fargle

so nat sucks. we needed to have something better. but instead of just extending to 64 bit src/dest addresses, align the fields and drop the checksum or any straightforward extension like that we got an entirely new protocol with new rules, nuances and complexity. so people just said nope. if it had been just a superset of IP with a different packet format and wider fields, it would have been adopted widely 20 years ago.

this wasn't intended to be a contentious take, btw: i was genuinely surprised that the article was ignoring this take. it was a very common feeling in the late 90s and 2000s when IPv6 was coming out. "over-engineered"

they completely ignore the actual problem with IPv6 which is that they didn't just extend IPv4 in a straightforward manner. they could have made the address fields 64 bits and been done with it. but, oh no, they had to make it the protocol for the ages.

it's completely analogous to the failed Intel Itanium vs. AMD x64.

> some asshole will suddenly start transmitting in a way that interferes with you

remember LightSquared/Ligado Networks? assholes, but with $$$ tho. still a thing:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103290 https://www.gps.gov/spectrum/ligado/

> That’s basically it. The rest—merge commits, complicated branches, rebasing, staging areas, and intricate commit histories—just aren’t necessary for most everyday workflows.

yes, agree.

but the takeaway should not be that you need another tool - you can accomplish what is required with a single sheet of paper (or webpage). a table of simple tasks and the commands to accomplish them, tuned to new developers, students, etc. there's literally no reason to make a wrapper just for that.

there's 10,000 things more complicated and fiddly than git that devs need to learn and become expert at.

> But it's worth asking: when someone resorts to violence in this way, why are their politics nearly always right-wing?

while i'm convinced you sincerely believe that, you do realize there are a roughly equal number of people equally sincerely convinced that the media/establishment/"they" are out to get them and their group instead. and that when someone resorts to violence it's (almost) always actually the other group, not them.

replace white with black and right with left. ann rand with marx. fox with msnbc. same "argument", often almost word-for-word.

don't stoop to tribalism as an excuse or explanation.

    journalist (staring at his sandals) > flip-flops? you mean like the ones with the strap thingy that goes between your big toe?

    ti communications director > well, no. not that kind of flip-flop. a flip-flop is a circuit which maintains a single bit of state.

    journalist (furiously scratching out some unseen notes) > what kind of state, like state of matter or like in government?

    ti communications director > for example, lets say we need to keep track of whether the state of some electronics is in sleep or power-down state or not. you could store that information in a flip-flop.

    journalist > so the power knows which way to go?

    ti communications director > sure. why not.

oh, dear... i appear to have been confused about what flip-flop chips actually did.

is this an AI hallucination? or just a liberal-arts-major hallucination?

suppose the court were compelled to take all cases that were appealed to it. for all the cases that it "did not want" to hear, it could simply mechanically vote to uphold the lower court decision. i'm ignoring the practical amount of work and time, of course, for this thought experiment. but after wasting the courts time, 5+ judges can say "we didn't want to hear this case, you wasted our time, the lower court was right, go away".

that could be done with a minimum of 5 judges of 9 in agreement to "let it ride".

in the current scheme, it does only take 4 judges to vote to hear a case. so presumably, if only 4 judges wish to hear the case and 5 are against hearing it, the slight minority must feel that having heard the case fully, one or more of the other 5 might change their mind and vote to overturn the existing verdict.

so excepting the situation where a 0-3 judge minority wishes to fully hear the case, i don't see much difference except a lot more work if they were faced to take cases that would surely be upheld anyway. it seems a pretty good conservative heuristic that if you can't even get 4 judges to hear the case, there's no way 5 are going to vote to overturn it.

so i think the article makes a lot more out of this than is warranted. i don't see it make much difference at all in comparison to things like the overall composition of the court or it's specific 9 personalities and that of the chief justice in particular.

EDIT: a different way of stating it: instead of saying a minimum of 4 judges must vote to take a case, flip it around and say: "if a super-majority of justices, 6 or more, vote to uphold the verdict after a preliminary review, it will not be heard in full"

i think Savant was 100% correct and the original stating of the problem was clear enough. it's not really about torturing students or trying to be tricky or edgy - it's meant to be an important lesson about independence in statistics. it's more of an example of the kind of real problems that are torture. statistics is the torture, not the exposition of it...

