In my experience, all the major platforms eventually close all accounts.
21 karma · joined September 19, 2021
"Bad" I would say means you can still achieve your task.
I was presented with over sixty download links, and not being an idiot or someone to be taken for a ride, I refused to go along with it, and that means the UI is not bad but failed.
What's more, it OBVIOUSLY failed.
There's no way a single person at Amazon could have genuinely sat there and thought, "yes, this, THIS is it, THIS is the right way to make this page", not, that is, if their goal was the user actually getting hold of their data.
It would take Amazon almost no effort to make a single archive with all those files in.
I cannot help but view this as deliberate obstruction.
I eventually got to a point where Amazon provided a web-page, which has no less than sixty-two download links on, each of which would have to be manually operated.
It's properly tantamount to obstruction.
After finally reaching this point, Support were arrogant and high-handed - "We will not do any more than we have. We look forward to seeing you on Amazon in the future."
I still do not have my data.
I tried to start the process off a second time, but it went nowhere. I chased it, and then had some very disconnected and confusing responsese from Support (email from some random guy in Support who by the looks of it had been told to email me, but neither he had been told what for, nor I that it would happen).
I've not spent more time on it since then.
I stopped using Amazon about two years ago, because I've come to the view that the stories about how Amazon treats warehouse staff are accurate.
I want to get my personal data, so I can close the account.
Amazon of course refuse point blank (in the usual, slimey, support-talking-past-you way) to delete any personal data, so all you can do is delete the account and hope in the end Amazon expire the data.
Performance issues -> it's lock-free and scales profoundly better than non-lock-free.
I may be wrong, but I would be shocked if this was so.
I think you may be mixing up non-tearing writes as opposed to atomic writes, which are performed using either cache-line locking (Intel) or exclusive reservation granules (everyone else) and as such require the employment of a specific mechanism to achieve (typically a macro or function, which leads to the use of the particular special instructions for atomic writes).
The overhead of an atomic write is very large, and it is often not needed. It would make no sense for every write (to an _Atomic type) to be atomic.
The quoted material does not describe this assertion.
It never took off. I think it didn't scale.
Atomic writes have nothing to do with memory barriers. On modern platforms atomic writes are available without memory barriers of any kind.
Memory barriers do not cause events to become visible.
Only atomic writes do this; and so the question is not whether barriers are in use due to _Atomic, but whether atomic writes are in use due to the use of _Atomic.
Firstly, if the writer has used no barriers, writes can emerge in any order (and may never emerge at all, anyway, even if barriers were used). Secondly, if the reader has not used barriers, then even if writes have been written in some given order, the reader will by no means observe that order.
> A fence or atomic operation guarantee that a store will be visible globally in a finite amount of time
A fence does NOT guarantee this. A fence controls and only only controls order of events. It has NO influence on whether events actually emerge. An atomic operation does, but this only solves the write-side of the problem; the reader still needs to issue a read barrier to guarantee seeing atomically written values.
In the C11 code? I'm not up to speed with that version of the spec, but unless there is behaviour invoked by the use of _Atomic, the code looks to me to be performing normal, non-atomic read/writes.
Another reply says there are full barriers being automatically used, but that doesn't address the problem I've described.
Barriers only influence the order in which events become visible if and when they DO become visible.
Barriers say nothing about whether or not events actually do become visible; and it may be that they never do (if the necessary magic is not performed, etc).
You mention an atomic increment. I don't see atomic increments this in the C11 code, but I'm not up to speed with that version of the specification.
(Note that an atomic increment will solve the write-side problem, but not the read-side problem. The reader must still use a read barrier; but if there's an implicit full barrier, then that's being done.)
The basic problem is that for any physical core, there is no guarantee that any writes will ever be seen by any other core (unless the necessary extra magic is done to make this so).
(There's a matching problem when reading, too, in that in theory writes made by another core can be never seen by the reading core, even if they have reached the domain covered by cache coherency, unless the necessary extra magic, etc.)
So here with this code, in theory, the writes being made simply are never seen by another core, and so it doesn't work.
As it is, in practise, writes typically make their way to other physical cores in a reasonably short time, whether or not the extra magic is performed; but this is not guaranteed. Also of course the ordering of the emergence of those writes is not guaranteed (although on some platforms, additional guarantees are provided - Intel is particular generous in this regard, and performance suffers because of it).
No, he did not.
Quote me anything in WoN where he says this should happen.
He writes about where it does happen, but that's all; he describes the situation. That's all.
He describes economics; others put opinions into his words.
I do not recall this from WoN.
Quote please.
The subjects are utterly different.
All I can think of is that it introduces you to Smith and his style of writing. To my eye, this is not of any particular value.
This is rubbish.
WoN is one of my very favourate books.
Smith is absolutely - astoundingly in fact - neutral in his writing. He says what happens, and what happens because of it.
To write as quoted here, to put opinions into what Smith writes, is to be doing exactly what the article begins with, which is arguing that Smith did not say what he is often made to say.
To my recollection, there is in the entire book exactly one time when Smith offers an opinion; he is discussing bounties paid by the English State on exportation of a particular good, then notes that once a particular level is reached, the bounty ceases and is replaced by a penalty, and he opines that it seams improper to encourage people by the bounty to export and so be encouraged to get to the point where they will then be penalized.
It's like having a criminal break into your house.
If my neighbours are unhappy with me taking action against that criminal - maybe they're friends with him - I'm not much inclined, in the situation, to have much sympathy.
Russian media is purely State controlled and is preaching justifications for the invasion of Ukraine.
This is not a free speech situation.
Free speech does not include using speech to lie and defraud.
The Russian State controls the Russian media and what you get is and only is propaganda. It is there purely to defaud and deceive. This is not about freedom of speech, it's about crime.
If you meet a man lying through his teeth to sell you fake insurance, you do not protect his actions on the basis of freedom of speech.
No. These are not comparable. In the West, you have a range of views and there is no deliberate censorship of views by the State. In Russia, you get and only get what the State produces, and what they've been producing over the last several years has been crazy; Ukraine is not a country, and we have a holy mission to liberate them.
> Overall, a bad idea, IMO.
It is sometimes better to act than not to act, even if what you do is not perfect; it all adds pressure and expresses that you are serious about what you're doing.
If they keep at it, they will win; the military balance is too much in their favour.
Having conquered, they will then block out all content which carries truth and replace it with propaganda, just as it is in Russia.
You argue we must keep the Internet open and accessable to Russia, both in this situation, and for it to be used in this way.
The Russian people are completely controlled. They have no way, even if they knew exactly what was going on and understood it for what it is, to rally, no one to lead them, no way to resist.
The Russian people are not a mechanism by which the Russian leadership can be affected.
> We can not allow Russia to run the narrative by cutting of the internet.
I may be wrong, but I understood the request was to remove ".ru" and two other related top levels. It was not to cut them off from Internet access.
I am in favour of both the removal of ".ru" and related domains, and also of cutting Russia off from the net, if such a thing were possible, which I think it is not.
The idea that is handles some SQL functionality with additional parallelism seems fine, but then I read that if a query uses any AQUA functionality, it's something like the entire query runs in AQUA, and that seems to me to be potentially a problem.
I'm very curious to start investigating, but there's a list of higher priority matters to investigate.