zozbot123

So what EOS calls BP's, ICON calls P-Rep Nodes?

Maybe we could all settle on a common insult towards the government then?

I love any talk that Bryan gives. The gist here seems to be that after the Node.js ecosystem favoring what he called approachability over his wishes to pursue reliability and expressiveness he had a long think and realized that each one is a worthy goal, but for different audiences and that there are always trade-offs across values.

This perspective, that programming languages have sort of cultural tradeoffs and you should make sure you are happy with those trade-offs seems obvious but it is not something I've heard anyone state before.

It also makes for an interesting way to examine the space of programming languages in general. It is a richer way to compare than the standard OO vs FP, and systems programming vs scripting, etc. Rust wants to be approachable, but their top level value is safety, so it will never be as approachable as javascript.

It seems that this decision was made without thinking about actual development and implementation. People who silently believe that this is only a matter of EU let me tell u something. A lot of EU copyright laws were adopted in the US so if they find a way to monetise it, or if EU will find a way to accurately control it you'll see how it becomes a problem not only for EU but the rest of the world too. Now every customer orientated business who helps people to create something online and works in EU market will have to implement filters to their software/website/platform u name it which will cost money; otherwise, you might lose a lot of traffic. I think this is a matter of every country in the world who does any business or has any traffic from EU countries. Maybe they won't push this through in a first place. It would be a very unpopular decision before the election. Also, initiatives of brands mentioned in this article are crucial, and I am proud to be a customer, it is an excellent example for everyone.

Structure is really just a decision-acceleration process

This is exactly holacracy, teal, and other so-called "flat" leadership models are so inefficient. The power structure is there whether it's visible or not. Ignore at your own peril.

Both 3.7 and 3.8 have so many performance improvements. But still, what people like most about Python is code readability. Performance isn't as important as in the past, because of how hardware performance has scaled.

Sounds potentially useful. My team has been thinking of bringing in someone with more crypto experience for a new project.

I think what you literally need is a network that is "narrow" but also has many layers. This is because what PR features over simple linear regression is interaction terms, and multiple layers are an alternate way to get those. This also hints at one problem with true PR - in a multi-variate context, the amount of coefficients you'll need to fit is going to scale very badly given the number of variables and the degree of your polynomial. NN layers have natural dimenionality-reduction properties that make them more flexible.

Yup, you can define distinctness of constructive real numbers as two algorithms returning rationals that will differ by more than the approximation error ε they were given as input, for some arbitrarily small ε - but equality involves proving that two algorithms will never be apart in this way - and this cannot be done in general. As you say, even comparison with zero is problematic. So instead of equivalence relations, you need to define the apartness relation - the notion that a supposed equivalence between two such numerical algorithms can be constructively refuted. This is nothing new - it's a well-known part of constructive math, and is also the sensible way to formalize numerical analysis.

The whole point of "special education" is that it does things that don't scale to everyone (so it involves guessing who's going to get the most benefit from it, and these are the students you regard as "gifted"-- although in practice commitment and "grit" are a lot more important than supposed aptitude). Individualized teaching for each student, with a "mastery learning" model (i.e. no fixed time-based curriculum; you keep working near your current level in any given subfield until you achieve mastery at that level, then move on) is what gives the best results, but it can only be achieved practically via computer assistance.

No, the point is that it doesn't matter if you "pay people not to work" via unemployment benefits that are stopped when they start working again, or just give them a baseline subsidy no matter what - either way, they'll have the same amount of success seeking work. So yes, it's a bit of a failure for basic income, but a win for unemployment benefits.

There are measures of genetic distance that happen to correlate quite nicely with perceived ancestry, even though most genetic variation is not necessarily related to it. It's just one of many genetic "signals" that barely rise above the background noise. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_distance

So you can say "free money didn't help people find jobs", or you could say "free money didn't discourage people to seek jobs". The connotation is a bit different.

Right. Most perceptibly, you could even frame it as "Disincentive effects from unemployment benefits may be lower than previously feared; switching to free money didn't make people seek more work."

There's enough starry eyed people that love the idea of working on games enough that they are willing to put up with total abuse

Have we tried simpler solutions, like raising awareness about the widespread abuse? Unionisation is opposed for a reason - it's a very blunt tool which introduces all sorts of dysfunctional dynamics and this ends up screwing the ordinary folks even harder.

lwn.net's true solution here is that they open up their archives after a very reasonable delay, right up to the beginning of the site. The "share a subscriber link" is a nice marketing gimmick, but far from essential.

