ATsch

As often when people reference the metaphor of the tragedy of the commons, which had no historical basis in reality (quite the opposite), there's more going on here.

IPv4 addresses are a significant competitive moat for incumbent businesses. Existing companies have no interest in making IP addresses a non-scarce resource that aids competitors or alternatives (on-prem hosting, p2p, local ISPs, etc).

The only reason things have begun changing recently is government mandates and that the moat has gotten so big that they've started falling into it themselves.

Yeah, it was a pretty clever if misleading marketing ploy IMO. I don't think many people ever realized that "Watson" as a singular thing does not exist and is basically just the brand name of IBMs ML consulting and cloud services.

I'm kind of surprised more companies didn't try follow suit, it would have been very easy to create the public impression that e.g. AlphaGo and AlphaFold were actually the same AI and available on GCP, or something like that. But I guess the deception breaks down faster when you're not hiring consultants.

If you don't understand what placement new is, you don't know whether libraries using placement new affects you.

I did not write this comment about placement new specifically. It's just a thing that annoys me about the "learn a subset" idea. You still need to know at least enough about every feature to know whether it affects you. Placement new is perhaps not the best example there because it is relatively niche and self contained, true.

You also need to learn what placement new is and how it is used to know if you or any of your libraries are using it in the first place.

> (macros and traits I guess are the worst)

This is a common assumption but I've rarely see cargo check, which both expands macros and solves traits as well as runs the borrow checker take more than a few seconds on my machine, even when full compilation takes minutes. Most of the slowness is really in the parts that come afterwards, I suspect especially once you hit the generics explosion in later passes.

It's less LLVM itself and more the amount of work that rustc gives to LLVM. Formerly for example, rustc did not do any kind of constant propagation itself and relied fully on LLVM to propagate them and say, remove any unused branches in the final expanded code. This wasted a lot of work and propagating them earlier was able to reduce compile times significantly.

So while most of the compile time is indeed usually in LLVM, there are still a lot of things rustc can do to give LLVM an easier time.

It really isn't that anymore, especially not after having been bought by a billion dollar media/tech holdings company.

I don't think it's just recency either, it's just incredibly easy to shoot yourself into the foot with string_view when the language has no way of checking that the pointed to memory is actually valid. People moved to smart pointers for good reasons and string_view just undoes all of that.

> you end up with very large dependency trees similar to JS. And we know how that went.

The problem in the JS ecosystem is not the number of dependencies, but the number of entities you have to trust. There is no real difference between having one big crate in a repo managed by one entity or fifteen small crates in a repo managed by one entity.

I think a big reason Hubble managed to do that was that it captures in the visible spectrum due to being a repurposed spy satellite. That spectrum just isn't that interesting these days afaict, especially since ground based observatories have gotten a lot better at seeing through the earth's atmosphere. The false color images of most of today's missions are just a lot harder for the public to understand. It was also launched in a time where NASA desperately needed good publicity.

I think one thing that really needs to change here is the ability of companies like apple to draw out these rulings with endless appeals and delays. Those legal processes are very apt when you're deciding whether someone should live behind bars for the rest of their life, but when deciding that a trillion dollar company should stop hurting consumers and pay a fine of 0.1% of their monthly profits takes three years there's something very wrong.

Especially considering that if a regulation has undesirable effects on such big companies there's still more than enough time for legislators to just, change the rules.

It's definitely true that being good for writing services wasn't really a big design goal of rust and it's far from the lowest friction language to do it in. However it is still a mainstream high performance language with a rich type system and amazing compile time error checking and that makes it attractive to use for many other things if you are already used to it.

I see, but in case I think this is less about finding an optimal solution and more about the general best practice of not having any unbounded queues in your application. Having to wait would have been annoying, definitely, but it would have surely been preferrable to the outage.

Is there any requirement that all games start at the same time? If not I guess you could limit the amount of games that can be outstanding at any one time.

I would assume that the plane or satellite moving affects this too, it's presumably being corrected but there might be some parallax.

There's a few aspects to this. The first is that Google Analytics is a great example, because while an individual company may not have the competency they may hire another one that does. And while previously some of these companies may have simply added analytics plugins to their site because there was no reason not to, being liable for that processing is a great deterrent.

