archgoon

Indeed, and in a previous era, "to google" was "Who wrote the main papers on this, who should I look up?". Honestly; that's true still today.

Yep; check out how the programming community does it! We have descriptive names for things like "Apache", "React", "nginx", "Rust", and "Java"!

The "reliable source" here is the German Government. It has confirmed that, yes, Navalny was poisoned, and yes, he was poisoned with a hard to obtain poison that has been used in the past by the Russian government.

This does seem to reduce the likelihood that Navalny wasn't poisoned, or that he was poisoned by someone unconnected to the government. MattGaiser's argument is that the implied threat is the goal, which is helped by confirmation of the above.

AMD can contribute their own tooling if they feel it's worth it. They aren't broke.

Well, Github archived it's 2020 snapshot in Svalbard. This probably won't be a one off thing, so if you're concerned; upload it to a github repo and they'll probably do it again.

https://archiveprogram.github.com/

It basically is used in the same way "only a fraction of the populace supports the measure" just in the opposite direction of meaning. Both expressions have technical shortcomings; but are idiomatically understood.

I don't see the word 'law' showing up anywhere in kbensons comment. It's disingenuous to claim that kbenson was making a legal argument.

Preview was last December

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2019/12/introduci...

Huh; well, it's not mentioned in the article, but "Seward's Success" is a play on the original purchase of Alaska. When it was first purchased from Russia, the US Secretary of State, William Seward, was ridiculed by opponents of the purchase; nicknaming the purchase "Seward's Folly".

Random historical context.

> The actual collection process is done by the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) of the FBI, which on behalf of the NSA sends the selectors to the U.S. internet service providers, which were previously served with a Section 702 Directive. Under this directive, the provider is legally obliged to hand over (to DITU) all communications to or from the selectors provided by the government.

Being legally compelled to provide data isn't the same as being 'willing'.

Amazon doesn't need to tell people to use their technology to benefit from educational videos.

Completely ignoring the educational content itself, well made educational videos bring community good will. This helps in both purchasing decisions and recruitment. Honestly, this basically can come from a PR / recruiting budget. Lecturer's aren't that expensive.

Now, for ML specifically, expanding the set of ML engineers has a dual benefit:

1) Creates more awareness and therefore demand for ML cloud services. Opensource? No problem, amazon will cheerfully sell you gpu enabled ec2 instances.

2) Expanded pool of candidates for hiring, and increased likelihood that internally, someone will propose a viable ML solution/product.

The ML sector is still growing rapidly, anything that fuels its growth is going to benefit Amazon simply by virtue that they're always going to be in the running for any business purchasing decision, and probabilistically, they'll get a percentage cut of that growth. Education helps grow it, and educational videos are pretty dang cheap.

> You think a programmer, handed a spec and asked to implement it, can be expected to know that their employer (or the employer's customer) wants to use it for a "non ethical purpose"?

No imtringued does not.

imtringued wrote:

> This is basically a reverse audit but the software engineer has no authority conduct such an audit and even if he was allowed to, the business has no obligation to give him the necessary information to determine whether the MCAS will be used unethically.

imtringued is saying that it would be impossible for a software engineer to determine whether what they were asked to do was ethical or not.

> She has a manager who (apparently) has a low tolerance for risk. He probably got to where he is by spinning situations so that it's not his fault. He was upset that she contacted the FBI about a situation and took on more risk than he was comfortable with.

I seriously doubt that it was the intent of the author to accuse Matt Cutts as someone who spun blame onto others and avoided responsibility.

The 5th dimension is just so tightly curled up that, after discretization, just looks like it's not present.

> they don't contribute anything of value to society.

They appear to be funding Haskell development.

Title: Quadra, not Quandra.

> "promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

The value of their work doesn't end with their death. This means that they can sell the rights prior to dying and receive some of that value.

No it's an incredibly onerous requirement. No it doesn't make sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Accountability_and_Enha...

https://ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal-crisis...

Pick a base k.

  log_k(c) = e*log_k(m)

  log_k(c)*e^-1 = log_k(m)

Raising k by both sides yields

  k^(log_k(c)*e^-1) => m

Gcc these days compiles with -pie (Position Independent Executable) by default. This makes the text section position independent and able to be relocated, like a shared library.

You are correct that the main TEXT section used to typically not be position independent.

Might want to put a [2005] in the title, when the thesis was published.

They discuss some features that they are adding

https://tauri.studio/docs/about/security

Unfortunately, they don't explicitly say what their threat model is, but you may be able to infer it from their feature list.

I am surprised they list "Decompilation is Difficult" as a feature. I'd be hesitant to rely on this for long.

> There is no UI showing which process is holding the file handle

What about process explorer?

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/proc...

Which is just a synonym for abelian.

