ATsch

I think you'll find it rather hard to trade the abstract concept of physics and math for some food or shelter.

I think, given a language that supports elegantly catching exceptions, it is inevitable that things like that will be written. And why not? The language makes them nice to write, which signals to users that it is something you should be using a lot.

I think the approach Go, Rust and others take there is the right way to go. By making panics annoying or even impossible to recover from in some cases, they ensure that they are only used for their intended purpose and are not abused as a general purpose control flow mechanism.

Have you had a look at ZoneFS? It exposes pretty much exactly that model to userspace: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/filesystems/zonefs.ht...

It does need support from the storage device though.

"can be run on a profit" and "should only be run if it is profitable" are very, very different things.

Infrastructure like trains or roads are a huge net benefit to society already, if they can make a profit too that's neat but it shouldn't be the goal.

There's really two problems here:

1. Contemporary mainstram OSes have not risen to the challenge of dealing appropriately with the multi-CPU, multi-address space nature of modern computers. The proportion of the computer that the "OS" runs on has been shrinking for a long time and there have only been a few efforts to try to fix that (e.g. HarmonyOS, nrk, RTKit)

2. Hardware vendors, faced with proprietary or non-malleable OSes and incentives to keep as much magic in the firmware as possible, have moved forward by essentially sandboxing the user OS behind a compatibility shim. And because it works well enough, OS developers do not feel the need to adjust to the hardware, continuing the cycle.

There is one notable recent exception in adjusting filesystems to SMR/Zoned devices. However this is only on Linux, so desktop PC component vendors do not care. (Quite the opposite: they disable the feature on desktop hardware for market segmentation)

I'm not sure what part of my message lead you to believe I didn't think people enjoyed cars?

The problem is that it wasn't enough for cars to be a useful tool for those that needed it, but that they needed to be a source of endless growth, and marketing played a crucial role in that.

There's no need for mustache twirling here. Car companies rationally maximized their profit by selling to everyone they could, rationally removed barriers to car adoption by removing everyone else from the road and rationally created new markets for their product by encouraging sprawling cities and enormous highways, which also acted as a competitive moat. They then disregarded the consequences, not because they were evil, but because their job was to maximize car sales, not the car's benefit to humanity.

All of this is just things working as intended.

> Was telling people about trains and cars creating a need where there wasn’t one?

That's a great example actually, because the reason you can't get anywhere without a car these days is marketing campaigns by the automobile and oil industry. First by suggesting the newly necessary road safety standards and ridiculing people for being in the street without a car ("jaywalking") to the point that it was criminalized, then by sponsoring enormous displays about the glorious car-dependent future at multiple world fairs (GMs "Futurama" holds the attendance record at 5 million visitors to this day), shutting down streetcar companies via lobbying and acquisitions and eventually even providing the US secretary of defense, who then used the defense budget to bulldoze inner cities to run highways through them. A development that caused the US to have the highest car dependence, car ownership and transport emissions of any large nation today.

So yes, I think it's fair to say there was a bit of artificial need created here.

Yeah I admire all of the efforts people are proposing, but they are bailing out a sinking ship with a spoon.

Let's say we claw back /8 networks somehow and let's say we can free up one of those /8 networks per year. Pretty optimistic.

The allocation rate for /8 networks from IANA after conservation measures were put in place was still 5 /8 networks per year. Even if we conserved IP addresses five times better than that, this would still merely freeze the current situation for a few until we run out once again.

There is just no amount of crumb picking that can fix the fact that 32 bits are woefully inadequate.

I think one has to be very careful with taking the narrative of lower class, "hillbilly" republicans too much at face value. While yes, these people definitely do exist, the perception that this group is representative of republicans is something that is deliberately cultivated for political means.

As examples like recent protests show, the true core are people like business owners and wealthy suburbanites who are very much voting for their interests, not against them. This is also shown by how in every presidential election since at least 2012, voters below $50k always voted firmly in favor of democrats while voters above $100k voted firmly in favor of Republicans.

It wasn't even really decided. Like most current worker protections, it was arrived at through struggle between industralists and the then still powerful labor unions.

They won the 12 hour workday, then the 10 hour workday, then the 8 hour work day and that's when the unions were defanged.

All of this. There is a reason why NextPNR, the project mentioned in the article, uses custom code for every architecture instead of a fixed database. There is also a reason why almost everyone uses nextpnr instead of the alternatives that use such a single format chip database. It is an approach that, according to all current evidence, suits itself well to experimentation and research, but does not scale to large and complex real world architecures.

The last time I spoke to a blind person it was quite a different picture, she was more or less forced to exclusively use apple products because nobody else took accessibility seriously enough.

Even better, there's one specifically for the corporate capture of journalism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

Not quite. Google still has access to those IPs when it receives the request from the browser and could be compelled to store them by US intelligence. Thus data are being transferred to a party that can not adequately protect them. So in this case, as I understand it, the solution would have to be something more elaborate, like proxying the analytics requests through the server to strip the original IP address. Which I presume Google isn't very eager to allow.

"protectionism" is morally neutral to anyone except a hegemon. A nation can decide to protect itself from free expression and abolition of slavery just as it can protect itself from unsafe food imports and price dumping. It all depends on who is being protected from what.

