HN user

kindfellow92

20 karma
Posts1
Comments93
View on HN

Not trying to be pessimistic but genuinely curious why so many people make the analogy to the dot com period.

Because most people are not creative nor critical thinkers and the extent of their brilliance is superficial pattern matching. To most people the dot-com bubble seems to fit all the patterns so by their logic it must have the same outcome. If you think critically about the differences of the crypto craze and the dot-com era, you’ll see how irrational it is to make a strong comparison.

Bitcoin is not Pets.com. Bitcoin is Google.

Whoa there. Calm down buddy. Before you bust out the pitchforks, he just asked them to post tweets. The cost to them is zero in money, and virtually zero in time.

Couple that with the fact that he was providing them with a free service and I only see a morally net positive contribution from him.

The concept of Fork was not designed to "spawn new programs", it was created to allow parallelism on a single program with several processes collaborating on the same task. It's even in the name (i.e. you fork the program in two, not spawn a new process).

I really doubt this. Is there an instance of a program with 1st edition lineage that use processes to achieve concurrency? There were pipes, sure, but that could be achieved with a spawn-like call.

I don’t see processes being used for concurrency in UNIX history until BSD sockets and forking servers emerged.

RAM-less Buffers 9 years ago

This trick doesn’t avoid the storage of this data into RAM. A single context switch is enough.

RAM-less Buffers 9 years ago

Yeah on context switch the SSE registers are stored in memory, so this doesn’t help for security.

RAM-less Buffers 9 years ago

I think you’re missing the point. This is only useful if there is actually a measureable benefit.