> content creator in the print media wanted to give an edgy true answer to farm engagement

this was 1975 and the fight didn't break out until 1990. using terms like "content creator", "farm engagement", etc. gives a vibe that i guarantee was not the case at the time. yes, it was meant to be an engaging puzzle, but back then it didn't have those highly negative connotations.

from wiki: "Several critics of the paper by Morgan et al.,[38] whose contributions were published along with the original paper, criticized the authors for altering Savant's wording and misinterpreting her intention"

if anything people with an axe to grind like the Morgan et. al. analysis were the one twisting words around.

as far as instructors (and many other people) having a bad time explaining it, well... that's not a problem with the puzzle is it? bad teachers are a real thing.

for me the very best most direct way to understand the puzzle and the solution is to look at the decision tree diagram next to "Conditional probability by direct calculation" on the wikipedia page [1]. with only 3 doors and 3 possible first choices and a single 2nd chose (switch or not), you can easily fully directly compute every possible scenario. draw that picture 3 times (one for each initial door chosen) and count up the wins and losses for strategy switch vs no-switch.

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Mo...

https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/duffs-device.html (the original, better description)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff%27s_device

https://xkcd.com/1053/

but you realize that it's unambiguously mathematically true without gimicky word-play or puns or other logic puzzle trickery.

it's just simply an un-intuitive result. most statistics really is.

curious: why the hate for the monty-hall problem?

opensuse banned him. and apparently nixos banned him preemptively before he ever participated.

because an 8-bit microprocessor like a 6502 didn't have an MMU and it would have been uneconomical to add it.

- it would have required external circuitry. consider the evil genius lengths Woz went to so save just a couple chips in the apple ii.

- home computers were quite expensive, the difference even a couple dollars worth of hardware would count. instead, put every penny into performance and capabilities with the most minimal system possible.

- it would certainly slowed the hardware down. at minimum you have to keep track of kernel vs. user mode. no 8-bit microprocessor has a way to do that so you'd have to build some external MMU to track the address the code was running from or some other scheme. then you'd have to block addresses from "user" code. all that takes time and bus cycles.

- it would certainly slowed the software down too and make it a lot bigger. you have to keep track of kernel vs "user" code. you'd have to provide a way to program that MMU hardware for adding new kinds of hardware. you'd have to account for DMA. you'd need at least some kind of minimal driver framework to keep track of all that stuff.

> Wouldn't this have allowed 8-bit computers to improve more rapidly in terms of graphics and sound while maintaining software compatibility?

nope. the best way to demonstrate this is the 8088/8086 IBM style ROM BIOS routines. while not "protected" in hardware, these are an example of the kind of framework and software that abstracts the direct hardware access for an early computer. it didn't make things easier or better and it was widely ignored with many programs using the hardware directly.

- while some programs did cleanly use only the BIOS entry points to talk to hardware, few did so exclusively.

- especially games, graphic intensive programs, and software that talked to specialized hardware features could not handle the speed and capability penalties of using BIOS vs. direct hardware access. wait, i just described almost all software for these computers...

- the performance penalties for going through DOS or BIOS vs. direct access for things like video, sound, disk IO could be 10x to 100x.

- BIOS as an API did not do an especially good job of maintaining software compatibility. it was too low-level but not low-level enough. it was to broad and complicated, but never managed to adequately cover everything flexibly enough.

- so talking to hardware is one kind of API and BIOS is a different API. the former was ironically better. even if it wasn't formally standardized, much hardware grew to be compatible to de-facto standards and many many computers were extremely portable to each other just at the hardware layer anyway. BIOS wasn't better enough of a standard to make it worth the significant other downsides to using it. in fact, it seemed that BIOS access was buggy but direct hardware access was more reliable as well.

- so the 8-bit (and 16-bit) industry couldn't have cared less about software compatibility. if you can directly peek/poke your sound-blaster card with less hassle, less code, and it ran much faster why do you want a library/driver-model/os getting in the way?

so why did we ever get os, and drivers, MMUs and so on for home computers anyway? that's the real question:

- it wasn't software compatibility or rapid development

- the model of direct hardware ownership really broke down when we wanted to run more than one program at a time. eventually we could afford enough memory to run more than one program at once and switch between them. even window them.

- at that point, primitive attempts to task switch like TSRs in DOS had a really hard time dealing with programs that assumed they "owned" the hardware.

