HN user
“We cannot share details on the exact fix at this moment, for obvious security reasons.”
This seems a bit disingenuous. To people with a bit of understanding of cybersecurity, they are admitting that they haven't solved it; but to most of their customers, it will sound like they fixed it and are being cautious.
It sounds like their architecture enables them to solve much more interesting problems than would usually be encountered in meeting their business requirements.
ID.me also seems to be the only way to interact with the IRS online, and has arbitrarily decided my identity is unverifiable.
Apparently surfraw has an elvis for it: https://gitlab.com/surfraw/Surfraw/-/wikis/current-elvi
All languages have redundancy; it serves as a form of forward error correction. I recall some sort of study (sorry, no link) finding that information density was (by some metric) similar across different languages. So it's not just inefficiency; it's part of the language's necessary inefficiency.
Of course, some forms of redundancy would be better than others--in cases where people aren't sure which particle to use, it probably isn't doing much good. However, language evolution is able to achieve some optimizations, and I suspect the particles people know tend to be the most important. For example, the many sushi or shellfish particles might sound particularly silly, but if you're in those industries, maybe they are helpful in maintaining important distinctions in a noisy kitchen/market, or in written records. If you're a customer you probably don't know them, and you don't need to.
Epistemic status: Wild-ass guessing from my armchair.
Interesting idea. I've just tried it with a couple of languages:
- TS with Vue: SFC are not really working (it's showing a style change as if the whole stylesheet were replaced with a mostly-identical stylesheet).
- Rust: It doesn't seem semantic at all. It's showing a lot of character-level insertions and deletions that seem worse than how git-diff or GitHub would break down the changes.
It doesn't seem ready yet for what I'd like to use it for.
I can't picture how that would work. While collaborative features require that some objects are shared and synchronized, efficiency and programmer sanity rely on the fact that some objects are not. If synchronization is opt-in, how would a language integrate it any more fundamentally than a library can?
Also, CRDT's don't provide synchronization for free. They ensure that all concurrent modifications will be merged somehow. If the data being synchronized has any structure, it requires careful CRDT-aware data model design to ensure the merging is semantically reasonable (or that, in the worst case, incompatible changes produce a detectably broken state).
I don't know what kind of computer weenies you know but speaking for myself: needing to interact with someone to get exercise would add a major hurdle for me. OTOH, I'm really getting in to minmaxing myself in Garmin...
I went through the same paradigm shift with cycling. I used a cheap bike that was slow and heavy because higher efficiency wouldn't allow me to get exercise any faster. Then I got a nice road bike, and it's so much more fun to ride, so I'm riding a lot more.
Well yeah. SSDs are worse than HDDs in every way when the denominator is capacity. The headline would be the opposite if they were comparing per IOPS. The shocking conclusion: Use SSDs when you need fast random access; use rotating media for bulk storage.
I have an Android TV and streaming subscriptions. If I want to stream something I have to find out what service carries it, open the right app, and attempt to type the title with the arrow keys on the remote. For me, it's much easier to torrent.
`for` is a foreach. If you want to increment a number through a range like a typical C `for`, you have to use a `while` loop. I don't really see the draw.
do black-and-white code editing
You've piqued my curiosity. No syntax highlighting?
Well I assumed it would be an electron app because getting it done with a shedload of giant 555 timers wouldn't be as funny :)
Oops. It's 40ms!
It would take an electric signal about 40ns to travel from the center to one corner and back, and a signal certainly needs to do more than that in a clock cycle, so the physical limit on its operational frequency would be well below 25 kHz. If you want comparable computing power to a regular M1, you'd need to build a tower of them at least 100,000 high. On the plus side, you could build a city on the stack and no one would need heating in the winter. The cluster should be powerful enough to coordinate the traffic lights. Synergy!
It's not mutations that are the threat, it's mutated COVID-19.
