BubRoss

> I'm a gay man of color

What is the connection here? What does that have to do with linking relationship dynamics to astrology?

Have you actually gotten the static library and compile to memory mode to work?

That's an assertion, but not anything to back it up.

First, threads have been implemented as libraries many times. Second, if checks need to happen theg can happen at debug run time if they can't happen at compile time. I don't know what specifically has to be integrated into a language here that makes throwing away the enormous amount already built in other languages.

I don't understand why something like this would need a separate language. Switching languages means starting over in many ways with regards to tools libraries and semantics. A graph of tasks can be made with a cdecl library.

Zero hedge for some reason had a crazy downward spiral in their comments. Many years ago I don't remember them being out of the ordinary, but one or two years ago I checked back and they were full of insane alt right conspiracies and super pro trump adoration.

Rendering at a higher resolution makes a giant difference, even for low poly games. Old games were not only low res, but didn't have a lot of antialiasing either. On an emulator you can have resolution, antialiasing and better texture filtering.

Were you upset about this before the article?

I think the answer here is that LuaJIT is fast, and that well written native programs would still be faster, not that C "isn't well matched to CPUs". Modern optimizations are more about memory access patterns than anything else, with SIMD and concurrency beyond that. Focusing on assembly is really not the apex is used to be. For starters CPUs have multiple integer and floating point units, and they get scheduled in an out of order CPU. Out of order execution is as much about keeping the various units busy as it is about doing loads as soon as possible to avoid stalling.

I think if you are going to claim that C or C derivatives aren't actually fast and the idea that they are is due to "propaganda" then you should back that up with something concrete, because it goes against a lot of established expertise.

What are you basing this on exactly?

I don't think anyone rejected it because of sandboxing. It is a new API that would only work on windows with that installed. Learning something completely new for a niche target is not very enticing. Also, if you can write something to be sandboxed, there is a good chance it can be a web page instead.

Sandboxing also needs to come from the other direction.

Having programs be made to be sandboxed defeats the purpose. What is needed is the ability to do contain all of a program's files in one place and isolate the access to the file system with permissions for other resources.

There is a difference between attacking someone and being blunt. If you want to ban people and scold them for being blunt then you might as well say that, but to say this is attacking someone is not reasonable. It would be different if there was some sort of uniformity to this, but it seems more like a self righteous crusade to get people to apologize to you personally for not sugar coating what they say.

It looks to me like I've been banned for calling a ycombinator funded hypnosis app nonsense.

All you did was link a 20 page paper without quoting what you think is relevant, and yet I already said that it contradicts what you are saying. It doesn't talk about children or infants or babies but it does talk about how shallow the penetration depth is.

I've given you real numbers from your own sources and broken them down into intuitive examples. You might not realize this, but this is just an exercise in seeing what someone does when they have to continually reject information while having none of their own to hold on to a belief that is rooted in emotion.

> I'm saying -maybe- we should research a new technology

Now you are saying that, before you were saying "what about penetrating a babies thin skin". It has been researched, you found some research, it just doesn't say what you want.

We haven't even gotten to the fact that microwave communications are already on lots of cellphone towers and used to communicate with office buildings etc. Not only that but these higher frequencies don't even go through walls. They barely go through rain or fog.

You realize that a source would be something that has to do with what you are saying right? I asked for a source on how a 5G frequency at their amplitude would affect a baby differently and you linked a 100kw military pain ray that has nothing to do with what you are saying, then said, 'i just linked the first source I could find'. That isn't a 'source'. Also your current link doesn't say anything about what you are claiming and actually contradicts it. Even what you linked says that it doesn't go as deep as the thickness of a fingernail. Wifi penetrates more and infrared heat lamps are far more powerful, so again, what frequencies and what effects are you specifically worried about?

> new type of EM radiation that humans have _never lived with before_.

It isn't a 'new' type of em radiation. It isn't a mystery, it is just a mystery to you. You just avoid confronting real information by saying "I don't know". You have been shown facts, your ignorance of the subject is your own fault at this point, but you are desperate to hang on to it.

