hacked on. You can look up the "history" of it and how it has symbol names for companies with whom Microsoft worked to solve specific application issues. Microsoft knows that no company would be crazy enough to rely on it, so no point in getting bad press trying to kill it.

Not hard to figure this one out: An untraceable connection to any other party anywhere in the world; notably, his handler and anyone willing wanting to know how much a favor will cost.

So you're saying Chernobyl wasn't caused by hurried and ill-prepared testing of a safety feature they failed to verify during initial startup and instead had to do years later during regular operation?

I'll say it wasn't. You're right about the issues; however, the root cause comes from a culture that views any form of problem as a personal fault. These guys were just the end result of a long list of fails. When you treat any form of failure as personal, there is perverse incentive to ignore or hide faults until all of it lines up, ie the Swiss-cheese model. The people running Chernobyl shouldn't have been in that position in the first place: untrained, ill-informed, and under-the-gun to perform.

It's supposed to go wrong. Government isn't worth anything. Once they "prove" had bad it is, they will bring in corporations that will do it, and they will be able to do it for a profit without having to deal with all those pesky rules that keep us safe.

C was created to rewrite UNIX from its original Assembly implementation

I don't think I can go with that one. C was created in the same period as people were trying to find a way to create a common platform, but C was more about trying to solve the problem of having a higher-level language that wasn't available for the low-end hardware (ie PDP-11, etc) of the time. Richie wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel.

He would have been happy to use other languages, but they were either design for large platforms which needed more resources (Fortran) or looking to be locked behind companies (IBM's PL/I). Richie considered BCPL, which at the time had a design that made it pretty easy to port if your computer was word-based (same size of bit-width for all numbers regardless of purpose). But, mini-frames were moving towards byte-based data and word or multi-word-based addressing. Plus, mini-frames had poorer hardware to make it cheaper, so typing on them meant more physical work.

A lot of UNIX design came from trying to use less: less memory, less paper, less typing. Richie tried to simplify BCPL to be less wordy by making B, but ultimately decided to jump to the next thing by making a language that would require as few keystroke as possible. That's why C is so symbolic: what is the least amount of typing to perform the concept? That made it pretty easy to translate to a fixed set assembly instructions; however, it hasn't had a symbiotic relationship with assembly.

If anything, it is the reverse. Just look at the compiler for all of the memory addressing it has to know. Look at any reasonably complex program of all of the compiler directives to see all the platform exceptions. C++ really took failure modes to the next level. My favorites is "a = b/*c;" Is that "a equals b divided by value pointed at by c" or "a equals b" with a comment? I left C++ a long time ago because I could take code that would compile on two different platforms and result in totally different behavior.

I think all of this drama has to do with the simple fact of there a bunch of people content to live in a one-langauge dominated environment and the head of Linux doesn't want to decide if that is or isn't the mandate; however, by not taking sides, he has effectively taken the one-language mandate. Rust needs to reimplement Linux.

All the other continents are saying so.

It is like witchcraft seeing someone produce VGA out with some raw/more tangible chips.

I think what you're missing is: VGA was designed in the era when this was A Thing™. Monochrome/NTSC/CGA/EGA/VGA displays are all about "bit banging," sending signals at the right time. If you can send 1's and 0's faster than the analog reception can update, you can "fake" voltage potentials. I say "fake" because that was actually a way to do it before digital-to-analog converters were easy to implement. Today, we can easily produce chips custom for the purpose; however, "in the beginning" it was really just all about timing.

The witchcraft for me was the fact that while older cards used bit-banging to get signals out the door, it was generally designed with a specific purpose (thus specific timings). If you can get access to the underlying timing control, it [opens a whole new world that will surprise people today](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xJZ9I4iqg8).

I have no specific knowledge, but another approach would be to integrate more unusual very-long-instruction-word micro-instructions, like large scale matrix functions, algorithm encode/decode functions, and very long vector operations.

