kuhsaft

Inflation can exist because of a lot of things: natural loss of value, resource scarcity, monetary policy, greed, etc. And it's even harder to make sense of with fiat currency.

Seemed like a vicious cycle.

The issue is inflation and deflation both tend to be positive feedback loops. Inflation can promote behavior that promotes inflation. Deflation can promote behavior that promotes deflation.

Note that I use "tend to" and "can promote". It's all based of off assumptions on how people value things and their behaviors, as is all economic models.

why prices HAVE to keep going up

It really doesn't have to. We do so because economic models show that we should because of the way we behave. But, we also behave the way we do because of the economic systems that we've designed.

Prices have to keep going up if you want a system that promotes endless consumption and growth in consumption.

It also lets you have a "non-zero-sum" economy, where it appears everyone is making a "profit". But, in reality it isn't.

Yes, the laws of thermodynamics and laws of economics are empirical laws. But, the laws of economics are derived from human values, which are inherently subjective.

You state the choices as “illogical”, but those choices can be logical based off a different set of values.

Similarly, if you have a different set of axioms, you can build a different reasonable system on it.

It's like Euclidean geometry and Non-Euclidian geometry. They are both valid systems based off of different axioms. Similarly, the different economic systems are valid based off of different set of societal values.

You can also compare it to the ideal gas law. It's a law, but is based of a hypothetical ideal gas. Similarly, the economic laws are based off of a hypothetical society. The ideal gas law does not hold in all conditions, and economic laws do not hold in all conditions.

The economic laws are meant as tools to predict behavior. But ironically, we end up modifying our behaviors to fit the laws, and we weaponize the usage of "economic laws" to control the behavior of others.

We have economists complain how "that economic system doesn't work". Yes, it doesn't work with the laws that define your economic system, but it works with a different set of laws. We have people say, "that doesn't make sense because of X law". It's the other way around. The "law" doesn't make sense, because I value something different.

I don’t see how it’s an improvement over C# structs. C# structs are value types so they are copied when assigned to a variable like primitives. There is no ambiguity because it’s a struct.

To avoid copying you have to explicitly declare a ref variable/parameter.

You can get the same immutability as value classes by using ‘readonly struct’s or ‘readonly record struct’s.

Java value classes are stranger because they are heap allocated by default and are only flattened/scalarized/stack-allocated when certain conditions are met. It’s the same as a class, but with extra restrictions, so that the JVM can possibly optimize memory layout at runtime.

Even closer would be a C# ‘readonly record struct’. Though, it would be allocated on the stack unless you box it.

Imo #4 is why it’s not that useful. If the data is larger than an atomic read/write op the data isn’t flattened and it’s a regular object with value equality and immutability.

You have to opt into force flattening, and then it’s the same as a struct, except it’s still heap allocated without escape analysis. You still have to implement synchronization to prevent tearing.

Static code analysis can give you a warning for potential tearing of structs.

DotNext.Threading provides Atomic<T> to enable high-performance atomic operations on structs without heap allocation.

https://dotnet.github.io/dotNext/features/core/atomic.html

The design of value classes just seems counteractive to its purpose: memory management. If I want to manage contiguous blocks of memory, let me manage contiguous blocks of memory. If I want to allocate something on the stack, let me allocate something on the stack.

The paradigms of struct vs object are too different and they’re trying to combine them into one.

The C# equivalent to Java ‘value class’ would be a class with a struct encapsulated for data. The data is flattened and allocated on the heap like Java. Similarly, escape analysis could stack allocate the class at runtime, and they can be scalarized like C# structs.

Java ‘value class’ only flattens if the total size of the class data fits within an atomic read/write op. You can force it to flatten, but you may have tearing like C# struct.

I hate to say it. But thats user error. The struct paradigm is different from classes. Structs are meant to be plain-old data types; simply a typed span of memory.

Structs are values, classes are entities with encapsulation.

The shape of the state would be structural. Whether or not the data in that shape is valid is behavioral.

Structs are useful when working with spans of memory.

Another example of a good usage of struct is Guid, which is 128 bits of data packed together.