The second aspect is that this idea of "small businesses" that you are portraying does not really reflec reality. In the anti-regulation lobbyist mythology, small business are all friendly mom and pop stores that are just trying their best. But for example Whatsapp, before it's sale to Facebook, had 55 Employees and half a billion active users. Many hedge funds count as small businesses, as do franchises. Even beyond that, there are plenty of 100-1000 employee businesses here that have more than enough data on hand to cause serious privacy violations.

The third is that violating people's privacy does not have to be for profit as it is in advertising. As the case of a local pharmacy using insurance data to send their customers Christmas cards reminds me, even the smallest business is very capable of violating privacy by treating customer data sloppily.

edit: Oh, also, we might see how big tech really feels when ad exchanges hopefully get declared illegal ;) (see https://www.iccl.ie/news/online-consent-pop-ups-used-by-goog...)

This is a really common misunderstanding of the differences between GDPR and US privacy laws.

In the US, what is generally regulated is "posession" of data, with narrow definitions of what PII is and no restrictions on anything that isn't. In GDPR, what is regulated instead is the possible justifications for processing of that data.

For example, (IANAL caveat aside, speak to an actual privacy lawyer) it is fine for me to store full, unredacted IP addresses in my access logs for diagnostic purposes.

However I, for example:

- have to be able to provide information on what is stored and under what justification

- have to provide information on who that data is transmitted to

- have to be able to show an authority it is really necessary for me to store this data unredacted

- must put in place adequate measures to protect it

- am liable for exposure of that data

and may not:

- store the data longer than necessary

- use that data for other reasons, such as marketing

- transmit that data to a third party unless it is contractually bound to the same restrictions as me

When something is personal information, the only thing that means is that it is illegal to not have a justification for processing or storing it.

So for your example, processing headers is fine, fingerprinting headers is probably not. Recording shortened ip addresses is fine, unnecessarily sending them to the US is probably not. Anonymous identifiers are fine, tracking people with them is probably not, etc.

This whole "won't someone think of the small businesses" shtick is so transparent. I don't want "my" local businesses tracking me any more than the non local ones. I don't want a fiercely competitive market of data leeches any more than five big ones. Big tech can and should still be felled once the bulk of the weeds are chopped.

I mean, that was an explicit intent of the legislation, making PII a hazard to contain instead of a resource to extract.

I think this is less due to a genuine change of heart and more because the lack of enforcement by the government in regards to big tech has left people without much choice.

I don't think not being part of an organized conspiracy and being a weird dude acting alone are the same thing. Especially in recent years the term "stochastic terrorism" has come up a lot, where people become part of a group where acts of violence are not explicitly ordered but nontheless tacitly encouraged. I think most so called "lone wolf" attacks fall into that pattern.

I don't find it particularly implausible that one building near a massive building collapse happened to not have adequate fire protection

Could you give any examples? It is definitely true that people are often portrayed as "weird dudes acting alone", however it is much rarer that that is actually true.

I look at it the other way around, the driver update is a rare case where it was publicly exposed just how widespread of an issue forgery is in the electronics industry. FTDI likely expected the number of fake devices already in the field to be significantly lower than they actually were. If that was the case, it is unlikely it would have become the story it did.

That's a good public example, here's a post for anyone that missed it: https://zeptobars.com/en/read/FTDI-FT232RL-real-vs-fake-supe...

I don't think it was a mistake at all, it's just a simple marketing tactic. You just add a version number to a thing and then everyone who was part of the old thing will feel like they're missing out.

Most of cryptocurrency marketing works that way, throwing jargon at you until you feel stupid for not understanding why it is supposedly so revolutionary. And once the thousands of marks who have already been roped into the scheme discover your comment, they'll be all over it to protect their investment and you'll feel very alone.

People who do not work in hardware seriously underestimate how often counterfeit components enter the supply chain. Even trustworthy distributors like digikey and mouser have had regular cases of their supplies becoming contaminated. It is just way too easy to do and rarely discovered as long as you mix them with enough legitimate components to avoid suspicion. Unless you're unlucky and they happen to reach someone with an affinity for chip photography, the worst case is they'll just think a few components were DOA or out of spec.

It mostly affects low complexity components that are easy to clone so a BMC would be unlikely, but even that is not safe as sometimes used components de-soldered from other products make it back into the supply chain too.

I welcome you to disclose any holding in cryptocurrencies you have in interest of transparency about your financial incentives

Preferrably one that is not involved in some kind of cryptocurrency scammery scheme.

As I understand it, the crates themselves are not stored on github, but the crate index is, as it uses a git repo to get "free" delta compression and auditing.