You're not about to guess what 'commutative group' is from it's name any more than you're going to guess what an 'abelian group' is, unless you have already learned what commutative or abelian means in the specific context of algebra.

I'm always baffled that programmers, who freely adopt frameworks and languages with mostly meaningless names (which incidentally makes them easier to google for), continue to insist that names are the major stumbling block in learning math. It's utter nonsense. You pick up the names and terminology quickly enough (or look them up if you forget); the hard part is applying them.

>Except to explain our everyday experience of a single classical world.

Which the parent says is explained via decoherence. Why do you feel that decoherence does not account for the observed phenomenon?

Linear types are stronger than FnOnce, in that a linear type must be used _exactly_ once. Rust doesn't enforce that if you pass in a function of type FnOnce that it is called.

So the term you want to search for is "Conservative Forces". I'll give a brief explanation here so you can find a better one more easily. :)

Let's take a few steps back and talk about forces, and work. Gravity isn't really a key part of your question.

Suppose you had a uniform downward force field like so:

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
  v  v  v  v  v  v  v  v

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
  v  v  v  v  v  v  v  v

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
  v  v  v  v  v  v  v  v

Those are vectors pointing downwards. Now suppose you built a miniature roller coaster. Your first one is super boring

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
  v  v  v  v  v  v  v  v

    car
   |---\
  <-------------------->

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
  v  v  v  v  v  v  v  v

It just goes back and forth, perpendicular to the field. Now, if you really grease up the tracks, and have really good bumpers on the end (noiseless, don't heat up, a perfect elastic collision), the car will just bounce back and forth for a very long time, and not speed up or slow down much at all (and ideally, none at all).

There is a concept of 'work' in physics. When a force points in the direction of motion, we say that a force does work. The total work done along a path is simply the sum (integral) of all the parts of the path, multiplied by their length, multiplied by the amount of force in the direction of the path. This definition chosen so that the amount of kinetic energy gained, or lost, is equal to the work done.

Since the force is perpendicular for the above path, the 'work' done is said to be zero.

Now let's have a more interesting path. Let's give the car a kick.

             car
       <-   /---|
   /--------<-------\
   |                |
   v                ^
   |                |
   \------->--------/

Here we have two parts, top and bottom, where the force does no work. However, we have a part going down, and a part going up. The car will accelerate going down, and decelerate going up. If we grease the tracks up, then the car will always be traveling at the same speed on the top track. It will also always be moving faster on the bottom track.

We say that the force does 'work' when the car is on the tracks going down and going up.

Now, the total amount of work that the force does, for any loop, ends up being zero. This is clear here, since the distance the force is applied downwards, is the same as the distance of the force applied upwards.

What is slightly less obvious is that any looped track we could build here would have the same property. If we had something like

  /---\
  |   |
   \  |
    \ |
     \|

(and ignore the mechanics of those super sharp turns) we would find that the work done was still zero. The downward diagonal bits would end up still adding up the same amount of work as the upward straight bits (bit of vector math shows this).

The fact that the work done on any loop is zero makes this particular force a 'conservative force'.

Not all force fields need to be conservative! Suppose our field was only present on the left side.

             /---|
    /--------------------\
  | | |                  |
  v | v                  |
    |                    |
  | | |                  |
  v | v                  |
    |                    |
  | | |                  |  
  v | v                  |
    \--------------------/

This would only do work going down. This would mean that the track car would keep getting accelerated faster and faster.

Potential energy only makes sense as a concept in the presence of conservative fields. You define a reference point, sometimes chosen to be at infinity, and define the potential energy at each point to be the amount of work done to bring the object to that test point.

However, you don't need to just be a constant field to be conservative. Gravity, as expressed by Newton, is a conservative field. Regardless of how you arrange a bunch of objects or planets, looped paths will always have zero net work done. This is because the mathematical form of Gravity can be epxressed as the gradient of a scalar (takes a position, gives a number) function.

You seem happy with the idea that locally on earth, energy is conserved because you get the energy back when you travel in a loop. This doesn't change when you travel in a more complicated path from one planet to another. The force field does work on the object to accelerate it when it moves in the direction of the force, and decelerates it when you pull it back.

The big takeaway point here is that energy, as a concept, is built on top of (at least classically) the more primitive concept of 'force'.

Well. November 2020 looks to be mostly quiet at least; looks like only one major disaster is forecast.

Not quite; it's intended only to replace webpack for development. Snowpack explicitly recommends you continue using bundlers for production.

"Snowpack treats bundling as a final, production-only build optimization. By bundling as the final step, you avoid mixing build logic and bundle logic in the same huge configuration file. Instead, your bundler gets already-built files and can focus solely on what it does best: bundling."

I live in Washington State. I mailed my vote in for the 2016 election; doing this is not unprecedented. Why aren't all the expat ballots not faked?