The C# equivalent to Java ‘value class’ would be a class with a struct encapsulated for data. The data is flattened and allocated on the heap like Java. Similarly, escape analysis could stack allocate the class at runtime.

Yeah, that’s a different issue. Statically-typed languages, including type-erased languages, are fine on the CLR. Dynamically-typed languages are a different beast.

I suppose DLR would be comparable to GraalVM/Truffle.

The difficulty of implementing a dynamically-typed language directly on the CLR and JVM are about the same. Though, it would probably be more efficient on the CLR with access to lower level operations for memory management.

I think an interesting project would be to implement a CIL interpreter on GraalVM.

C# stackalloc returns a ‘ref struct’ which has certain restrictions and would be a Q-world type.

Java chose to go with an L-world implementation where everything is still a reference type on the heap, but memory management is more efficient via flattening. That’s why it’s a ‘value class’ and not a ‘struct’.

Primitive wrappers are scalarized into registers.

Stack allocated value types would have different semantics and is incompatible with the L-world implementation. Sure, they could implement it, but it would be the Q-world implementation that they decided to forego.

They can do automatic stack allocation for optimization via escape analysis as you mentioned. But, stackalloc is user allocated.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-ref...

All that to be bytecode backwards compatible, although behaviorally there are some breaking changes. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48597943

There's also https://github.com/ikvmnet/ikvm that converts Java bytecode to CIL; essentially Java on CLR.

I made a comment on my understanding of the difference in implementation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48606173

The ramifications for backwards compatibility is that the JVM won't have CLR features such as stackalloc (allocation of blocks of memory on stack), ref parameters (pass-by-reference of stack allocated value types), and all the other low-level/high-performance programming features available in the CLR.

Now, one can argue that this is just smoke and mirrors with type erasure and it is but you can already put a Date into a List<Point> if you're so inclined because the JVM doesn't know the difference, hence type erasure.

And that's a massive problem that they're planing to solve with specialized generics.

If I read the correctly, it means that if you have a Point value class then on the JVM level you'll be able to stuff any value class into there if you're so incline, just like with List<Point>.

I'm not sure what you mean. An L-type is an object reference. E.g. Ljava/lang/String, Lcom/org/CustomObject. The issue you're conflating is the erasure of List<T> to List<Object> and it's L-type Ljava/util/List.

I prefer the Hack version

Hack/HHVM didn't have to worry about backwards compatibility.

---

The blog post does a pretty high level overview of the implementation, but my understanding of it is the following:

1. They are adding a new bytecode class flag for value classes. Bytecode descriptor for value classes are exactly the same (L-type).

2. Primitive wrapper classes will become value classes.

The difference from the CLR is that the JVM implementation is backward compatible with linked legacy bytecode. As they can accept a value class instance into their methods due to the same L-type. It's just additional metadata added to allow the JVM to stack allocate the class.

---

Separately, to handle generics:

1. Parameterized container classes will be flagged with a new bytecode to enable parametric attributes on initialization with the additional data of the parameters in the Constant Pool. Bytecode descriptor for classes are exactly the same with type-erasure, e.g. List<SomeType> erased to Ljava/util/List.

2. Initialization of parameterized classes are done with the additional metadata of the type argument stored in the Constant Pool.

3. The runtime does monomorphization of the parameterized class.

It doesn't seem too different to what the CLR does, i.e. runtime monomorphization. The difference is the JVM implementation is backward compatible with older type-erased code, i.e. the restrictions in Java due to type-erasure are exactly the same as before and the L-types don't change. It's just additional metadata added to allow the JVM to monomorphize the classes for performance.

---

In summary, value objects and specialized generics are backwards compatible with legacy bytecode. The JVM handles the compatibility. Of course, the newer bytecode is not forward compatible with older JVMs.

Not necessarily. You can ignore the reified generic system in the CLR and monomorphize it in the CIL output for your language. Debugging for users is usually a nightmare though due to the monomorphization. The benefit of a type-erased runtime is the interop between the languages built on the runtime.

The monomorphization of CLR generics is what NativeAOT does, though it doesn't support some C# features.

TypeScript is essentially C#, but with type-erasure and lacking the low-level struct & pass-by-reference features.