As I recall, Transmeta's CPU could accept x86 instructions because the software translator, called Code Morphing Software (like Rosetta), would decompose the x86 instruction into a set of steps over a very-long-instruction-word. VLIW's design is such that all of the instructions went into separate, parallel pipelines. Each pipeline had specific set of abilities. Think, the first three pipelines might be able to do integer arithmetic, but 3 and 4 can do floats. Also, the CPU implemented a commit/rollback concept which allowed it cause "faults," like branch miss-predictions, interrupts, and instruction faults. This allowed the Transmeta CPU to emulate the x86 beyond just JIT compilations. In theory, it could emulate any other CPU. They tried going after Intel (and failed); but, I think they would have been better off trying go after any one trying to jump start a new architecture.

Part of the reason why CPUs aren't good at GPU activities is because the instructions are expected to have pretty small, definite set of inputs and outputs (registers), use a reasonable number of CPU cycles, and must devote logic to ensure a fault can be unwound (CPU doesn't crash). FPGs are cool because you can essentially have wholly independent units with their own internal state. The little units can be wired any way desired. The problem with FPGs is all that interconnect means a lot of capacitance in the lines, so much slower clock speeds.

So, maybe they are trying to strike a balance. They have targeted instructions are more FPG-like, like "perform algorithm." The instruction receives a set of flags that defines which algorithms to use and in what order (use vector as 8-bit integers, mask with 0x80, compute 16bit checksum) and a vector register. You can loading vectors and running them then finally "read perform algorithm result" with flag "get compute 16bit checksum." FPG-like and registers aren't "polluted" with intermediate state.

It is not clear what the FBI was seeking when numerous agents entered Coplan's apartment at around 6am, or if Coplan and/or Polymarket are the targets of an investigation.

We have no information about why they are there, so you conclude it must be political retribution and they must be protected. THIS is why Trump won. So many people have zero critical thinking skills. When you see something that for which you have no information, you can say "I wonder what is going on." Then, you stop. Things that could be:

* Using collected data to facility spear phishing campaigns. * Running a child pornography/sex trafficking ring. * Participating in dogfighting. * Been a back channel for selling trade secrets. * Had some people killed. * Routing all the information collected to foreign groups, like Russia. * or.. has the other half of messages to someone under investigation whose phone locked.

But, given I have zero evidence to support any of this, let's stick with "let's see what they say."

Having looked at your project, what would you say is difference in ability or philosophy compared to Open Web UI or FlowiseAI? Or, is this "I want to build this because I want to?" To which there is nothing wrong with that.

Being an old, grey beard, it's been interesting to see language change in my lifetime. Things I learned:

  * Third-person singular indefinite ("he or she") can be replaced with third-person plural ("they").  Of course, a lot of changes around recognizing gender.
  * Final punctuation within the quote at the end of sentence (Did you just say "what?") can be placed after the final quote if the quote is for a literal string (ie, The password is "123456".)
  * Companies switched from being singular plurals ("Google is deprecating another product.") to plural singulars ("Google are deprecating another product.")
  * Moving away from verbed nouns ("Google it") to multipart verbs ("search it up").
  * Double infinitives ("to try to eat") getting changed to an infinitive and conjunction ("to try and eat").

0C is cold

10C is cool

20C is nice

30C is warm

40C is hot

I think way he meant a hashed chain: one where the history is tamper proof. The important part is that the data and logic used to process claim is digitally documented and sealed by hash. You get a copy of the hash in your claims. The hash chain is public or has to be given to an independent third-party. If you get into a kicking contest in court, the company they have to reproduce documentation with the hash. The hashing prevents forging the original documents in the process.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

I thought the same thing when using PAR files. They're still useful today if you save things on media that can be damaged (CD, DVD, Blue-Ray) or across multiple multiple media.

Eventually, I decided to dig into the math behind it. It is a surprisingly simple principle:

Given polynomial of a degree X and an array of data points of size X, there is one and only one solution to the polynomial's coefficients such that it will pass through those data points.