- a couple years earlier, direct hardware access was reliable, high performance and reliable. now programs that did this suddenly were instead sources of bugs, flaky behavior, and annoyances or reduced capability (i.e. didn't work with task switchers).

so home computers, at least in the x86 world, went through an evolution, becoming more and more like a "real" mini-computer os's with protected memory and a kernel/drivers. this required hardware like the 32 bit 80386/486/pentium and software like OS/2 and windows nt/2000. things like windows 3.1/95/98 representing intermediate evolutionary steps where the direct hardware access and memory was not quite protected.

but by this time, hard-drive space, memory, cpu speed were all approximately 100x (or even 1000x) what the old 8-bit micros did for similar price.

no wonder he was banned.

it's not a question of "want to pay $70", we'll want to pay the lowest price possible for the equal goods. if the cost of shirts doubled, you might buy less of them and wear them longer. i remember my dad probably had 5 nice dress shirts, two suits and a sport coat.

i'd rather have $70 (or $100) shirts and a functioning middle class.

> "There are few growth levers that could allow a single person to grow a startup from $0 to $1M ARR in a matter of months. [...] Cold outbound is one such lever."

ugh... attempt to rebrand spam as cold outbound...

of course it can grow your ARR by $1M. or $1B with this one simple trick...

note that these schemes often seem to work incredibly well in the anecdotes of the people making money selling you these schemes [1].

in actuality it's just a spam service that will, at best, annoy and aggravate your future potential customers, but mostly just end up in the spam folder. making the internet an even worse place than it already is to the benefit of no-one. well maybe za-zu.com.

[1] https://www.za-zu.com/ "Built by the makers of Clay and Aurora. 10x leads, replies, and revenue like an army of the world's best sales reps—without actually needing an army."

so whatever you do, it should be a feature, even defaulted on. but never a policy that you enforce to "everyone who ssh into a prod machine"

if you find something that works well for you, add it as a suggestion to your developer docs.

"As for the center, they're ok with fascism which makes them fascists."

one could argue that since you have espoused such radically leftist policies that you have then alienated and abandoned a huge swath of the (also now apparently "fascist") sensible moderates and centrists. losing what was, until recently, a clear political advantage. you created the conditions necessary for these center-left, center, and right wing fascists to acquire power.

since you are perfectly ok with concretely aiding and abetting fascists, by your style of logic, you're a "fascist" then too.

so perhaps one might suggest, in the alternative, to please first carefully check the definition of words like "fascist" [1] before throwing it around loosely. and if you must use it as a slur, do so correctly and judiciously at something vaguely defensible. if you go around calling everybody and everything you don't like "fascist", it becomes more difficult to understand what you actually mean. and then what name do you call the "real-evil-actual-facsist-fascists"?

simply screaming insults at super-majority swaths of the population isn't really a viable path toward making the world a better place.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

shoot, that's evil. had not noticed this. i read this as "removed", not "was released". now idk.

this pseudo-definition of dropped as "released" is beyond stupid. yikes!

could an AI bot be trained to recognize low-quality security reports and automatically respond as such?

at the risk of escalating the inevitable arms race, of course.

i was referring to the aphorism:

    fool me once, shame on you
    fool me twice, shame on me

if they lie about this, intentionally or otherwise, and you still believe them, it isn't their fault. and it isn't something that a law can fix either.

i don't need need a consumer protection law to tell me to stop paying for services that aren't living up my expectations. regardless of what the vendor promised.

that self-help alternative is always available and seems preferable to me (and the rest of the economy) than another vague "govt. protect me from my poor choices" law and resulting lawsuits/lawyers which is 100% guaranteed to solve exactly nothing wrt. getting packages delivered faster.

and that's not what succeeds. so FB will do just fine, if i'm right about that.

it's sad to see a genuinely good company gone and replaced by a slimy one. actually if you include oracle, two slimy ones. who are both inarguably far more successful.

it's sad because it's a statement about what our current economy values and what it does not. and to any of you who have the word "engineer" or "scientist" in your job title: it's definitely not those things.

a solid engineering company that actually build good stuff, destroyed in collateral damage from the dot-com bust, sold off to oracle of all things. now further being humiliated by this narcissistic, exploitative, personality-disorder-masquerading-as-a-service company?