I do think the C#/CLR struct implementation is better though.

I mean, the language is what it is. But, it definitely constrains the language developers. Especially when considering interop with other JVM languages.

That being said, it is easier to write a language on top of the JVM with good interop, since there are less ways to implement features. Essentially, your language has to interop with Java.

And it is harder to have good interop between CLR languages because there are more ways to implement features. Essentially, your language has to interop with C#.

I don’t think that’s the case. You can absolutely implement a type-erased language on top of the CLR. Your language will just have the same constraints of a type-erased language like Java.

Having reified generics in the CLR just lets you store more type information. There isn’t much of a trade off for CLR end-users.

Compare this to the constraints and workarounds that Kotlin and Scala have due to type-erasure on the JVM.

The gotcha is the potential boxing of structs onto the heap, but that can be avoided using `ref struct`s.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48599273

Like @layer8 said, pass by copy and pass by value are the same.

C# copies C++ behavior where you can pass a struct by value or reference, and you can mark the parameter as readonly. C# also has in/out parameters. Essentially, you can program in C# exactly like you would in C++.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-ref...

The footgun with C# structs are that you can accidentally box them onto the heap. To avoid that you can define `ref struct`s that cannot be boxed. `ref struct`s follow the C# disposable pattern.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-...

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-ref...

Cell phone towers and communication systems have backup power for emergency communication during power outages.

If you have backup power for your router and ONT/Modem, you should also still have internet service during a power outage. The ISP-owned ONT for a place I lived had a little lead-acid battery attached to it, and during power outages I still had internet service.

On the one hand, you are right, and I rather meant "not exploitable", since technically the vulnerability is still there.

And I'm fine with that. I think, the Qubes OS notices should use that terminology as well. Though, some of the vulnerabilities are exploitable, if you don't follow the Qubes OS guides to the T.

My point is that they shouldn't. I am saying that it would be better for society if we regulated that.

Playing devil's advocate here. Why should software developers be allowed to restrict where/how their software is used, while hardware developers can't restrict where/how their hardware is used?

So, not being vulnerable is dependent on not doing something that can make you vulnerable? That doesn't seem right. If you can do something to make yourself vulnerable, you are vulnerable.

https://www.qubes-os.org/news/2026/04/28/xsas-released-on-20...

Looking at just that small list, they mark some vulnerabilities as not vulnerable because it's "In-VM attack only". That's disingenuous.

There is no way to use the discussed vulnerability, if one uses Qubes according to docs

It's like saying you're not vulnerable to cutting yourself with a knife, as long as you use it correctly.

You can say your risk is low, but you can't say you're not vulnerable.

---

Moreover, there is no sudo password by design

The POC uses `/usr/bin/su`, but that's besides the point.

The vulnerability itself can affect other things. The POC just used root-privilege escalation as an example.

https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2026-31431

RedHat states "This could lead to data integrity issues or unexpected behavior during cryptographic operations, impacting the reliability of encrypted communications for local users." as the impact.

What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem.

We're talking about different operating systems on devices, not the same operating system on different devices. Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock OS that does work with a non-stock OS that doesn't.

The hardware analogy would be closer to having a computer, replacing the GPU, then getting angry that there isn't a driver for the GPU that supports that operating system.

Microsoft Office shouldn't be allowed to just ban Framework computers running Windows just because they don't think Framework is big enough, right?

Apple doesn't allow their operating systems to run on non-Apple devices. Likewise, Microsoft does have the right to restrict what systems Windows can run on. Any software provider has the right to limit their software's usage.

Conversely, device manufacturers have the right to restrict what operating systems can run on them. E.g. the majority of devices other than desktops and laptops.

Whether or not you should be able to run any software on any hardware is another debate. Even if you support that stance, there is a hard limit to user freedom via government regulations on hardware/software such as any RF transmitting device and cryptographic devices.

---

Google Android and iOS are regulated by governments.

With the upcoming age verification requirements made by governments (let’s not debate that here), only the corporate entities that governments can regulate will be allowed.

We can regulate to allow alternative Android OSes, but the alternatives will be ones that follow government regulations.