Just that two ships are departing from a location does not mean they heading in the same direction.

It is true that both the EU and China are swiftly heading away from this unprecedented era of technology companies being able to act as they please abroad without impunity. It is an era that the US, which benefits from this arrangement greatly, understandably does not want to leave.

But what matters is why they are doing this, not that they are doing it. And in that regard it is much harder to find similarities.

This is a totally different question, in this case what matters is that Google can be compelled to release the full IP address by US intelligence agencies.

> Why limit it to the EU? Shouldn't every country have their own AWS, Azure and Google Cloud?

That is completely unrelated though. The only thing this ruling confirms is that you can not process data of EU residents when you can not be adequately protect them due to local laws i.e. the CLOUD act. If your laws allow you to keep the data safe, you can offer your cloud services to the EU market as much as you want. If they wanted to, the US could easily allow companies to guarantee those protections too.

I would not be surprised when, if no solution is found, some of the major cloud providers in the EU end up being e.g. japanese, israeli or canadian.

There can never be, for two simple reasons:

1. Making the whole world agree on something is inherently slow so there is limited capacity.

2. Every decision has to be made by a computer so the only solution available is some variant of auctioning to the highest bidder. Some number must compare larger than another and the only number you can't lie about is wallet balance (directly or indirectly via resource waste for PoW).

These are fundamental properties of the tech and one reason why these systems can never actually be usable for anything except a playground of a few wealthy hobbyists.

It is, however in this case innocence means having a complete paper trail of your data processing as defined under GDPR. Not having such a paper trail is one of the things the IAB was found guilty of in this ruling.

They did get a 250,000 eur fine, however that is based just on IAB membership fees.

This ruling should make it a lot harder for advertisers to hide behind the IAB though. One would hope that opens members up to more substantial fines in the future.

For it to be informed consent declining must, by law, be as easy as accepting. Yes, this is being widely violated, but that's just a problem of enforcement.

The problem is not that it is possible but that it is done without consent or oversight.

That should work perfectly with multiple structs. Define

    #[repr("C")]
    struct MyThing {
        length: usize,
        data: MaybeUninit<MyInner>
    }

Then initialize with sizeof(data) and MaybeUninit::uninitialized(). When the call is complete, assume_init() and access the fields of the result struct as normal.

Yet he did not address his scientific papers to five-year-olds.

A much better way to do partial initialization is by splitting up the struct into multiple parts. This can be easily done in safe rust with Option, or MaybeUninit if you're really desperate for performance.

> A model is proposed for the evolution of the profile of a growing interface. The deterministic growth is solved exactly, and exhibits nontrivial relaxation patterns. The stochastic version is studied by dynamic renormalization-group techniques and by mappings to Burgers's equation and to a random directed-polymer problem. The exact dynamic scaling form obtained for a one-dimensional interface is in excellent agreement with previous numerical simulations. Predictions are made for more dimensions.

This is who they gave the nobel prize to last year. I don't know how anyone can take these people seriously when this is supposed to be the definitive text on the Kardar–Parisi–Zhang equation.

Just that it is possible to explain something with simpler language doesn't mean it is always desirable to. Somehow a standard of comprehensbility is leveled at philosophy that no other field is expected to meet. There are very few people complaining about the unreadability of quantum equations in fundamental physics or the jargon of theoretical mathematics. We appreciate why this is necessary for those fields, that there is a difference between science research and science communication. Yet for philosophy, especially that which criticises the current order, this is somehow seen as discrediting.

It's important to note the target audience of these writings are usually academics who already familiar with the field. This means they get to use a lot of jargon and concepts established by their peers without having to explain them first.

There are definitely other texts (such as the YouTube video linked in another thread) that are easier to understand as a casual observer.

However the other aspect is that as you alluded to, a strong poststructuralist belief is that common language, by nature of being made to describe the current world, always makes it easiest to express ideas that are already commonplace. Thus to create new ideas one must also create new language.

There's a lot of more qualified people who have written better criticisms of it than I can, but it generally boils down to a few things:

1. Lack of basis in reality. While of course there are occasional cases of communities mismanaging resources, this was and is far from univeral or usual. In fact the english public land that the thought expermiment gets it's name from and claims can not work had succesfully been in common ownership for to my knowledge all of recorded history until it's relatively recent enclosure (privatization).

2. It supposes the commoners would desire infinite short term growth above and beyond what they needed, could personally tend to or the land could sustain. This is both ahistorical and circular logic. In reality commoners had long known the amount of cattle the commons could sustain and allocated limits among themselves.

3. Where examples of over-grazing do exist, it was as a result of deliberate action by wealthy people to drive commoners off of the land for enclosure. This is not unlike the patterns we do commonly see in the real world today, where resource exhaustion generally takes place when there there are big power differences.

4. Far more than as a prediction of reality, it has been successful as a justification for various unsightly things, from land theft and colonialism past and present, to eugenics and global poverty. It is not a neutral description of human nature and historical tendencies, but a distortion of them that aids the wealthy and poweful.

If you are looking for a better alternative I suggest you look at the power relationships between the people who are using the commons instead, it's usually much more enlightening.