So, stripe the data into bands of arrays, compute the polynomial, and compute additional data points of the curve, and save it with the original data. If you have at least the array's size of data points ( original array and/or parity values) and know the place in the list for each data point (thus which data is missing), there is one and only one solution to the polynomial equation. Once you solve the polynomial again, you can compute any point, including the missing ones. Again, because there is one and only one solution for the curve.

The devil is the math necessary solve the polynomials, which is why it is so computationally intensive.

There is already one in place. It's called.. librarians. They do a lot more than just stand around a look pretty. There are degrees you can earn which includes things like how to manage tracking books and operate exchanges, managing catalog systems, training in computer use and learning, and... judging appropriate book content for readers. Librarians are much more than just someone who will help you with a book, if you ask.

My wife likes astrology. I just put it as one of those quirks in people. This is especially curious because of just how intelligent she is. She has several degrees, including a PHD. Then, she pointed out something to me: something doesn't necessarily have to be true to have value.

She uses astrology not in any predictive manor but as a qualitative evaluation. All of the signs have descriptions and ways to think about the character. For instance, Cancers tend to keep people out because the only thing that protects them from their soft, emotional insides is their shell. This makes them also tend to avoid direct conflict, which makes them move in sideways directions. However, if they interact, they don't have much more than claws, so they may pinch without knowing it. They also tend to find their place to bury and if kept happy will tend to stay where they are. If not, they tend to move on without creating a huge issue out it.

I'm not going to suggest in any shape or form that A) all people born Cancers behave this way or B) planets have anything to do with causing this. What I am saying is: if you see someone acting with these traits, you can decide that maybe the reason why is because they're concerned about being hurt. I've learned to have a bit less judgement and a bit more grace in people now. Maybe people just have a difference view of priorities and not all motivations are spoken:

  * Aries - Brash, bold, and like taking the lead in situations.  Also tend to be naïve and more morally black-and-white.
  * Taurus - Stubborn but reliable. Tend to value only what they find for themselves, ie "you can't lead a horse to water..".
  * Gemini - Appear as twins, because something is definitely _the best way_ until the next thing is _best way_.  They're not flighty, just not that concerned with opportunity costs.
  * Cancer - Emotional and nurturing, doesn't want to be crushed.  Tend stay where they are unless moved by discomfort, but won't tell you.
  * Leo - Confident, charismatic, and is concerned about accomplishments and family.  Very loud more than anything else and can be pacified by stroking their mane.
  * Virgo - Detail-oriented and practical. Often perfectionists because they are comfortable with repeated process.  Get uncomfortable unknowns, which makes them not want to complete projects.
  * Libra - Diplomatic and charming, value balance and harmony, but judge everything even if inappropriate.
  * Scorpio - Intense, passionate, but reserved.  Often so reserved that people wonder if they are going to get stabbed when all the Scorpio is doing is being quiet on their rock in the sun and ignoring everyone.

This is now stuff I think about before assigning malice to someone's actions or just brushing someone off who isn't thinking like me.

It would appear they use the title is a bit misleading:

Pacific Legal Foundation is primarily funded by donations from individuals, foundations, associations, and small businesses. Except for court-awarded attorney fees for case victories, the organization receives no government funding. The foundation is generally described as supporting libertarian or conservative causes. [1]

It strikes me that they are guns for hire for anyone who thinks the Government is overreaching. I would think a true libertarian would be supportive with having non-competes removed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Legal_Foundation

That is a solution, but not the cause. The cause is not having a culture that evaluates failure scenarios. From what I have read:

  * Updates are not vetted or sanity checked.
  * Updates are not slow-rolled to production.
  * Updates are not signed to prevent corruption or alteration.
  * Updater does not sanitize or validate inputs.
  * Updater does not have a reversion process to previously known good position on faulty boot.
  * Updater should mark itself as Unnecessary For Boot on faulty boot at some point.

Google funds Firefox and Mozilla knows its purpose is to prevent regulators to looking at Chrome the same way they did at Internet Explorer.

