benmmurphy

Fire has a good statement on the FCC threat: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-fcc-threat-revok...

It is good to see there are principled organisations defending free speech.

was this a typo: `irrationally gender-coding a job, either as female or male, would cause it to be underpaid, because that halves the qualified applicant pool` a reduction in supply in economics usually causes an increase in price not a decrease.

I guess that leaves the question as to why Kimmel did not say: 'We hit some new lows over the weekend when people of all political stripes were trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them'. Because that seems like it gives more information to the viewer because that is what actually happened and acknowledging people from both sides were doing the 'bad thing' should help to bring people together instead of driving people apart.

presumably she implicitly believes in tradeoffs because she hasn't campaigned to remove all motor vehicles from the road. surely, anyone arguing that cars should be allowed on the road when they are one of the leading causes of deaths is irredeemably evil and deserves to be mocked if they have the misfortune of dying in a car accident. Also, if Minnesota executed people for traffic violations then Hortman would not have been killed by Boetler. Surely, this means she is a hypocrite because she would not support such a policy.

There is a difference between 'lets try something out' and we will use the force of law to compel you to do something. A lot of people seem worried about over use of law enforcement but really its not a general problem with law enforcement but rather a problem with what laws are being enforced. They are happy to have law enforcement cracking down on people flouting a mask mandate but less happy when law enforcement is going after shop lifters.

Not sure why this argument doesn't also apply to operating systems. Maybe everyone should be writing all their programs to run on a custom micro-kernel. Surely we can't trust other programmers to write something as complicated as an operating system.

original poster was 'lucky' that he was using a work stealing engine. if the engine was not moving tasks between threads then i think the compiler would have been happy and he could have had the fun of debugging what happens when the same thread tries to lock the same mutex twice. the rust compiler won't save you from this kind of bug.

> The exact behavior on locking a mutex in the thread which already holds the lock is left unspecified. However, this function will not return on the second call (it might panic or deadlock, for example).

My understanding was the police were able to do this in the US using civil forfeiture.

direct CDP has been used by the scraping community for a long time in order to have a cleaner browser environment that is harder to fingerprint. for example nodriver (https://github.com/ultrafunkamsterdam/nodriver) was started in Feb 2024 and I suspect this technique was popular before that project started.

What a lucky coincidence that the tool the researcher attacked because it allowed code execution was not sandboxed.

if the government is running a library it shouldn't be able to engage in view point discrimination. for example it shouldn't be able to remove all books by Democratic presidents while keeping books by Republican presidents or vice versa. the weird thing is the state via an accidental conspiracy between librarians has arguably been engaging in view point discrimination. even though this has not been legislated, or commanded by the executive and is probably in contradiction with what the current executive wants it should not be allowed either.

the difference is in the 90s everyone was ignorant. beyond some small communities i don't think there were many people who had the knowledge to exploit a lot of the issues. but now the knowledge is very accessible and there a lot more people who are already capable of exploiting these issues and don't need to do any further research.

usually when interfacing with a library written in c the library will export functions for object destruction. it makes sense for that to be part of the interface instead of using the system allocator because it also gives the library freedom to do extra work during object destruction. if you have simple objects then its possible to just use the system allocator, but if you have graphs or trees of objects then its necessary to have a custom destroy function and there is always some risk in the future you might be forced to need to allocate more complex data structures that require multiple allocations.

I assume because there was no actual hacking. I'm guessing users consented to this. As a user I should be able to view all traffic from my device and also give other third parties permission to view all traffic on my device. If I can't do this, is it really my device? It's not too much different from what Nielsen was doing when they installed boxes in people's homes to record what TV shows they were watching.

You can have an epoch and now you can measure times before the epoch. In terms of the range of values you can represent it transposes to just having the epoch further in the past and using an unsigned type. So signed/unsigned it should not really matter except maybe for particular languages things work better if the type is either signed or unsigned. For example if you try to calculate the difference between two times maybe its better if the time type is signed to match the result type which is signed as well (not that it solves the problems with overflow).

it really depends on what you are doing. if you have a complex application then the automatic recovery might not be enough for a fault free user experience. i feel like live view is sold as some kind of magic where the developer does not have to write javascript and you can just implement the server side purely in elixir as you would javascript without writing to a database, or some session storage. but if you do this then you are in a worse situation than javascript when it comes to network faults, or server processes restarting.

the way live-view is sold is some kind of alternative to writing javascript. if you have a very rich client side application then you can easily end up with a bunch of state which would be in the clients memory but now is in the servers memory. but if its in the servers memory the data ends up being much more fragile because any failure of the client or the server means the live view state is lost. whereas if the data was just in client memory then it would only be lost if there is a problem in the browser. ideally people would write applications that are tolerant to both faults. but i think in practice live-view practitioners just ignore the problem and then you are left in a worse situation.