If the "owners" of a newspaper don't have final authority about what it publishes, they aren't the real owners/publishers in the first place; they just provide funding to it, and perhaps own its branding. It's understandable that journalists like "editorial freedom", because it's a de-facto property right. Who wouldn't like that sort of thing?

You can argue about whether there is clickbait in music and video, but we know that clickbait in journalism is definitely a problem.

There definitely is clickbait in video - see Youtube recommendations. In the long run, we should move towards funding content by crowdfunding and open licensing, perhaps combined with a reasonably short embargo period where the content is limited to subscribers. This gives the right long-run incentives, while avoiding either paywalls (after the embargo) or intrusive ad tracking.

Google is actually pretty well optimized for the simplest, most mindless searches. It sucks for anything complex, though - Bing/DDG is a lot better there.

It does not actually provide memory safety in concurrent scenarios, only for purely sequential code. Given the predicted use-case scenarios for Go, that's pretty much a truck-sized hole in the language's purported guarantees, especially in comparison with Rust.

"There are cases where safety lines aren't possible" in programming, too, but such cases should be as rare as possible. Coding C/C++ software in this day and age (or software in any other language lacking extensive safety properties, for that matter) is the IT equivalent of working at height and without safety lines 100% of your working life, purely for shits and giggles.

Rust's 'memory safety' guarantee is different from Go's 'memory safety'.

Nope. Rust protects against data races, that are universally considered memory unsafe, given the usual C/C++ concurrency model. There is no ambiguity here. And yes, sequential Go _is_ memory safe, but concurrent Go is not. Deal with it, gophers - and please do not impute purposeful ambiguity and disingenuous characterization where there isn't any.

The whole problem is that you only need one mistake in all those billions/trillions of LOC's, and your systems get 0wned. I'm pretty sure that "our standards for C programmers" don't include "programmer is guaranteed not to make any mistake, EVAR", whereas that's an entirely appropriate standard for automated, language-based security.

Google did not "plan this on purpose" - if anything, they managed to deal with the general crappiness of ARM hardware somewhat better than other Linux-on-mobile efforts did, which is why Android became dominant in the first place.

The new "reddit premium" feature is a downgrade, though. The original "gold" model is a lot smoother - there is a single token of reward, the gold coin. If you want to increase your visible appreciation for the post/comment, just pay more and award them more gold. Yes, the new "premium" model is more palatable to investors, but it's still very clearly giving up a nice, win-win innovation.

I assume that they measure active users, though, which would ignore these throwaways. And Reddit's approach lets users opt in to "higher-value" features anyway - a Reddit user can opt for an experience much like any other social network (and with comparable "value" flowing to Reddit themselves) if they so choose.

The problem for Reddit is that no one sane would choose to do this at the moment, simply because the abysmal performance of the "new" site and app severely impacts usability, which alone makes them uncompetitive! (And no, this is not just a HN user's typical bias talking: try using the app or the new site designs, and you'll see what I mean. They're even more terrible than FB! And this especially bad for engagement with Reddit in countries outside the U.S., where legacy or underpowered hardware is far more common.) This is entirely a self-inflicted problem from the Reddit leadership.

This is actually not the case. The owner is always made aware of whether the system has been opened up to "untrusted" software or not (they get a warning at boot if it has been), but an "untrusted" system can still be OTA-updated if the original OS image has been preserved as-is. This is often combined with some amount of custom modification by separately installing an "overlay"-based solution such as Magisk. But a full-custom ROM cannot be updated in this way, because the manufacturer's OTA update is monolithic and effectively replaces the original stock ROM!

Android system updates are monolithic OS images. So what are you going to do exactly, replace the user's custom ROM with a stock system?

The long-term solution is to move away from binary blobs. The PostmarketOS project is trying to achieve this for at least a few hardware models, including most notably the LG Nexus 5.

Does C/C++ have any provisions against type punning or JIT bugs? The fact that you have to use unsafe code for a lot of things in a JIT doesn't change the basic reality that Rust is safe by default, whereas C/C++ cannot be made memory-safe practically, except for small programs like seL4.

BTC transaction volume is going to be kept fairly stable due to the existence of a dynamic transaction reward. If the cost per transaction goes down, this might imply that demand for "higher-value" uses of the BTC network is indeed collapsing, but by the same token this makes smaller-scale use more viable rather than less.