My cohorts and I chat regularly in Slack about things software developer related as well as the occasional joke, gripe about work, etc. We put a bot in place scripted to give some responses to certain keyword, as well as a Marcov chain for fun. After a while, it would trigger on things and we'd laugh as it tried explain some solution to a tech problem and just butchered the idea or take on about family it didn't have. But, what was surprising to me was the jokes.

Just how little it took swap a few words or add in some unrelated context easily turn some phrase or punchline into something truly racist, misogynistic, etc. It gave me a better appreciate of being careful about what I say and we took the bot down.

The reason why it can't be abused the same way is because of the nature of the paired-one-way-encryption system.

A normal password is one-way encrypted. The algorithm makes it easy to turn an input string into encrypted gibberish, but virtually impossible to take encrypted gibberish and turn it into a suitable input string. Your password is run through this "hash" algorithm and stored. To prove your authenticity, you provide the password and the system encrypts it the same way. If the gibberish matches, you must have known the original password. The problem is that this is subject to several attacks, notably a dictionary attack where you just have a big long list of known passwords. The attack encrypts each one and see if you find one that generates the same gibberish. So, let's take the user generated password out of the loop.

The trick is that symmetrical, public-pair encryption creates two keys, such that:

  * A key used to encrypt a string or sign a blob cannot be used to decrypt or verify it (one-way).
  * A key's pair is the only one that can decrypt or verify a signature (symmetrical).
  * A completely random initial value (aka password) starts the process, but after which is no longer relevant to use.
 

  Server: Here is a blob of data I generated and encrypted with your public key, prove to me you know what I did.
  Client: Sure thing.  (Decrypts blob with private key, wraps it with a private key signature, hands it back).  Here ya' go!
  Server: OH.. Nice.  Only you could have decrypted it, and only you can sign the results that match the public key I have on file for you.  You must be you.

I would argue reasonable to believe it will be notably better until it is catastrophically wrong. The issue with neural nets is that they can be really well trained within the bounds of training set; however, when faced with novel, there is no underlying abstraction inference on which to revert. Look instances where autonomous cars are disable or have weird responses when people modify signs[1]. The driving will be better, but the when the information sits squarely outside of the norm (art on the road, abstract images that defy normal depth cues, etc), the car will do very unexpected things.

As humans, we have this issue already. We call them "optical illusions." Optical illusions are really brain neural net failures where there are competing narratives between evaluations of the information provided by our senses we conclude invalid results. We don't have the ability to process absolute light values, so we infer colorspace by relative color within our 3D mental model, which can result in inferring a difference in color where there is none.

1. https://spectrum.ieee.org/slight-street-sign-modifications-c... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

They don't. American's general education is so poor that just chanting certain phrases garners support. They want _their_ advertising to be considered "free speech" because it invokes a strong response of support in many Americans. This wasn't and isn't about free speech.

<rantmode>

Freedom of speech is _not_ an individual right. It is a principle of restriction on the U.S. government; namely, that the government cannot preemptively prevent you from even speaking about a subject. It was never about you being free from responsibility for what you say. The majority of Amendments came out of the abuses of the English monarchy where the King:

  * Prosecutes you for not following (real or imagined) his particular vision of religion (1st) 
  * Tells you are forbidden to even talk about something you know (2nd)
  * Tells you that you're obligated to station and feed his troops (3rd)
  * Sends enforcers to look through your stuff because "reasons" (4th)
  * Commands you to provide evidence of your guilt, so you're guilty if provide it or guilty for violating the king's command to do so if you don't (5th)
  * Locks you in jail and forgets about you (6th)
  * Stacks the judicial system with his people (7th)
  * Finds "creative" ways to punish you (8th)
  * Is the sole authority over the people (9th)
  * Is the sole authority of law (10th)

</rantmode>

Roughly speaking, CPU wants smaller space and RAM wants bigger space. At a high-level take:

  * CPU design is the most expensive space due to it having the greatest quality and capability requirements.  RAM is mostly just a very, very large repetitive structure, so more space better.
  * A CPU fault can be potentially corrected by microcode changes to route around the damage (ie part binning). RAM cannot generally take faults.
  * DRAM is simpler to make, "just" a capacitor, but capacitance leaks over time; which, means generating resistive heat in an area that we want as little heat as possible.  You could use SRAM (two transistors) but now you have substantially more complex part to fail.
  * DRAM quality requirements are much less stringent if you make just bigger cells.