i realize there is still a dataloss problem when there is state on the client but there is a lot of simple stuff that causes problems if you are effectively reloading the page if the server disappears due to a redeploy or a crash.

for example i'm reading an email in my message client. i've scrolled half-way down the email. but now the server crashes i reconnect to live view and my scroll position when reading the email is reset.

when i look at live view i feel like its written by people that have never deployed something in production. of course this is not really true but i feel like it would be better if live-view people were more honest about the tradeoffs. its a very complicated situation and having some bad outcomes might be worth the increase in developer productivity but i feel like live-view people just ignore the bad outcomes.

also, take a cloud deployment. websockets seem to be an inherent problem in cloud deployments especially AWS. as far as i know AWS does not expose some event to a instance that is part of a load balancer that it is about to die. ideally if you have a websocket instance with a client and you realize you are scheduled to be reaped you would message the client that it needs to reconnect. then the client would reconnect to a server that would not be reaped and everything would be dandy. but AWS doesn't seem to have this functionality (or its not easy to implement!) but more importantly live view does not expose any kind of hooks so you can have 'safe' server redeployment out of the box.

phoenix live view is effectively built around the assumption that the server process never dies and never restarts. its a very dubious model for a production deployment.

> what happens when the server restarts / connection is lost / server dies?

> you lose all of the current client state but you can work around this by persisting all the client state somewhere.

> oh, so why am i using live view again?

Seems like enough of a gotcha that other people have stumbled upon the issue as well: https://blog.codingmilitia.com/2022/09/01/beware-of-records-...

for postgres ENUM should be just as easier to change as CHECK

* for adding, there is no problem you can just add entries to an ENUM

* for removing there is a problem because you can't easily remove entries from an ENUM. its only possible to create a new enum type and then change the column type but that is going to cause problems with big tables. however, now your ENUM solution decays to a CHECK+ENUM solution. so it is not really any worse than a CHECK solution.

also, it is possible to add new CHECK constraints to a big table by marking the constraint as 'NOT VALID'. existing rows will not be checked and only new rows will be checked.

probably the same thing that happened in the church or other organisations. bad people are able to convince others to do small things to help them, then once it surfaces what they are doing they are able to convince their enablers that their fates are tied together. from that point they are able to coerce their enablers into making bigger violations to protect them and and it becomes increasingly difficult to defect against them.

Very strange. I sent a test key and didn't get that response but when I sent my real key it did. How did it know the difference between the dummy key and the real key?

having two very different code paths for measuring the length of the DER buffer and writing the DER sounds very scary. i guess its fine with Rust but the idea would give me the heebee-jeebies for any other language unless they are using a safe buffer implementation. i would find it hard to trust that there is no buffer overflow based on divergent behaviour between the two functions.

The problem is its often not clear that the government is violating the constitution until after a court has ruled that they have violated it. People can have reasonable beliefs that what they are doing is constitutional and then a court rules differently and suddenly they have a civil liability or potential criminal liability.

You are also assuming the tax incidence of corporation tax will fall mostly upon shareholders. For example if the incidence was 70% on workers and 30% on shareholders then this should not be a progressive form of taxation. I think most economists believe the tax incidence is shared between parts of the corporation (workers, consumers, and shareholders) but I don't think there is much consensus on the proportions.

i think its a tricky situation. there is an extreme libertarian argument that individual officers of the US government should be held personally liable for any violation of the constitution. however, this would make it potentially difficult for the government to enforce _any_ law or carry out the duties of government because of the risk that some court could find the law or their duty violates the constitution. of course this is very appealing for libertarians but maybe not for non-libertarians. for example in the case of the Biden loan forgiveness program should every US government person involved in that be prosecuted for criminal embezzlement?

but a call to unwrap is usually more explicit than a null pointer dereference when you are reviewing code. if you are deserializing something from an external source and calling unwrap() on some optional fields to convert them to non-option types then this should raise alarm bells. of course maybe everyone agrees the external source should not be sending such data and it goes into prod anyway. but also its possible everyone agrees its worth putting some extra effort into not crashing the process in such a situation because there is too much risk.

Concurrent maps are often easier to implement in GC languages because you can use the garbage collector for cleaning old values. Whereas without a GC you will need an alternative like RCU.

Did Krugman post the FT graph verbatim or did he post a different graph? He mentions in the article that the FT graph looked cherry picked.

> Actually, the chart was a bit too neat: When I set out to reproduce it, I found that the FT chose a time period during which the relationship looked especially clear.

in their backend did they have to create a new product for each price point?