You know that Xen is just a hypervisor right? Dom0 (the admin Qube) is running the Linux kernel and is vulnerable like any other Linux system. DomU (App Qubes) also run the Linux kernel and are just as vulnerable.

You can check your DomU kernels using this guide:

https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/user/advanced-topics/mana...

If your Dom0 or DomU is running kernel < 6.18.22, or between 6.19.0 and 16.19.12 you are vulnerable.

https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-linux-kernel/pull/1272 commit fafe0fa2995a of the kernel mirror

Currently stable version of QubeOS does not have the patched kernels. https://yum.qubes-os.org/r4.3/current/dom0/fc41/rpm/

I would group GrapheneOS with Android. If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android.

But considering it as a separate OS, I wouldn’t consider it mainstream. It’s not on any device by default. And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users, or 0.0064%. It might seem mainstream for the tech community, but it goes to show how small the tech community is.

It might be mainstream once Motorola, a corporation, starts releasing phones preinstalled with it.

Relevant conversation about those technicalities: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30042576

Though with a username of fsflover, I think you'll be biased.

Also, another relevant thread (that you were even a part of!) discussing the pointlessness of what Purism did to fit the technicalities: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841267

It's actually worse than I thought. There's the initramfs /lib/firmware loading workaround for the FSF certification of the OS.

But even before that there is code run by the main CPU that loads instructions for the secondary core to load a blob from separate flash memory to pass to the memory controller to initialize it.

All that just to attempt to fit the technicalities of the FSF RYF hardware certification while still loading a blob like every other phone microprocessor.

---

It's interesting that I could make a device that burns efuses to make it obsolete and it could still be considered FSF Respects Your Freedom certified.

A bit aggressive, but understandable.

If anything, it makes it harder to audit and figure out which firmware version is being run than if the firmware were to be shipped along with the OS.

Yep. https://docs.puri.sm/Hardware/Librem_5/Maintenance/Modem.htm...

"These files are controlled by a third-party and are not publicly accessible. Contact Purism Support to request these files for a firmware update"

---

Don't bother arguing with fsflover. They're a Purism evangelist that refuses to view things objectively.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1777075200&dateRange=custom&...

https://hn-wrapped.kadoa.com/fsflover

---

Damn. They even argued with marcan (Hector Martin known for Asahi Linux) in 2022. At this point I'm guessing they're a bot.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841267

---

For fsflover, what Purism is doing is moving the non-auditable part of the OS onto a separate storage device so that they can claim that the OS is "Fully Auditable" and FSF certified even though the non-auditable and non-free part is mounted into the OS filesystem during boot. It's deceptive marketing and you're spreading that marketing.

Other open mobile OSes aren't trying to hide the fact that there needs to be proprietary components for hardware.

The only thing I concede is that the drivers are FOSS, which is why some performance and functionality is degraded compared to phones using non-free drivers. You could develop an AOSP phone using the same FOSS drivers as well, you'll just have the same issues.

I only mention that because a contingent of voices as high in volume as they are few in number endlessly shoehorning the Librem 5 into numerous threads no matter how much of a non-sequitur it takes, has me suddenly paying more attention these days to what's coming from the Purism camp. The more I do the more disingenuous the rhetoric seems.

It seems to be mainly fsflover. You can search “Librem 5” messages in HN and it’s flooded with messages by them.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1777075200&dateRange=custom&...

https://hn-wrapped.kadoa.com/fsflover

Sorry, the statements were a bit disjointed.

iOS existed before the Microsoft Store. The apps developed were brand new. No backlash from a new SDK and platform.

Windows RT is closer to iPadOS though. For iPadOS, apps just worked since it’s based off of iOS.

The Microsoft Store only supported a new half-baked SDK that limited what applications were capable of. Developers already had Win32 apps and rewriting them with the new SDK seemed pointless just to support what seemed like a needless limitation.

Ironically, I think regulation is what keeps them in power. They are major companies that comply with government regulations. Why would the government regulate to allow people to have devices that forgo government regulations?

If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators.

These small grassroots operating systems fail because, to do all those things, you need to be pragmatic.

The next major operating system will be backed by a business or government.