saynsedit

I don't see being critical of people in power as a bias, unless you're saying that they don't spend enough time being critical of people not in power.

My original point said nothing on the media's involvement with polling, outside of simply reporting it. As for the pollsters, whether it was ideological bias or simply mistake is also irrelevant to my original point.

My claim is that the "real news" committed the journalistic equivalent of manslaughter. Whether or not they intended to mislead the public doesn't negate the fact that the public was misled. Blaming "fake news" doesn't justify their own role in misleading the public. There is no court of journalism, but the consequences regardless will be that people will trust the traditional news sources less.

What is The Intercept's bias?

It seems kind of predictable that "real news" sites would run stories on how "fake news" is an epidemic.

Maybe this is too much speculation but it seems like deflecting. Fake news sites weren't responsible for "real news'" complete failure to predict a Trump victory. I've seen little reporting on the attitudes of real Trump supporters. It's mostly reporting of noisy flawed polls and simplistic opinion pieces on why Trump is bad/hitler/stupid and dismissals of his supporters as racists.

IMO I don't think fake news is the problem either (though it is a problem, just not a proportionately large one). It has shades of demonizing independent news sources. Personally I can't stand any cable news source, I prefer to watch "Democracy Now!" I prefer The Intercept, Truthdig, and Jacobin to the NYT or WaPo. They don't peddle fake news whatsoever.

Edit: fake news was not responsible for this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxZVgktWQAAXu8g?format=jpg&name=...

I don't necessarily disagree that they went too far though I assume they probably had good reason at the time in most cases.

I'd prefer it if the decision to trap or not were an option to the compiler.

It would be nice if there were a GUARANTEE() macro so that the programmer could specify conditions that would never happen even in a production build like: GUARANTEE(n >= 0). Also if trapping was enabled, it would trap at runtime. This is a nice post about that idea http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1096

It's not convoluted. It's actually clear and well-defined making it easier to reason about.

I'd call compiler specific alignment attributes more arcane, convoluted, and susceptible to future bugs.

Vectorization isn't a panacea. You need to benchmark to be sure, lacking that I expect GCC to be better at optimizing code than you. If you disagree, please manually write a vectorized one that handles non-aligned addition and post your results :)

I'm not sure I understand your deal breaker. For the platform he was targeting it produces optimal code, for other platforms it's merely slower (but not specifically slower, since the compiler is likely not a great optimizer across the board).

Vectorization is in general not applicable here since it usually requires aligned memory... not all implementations do, but most. In any case, benchmarking is more appropriate than armchair optimizing.

Nah, correct solution is simply to use memcpy(), works on all compilers, all platforms, all versions, with SSE and with any flags specified:

  #include <stdlib.h>
  #include <stdint.h>

  uint64_t sum (char *p, size_t nwords)
  {
      uint64_t res = 0;
      size_t i;
      for (i = 0; i < nwords; i += 8) {
        uint64_t tmp;
        memcpy(&tmp, &p[i], sizeof(tmp));
        res += tmp;
      }
      return res;
  }

Undefined behavior is one of the most intelligent things the C designers did when designing the language.

It's a fact of life that not all syntactic forms will have meaning. What's sqrt(-1)? Trick question, There's no meaningful answer (in terms of real numbers alone)! Why should anyone specify if it crashes the program, returns 0, throws an exception, etc.? Who cares? garbage in, garbage out.

Another example, "the floor had a pretty day with his melted spaceship" that is a grammatically well formed sentence but what does it mean? Don't answer that!

Who wrote this?

Usually the case as in usually never the case.

What's preventing there being an AI with hardcoded desire to regulate values like hunger level, boredom level, etc.? I could imagine a problem solving AI dedicated to continuously solving those problems.

Only if you release it.

The point of the 0-day black market is to not reveal these attacks publicly. If there were public proof of this in the past it would have been fixed in the past.

Take my word for it when I say there are upper echelons of black hats that are stockpiling unknown 0-day exploits like this and presently using them in the wild.

Or dismiss me as irrational and continue with the belief that all bugs are unknown until white hats share them with Apple.

The sad reality is that black hats have been exploiting this class of bugs for years.

I've been provably shadowbanned by Twitter before so it is something they practice. N/s what happened in his case.

Never said violent revolt couldn't happen. It just seems very improbable. I'd bet that the vast majority of those people who believe Obama/Clinton are evil wouldn't be willing to risk their current living situation on that belief when it actually came down to it.

Nothing is going to get out of hand. That whole idea just seems like media sensationalism. There may be a minority of people who won't accept the results, but the vast majority of people are going to feel bad or good for a week or two and then go back to worrying about their jobs.

Happy to a see this trending on HN.

Well it could be near, like 2x slowdown, instead of the 10x slowdown I saw.

at the time, I preferred to write it completely in C++ than have a mixed Python/Cython codebase.

Re "not even close": At least 10x slower

This was tweaking Nagle, using edge triggered epoll, using sendfile(). Not just Python-optimizations.

Your PyPy point is fair. A PyPy-oriented optimization effort could have improved performance. N/s by what magnitude though.

I did extensive benchmarking until there were no more hot spots, didn't help. Dropping into C or Cython was a non-goal. For dev an embedded Python web server is convenient but it doesn't have to be fast. When it comes to performance, it always makes more sense to use a native-code web server in production.

I've actually written a highly optimized asyncio-based Python web server in the past. I meticulously optimized every component, using all the standard CPython optimization techniques (heavy use of stdlib, minimizing method lookups).

In the end, my implementation was nowhere near nginx. I even ran it under PyPy and it fared no better. Then I realized the oxymoronic nature of writing an optimized web server in Python.

Centralized: Facebook, Twitter

Decentralized: xmpp, email, gnu social

Distributed: bittorrent

Yes Kenji... You put new/delete in constructor/destructor so that you don't have to call new/delete manually.

RAII can wrap heap-allocated data. Also bss-allocated objects are common.

RAII in Rust comes from C++. If you're using new/delete in C++, you're doing it wrong.

Dropbox has been modifying the Finder since 2008, nothing new here.

It's not a matter of maturity, it's a matter of which development methodology is conducive to rapid progress for the greater good.