That's not even remotely close to being a source for what you are saying.

You need a source that shows that there is something different about babies, different about the 5G frequencies, and different from the light, infrared, microwave and radio frequencies that are currently being used everywhere.

Instead, you referenced a paper on a military pain ray that uses focused super high power 100Kw 95Ghz waves that says it penetrates 1/64th of an inch. Your microwave is 2.4Ghz, just like your router, but it works at 1kw. There is an enormous gap between saying "what about babies" and what you linked. They have basically nothing to do with each other. I think you realize that, but you keep saying "we don't know", when you really mean "I don't know".

> the burden is usually on the creators to demonstrate its safety

How can anything be deomstrated to someone who ignores what they are being told and repeats "we just don't know" while supporting their predefined beliefs with giants leaps in logic and excessively irrelevant information?

> I was hoping to have an actual discussion here

I don't believe you. You didn't even confront my original question of what frequencies and effects you are specifically worried about. All you have seemed to being up so far is heat from power 100 times what your microwave uses. 100kw is 4,000 times the power of a soldering iron that can melt tin and lead.

Why do you think there is a risk to babies? What are you having that on specifically? It seems like you are reaching for something "untested". Also microwaves use 2.4Ghz, heat lamps are infrared, 5G is a wide array of spectrums, so what specific frequency and power do you think will harm babies and why?

(Also if something just affects babies, it doesn't make sense to talk about the cumulative effects over decades)

Your microwave uses 2.4 GHZ radiation, does your router burn you?

Just saying caching is difficult doesn't gel with my experience of what seems like low hanging fruit. I realize a lot of Julia ends up being templates, but when just one line of importing the same plotting package always takes 30 seconds or so, I get suspicious of the idea that all the usability warts are super difficult to solve.

This has always been a huge complaint for Julia and it seems like one of those things that happens to new languages. People are excited, there are a few big rough edges that drive people away, they get ignored or underprioritized for WAY too long, and a giant window of opportunity is missed. I think of D with weeding out garbage collection, go with generics, D with tools and infrastructure, Zig with its refusal to parse carriage returns or tabs, Rust with compilation times, everyone with a lack of an easy road to a GUI, Jai not being released at all...

I think instead of getting lots of areas to a decent stage, languages end up trying to be the best in a single area and placate their hardcore users, when things like C++ succeed by not having huge blindsides and pitfalls, even if it ends up a little rougher in many areas.

Wait until a webasm thread comes around again and you'll see a real rabbit hole of extreme conflation, false claims, bad faith arguments and willful ignoring of facts and evidence.

I remember years ago when caching was about to be integrated in the next version and be here in a few weeks. Now it has been half a decade of people complaining about how slow it is for his to keep recompiling the same thing over and over.

Save your pitch for someone with a weaker filter for nonsense.

These people are shoveling out an app based on hypnosis, did you expect a respectable site?

Where are these 10kw electric showers? Even 240v at 20amp is only 4.8kw.

Leave it to hacker news to reinvent the wheel without making it round.

All electronics say the voltage and amperage they need, it isn't really that big of a problem, especially on a $200 laptop. It isn't a big deal that a bare bones laptop doesn't negotiate its power over USB-C. Polarity on barrel jacks is pretty standard. You look at the voltage and make sure your ACDC adapter can supply enough amps. In a situation like this you could buy an ACDC adapter off of amazon from dozens of different places.

Mozilla makes 10s of millions off of the default search bar.

PCIe 4 bandwidth is around 32 GB/s. Most games or applications don't saturate PCIe 3 16 lane bandwidth. I think you are conflating latency, bandwidth and "speed".

Memory bandwidth keeps the cores from being bottlenecked, but saying it is the reason GPUs are fast is simplistic.

The jacks have nothing to do with voltage and polarity is standard. Dell puts extra electronics in that have nothing to do with barrel jacks. You are conflating two things that are orthogonal and could not be more separate, and you were already told this.

Voting is already verified by address and mail.