Welcome to the Era of [Poe's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law).

_"Today is the first day you have make changes."_

Unless your team's business model is to _be a Unity team_, it is a matter of determine your goals, evaluate options, get buy-in then start making changes every day to generate that outcome. Don't sell it as a "I hate Unity." Sell it as "it is time to consider how we maintain our future by diversify our skills."

Correct. The reason why microwaves can cook food isn't the fact that it is a microwave frequency. Microwaves ovens cook by flipping the polarity back and forth. The frequency emitted is the same resonant frequency as water molecules, so the water molecules attempt to align constantly to the ever changing polarity. Movement is heat; thus, the water heats the food.

If you have ever had to deal with an air conditioner isn't cooling because of low freon, you'd know that the problem is because the coils get.. too.. cold. They get so cold that water in the air freezes around the coils to be the point there is little air flow possible. Why?

When the freon is low, the freon expands too much into the coils. More expansion, more temperature drop in the coils. Additionally, the compressor has too little freon to compress to sent out to the radiator. The local coil's temperature has gone down, but the overall temperature of the system has gone up. This is the difference between weather (local) and climate (overall average). The weather of the coil is cooler, the climate of the A/C system is hotter.

Global warming is creating changes in the energy flow, both atmospheric and oceanic. Consequently, you may have locally cooler temperatures because hotter temperatures in other create blocks energy movement that would otherwise heat your area.

For all the people saying that this is dead on arrival or will never gain traction because it's too expensive, too bulky, too whatever: this is going succeed. The first watch serious sucked, but now it has all kinds of sensors and an always on display. A lot of those unique components (like the stereoscopic display) will get mass produced, which will bring down cost. Refinement will improve abilities.

This particular headset? It is too expensive, too bulky, etc. But, I can tell you that in time any serious developer will have this. The only thing that will make me give up my ultra-wide monitor is this: an ultra-wide screen monitor that I can take anywhere.

Overall, I think the article is pretty good. ORMs fall under the same category as garbage collection or try/catch exceptions: it is a tool. Tools solve a lot of common cases, but that doesn't relieve the developer from understanding what is actually happening under the hood.

* Garbage collection solves pointer problems, but the developer has to know what is being allocated and when to prevent churning memory. * Try/catch exceptions solves breaking the tie between where exceptions can occur and where exceptions can be handled, but the developer still has to determine if all of the exceptions are being handled. * An ORM solves relating objects to data persistence, but the developer still has to know what relations weren't covered in the original query after the objects are used.

Active Record struggles with this, and that’s why we refactored our billing subscription query. Whenever we got results we didn’t expect, we’d have to inspect the rendered SQL query, rerun it, and then translate the SQL error into Active Record changes. This back-and-forth process undermined the original purpose of using Active Record, which was to avoid interfacing directly with the SQL database.

This is where I disagree. ActiveRecord was meant to map objects you have to your relational database, hence Object Relational Mapper. It is not a reporting interface. But it is reasonable to get around this. One way is to get a lot more specific in building the query with `arel`. Alternatively, open the raw connection and execute SQL with `ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute`.

The disconnect here is believing that ActiveRecord solves billing/reporting SQL statements. It does not. It solves mapping objects. If your access pattern doesn't match (reports, N+1, GraphQL) then you have to understand the tool well enough to create your own mapping solution (custom SQL, preloading/scoping, data loader).

I remember when Java was considered really, really slow. The guy used a code example to prove a point. I rewrote the code to stop relying on the GC allocating/freeing data structures over and over and sped the program up by 400% on that alone.