We are talking about the relative evolutionary fitness of different variants, so until we have the ability to decide whether to avoid someone based on what variant they have (and may not be showing symptoms of), I don't see how behavioral response enters the picture.
That's only a problem if you use code that is unsound. Well-written crates do not incorrectly mark functions safe.
It depends on how high up the software stack you work. For most people it won't make much difference, but for some people it's huge. I do a lot of SIMD optimization, and x86 is 128/256/512-bit short-vector SIMD. Arm is 128-bit/long-vector. Even short-vector on Arm uses a different programming model from x86 (the intrinsics are more abstracted from the operations in order to support endian-agnostic operation), and of course long-vector is worlds apart.
I'm not complaining though; we're entering a new golden age for people who like learning the intricacies of ISA's and microarchitectures!
Theoretically, yes. Practically, I think that’s a “sufficiently smart compiler” class of problems, insanely hard to solve. Especially given that WASM is a JIT compiler, it simply doesn’t have time for expensive optimizations.
Detecting every way of doing a 32-bit multiply with a 64-bit mul operator is impossible, yes. But there only needs to be one way of doing it that the compilers knows about, and then people can use that idiom.
It's not pretty, but it works. Compare the common scalar int rotate: x86 can do it in one instruction, but C doesn't have an operator for it. The way to do it in C is to use an idiom that optimizers are known to recognize[1].
The [NEON] Wasm SIMD implementation is 65% faster than native! But what is perhaps more interesting is that the Wasm scalar implementation is only half as fast as the Wasm SIMD version instead of the 3x seen on x86. Perhaps v8 doesn’t have enough optimizations on the Wasm SIMD to Neon front.
That's almost exactly what I'd expect from an optimal compiler.
Graviton2 has 3 scalar integer ALUs, and 2 128-bit. Scalar code can do 3 intops per cycle, x4 vector code can do 8. 8/3 is +67%. Intel processors have typically 4 scalar ALUs, and 3 vector units. 12/4 = 3x.
Zen has 4 units for 128-bit vectors, though until Zen3 not all units can do all operations, so the speedup in AMD land would be 2x-8x depending on application (although code doing brief 128-bit vector work would be limited by Zen having only 1 vector write port).
Is it emulated, or does it have a peephole optimization for the mask/multiply idiom? If it's hitting the emulation path on this case, that can easily be fixed.
I think the effort to minimise the differences between early humans is admirable, and should be continued. We have a tiny, farcically small sample size of evidence to base any conjectures about early humans on. Being inclusive about Homo Sapiens because it stops nazis being dicks about race is a good thing.
Science should not be corrupted by the goal of countering human irrationality. It's no use: racists will use "science" to rationalize their positions whether or not mainstream science agrees. And it's harmful: the more science deviates from the pursuit of truth, the less we all can trust it.
The evidence is undeniably clear that limiting exposure to toxic phthalates can help safeguard Americans’ physical and financial wellbeing.
It's kind of sad that "this could kill you" is followed by "and think of the hospital bills"
For example, for most social mammals, being higher status protects you more from stressful life events, so that you less often invoke the standard mammal stress response. By not spending on stress, you body invests more in growth and immunity. So higher status primates are less sick, and live longer.
Does data support modern humans having lower stress levels than similar mammals? (Or, for that matter, that higher-status mammals have lower stress?)
How would the proposed adaptation not be equally beneficial to lower-status mammals?
The strongest argument for this hypothesis seems to be its explanatory power; it smells like grasping at straws
That would throw off a simple compass, but if they can see relative strengths of magnetic fields it would be more like a source of glare than a blindfold
I would argue that its those restrictions that make trees a useful simplification, but also a simplification
You might enjoy this essay from 1965, "A City is Not a Tree": https://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/cityisnotatree.html
On the one hand, I hate that I’m being manipulated by artificial constructs.
If you care mainly about things that wouldn't matter (or even make sense) if you were the only human, that ship had sailed. Might as well use it consciously.