no idea. the title is just wrong/typo was my only point.
elon says it can, so what does that tell you?
1,337 karma · joined August 28, 2019
elon says it can, so what does that tell you?
you could just as easily say "goodbye allen, but i'm going to torx" or any <insert-things-here> pair. it's only silly if both of the interlocutors happen to agree on the relative merits and that the difference is large enough to be called "silly".
the problem is responses like that amplify the vibes of "well, it's clear that everyone agrees that rust/phillips is just objectively better in all ways". i don't think this discussion would be occurring if that were true.
the right thing is to drill down into the specific trades, and i'm scratching the surface.
oh, you have a greenfield project where manual memory management in C or C++ is burdensome and error prone and it's kicking your butt. perhaps rust might be a good fit?
or perhaps you have a problem where you need to maximize the code interchange with a few million lines of existing code and a large set of existing experienced developers? well, maybe not then...
even for some reason they were forced to, in practice, a cadre of employees (most likely the ones you'd want to fire in the first place), would instantly form some new ad-hoc political layer to exercise political power and control the organization, voting, etc.
so you just end up with a layer of useless management and a independent layer of useless politicians, neither of which are willing to fire themselves.
what should be happening is that the provider of the maps app is nothing to do with google search and then if your favorite map provider can plug-in to the search results in a seamless way it wouldn't be an anti-trust issue at all. it would benefit all parties. instead google opts to, and who can expect different, maximize the annoyance to their already captive users and minimize their negative business impact (e.g. sending anyone to somebody else's map app).
but they certainly aren't going to voluntarily break themselves up because some regulation that can be implemented in a way that's annoying to their users. who still have no viable other options, btw.
the root cause of the annoyances the users are now facing is both caused by googles monopolistic behavior in the first place and then them weaponizing their own captive users to push back on any regulations trying to stem it. a significant contributing factor is regulations like these are do more harm than good.
the right answer for abusive monopolies is to 1) don't let them form and 2) break them up when they do. chicken-shit regulation like this will only have the predictable result - avoidance, annoyance, no-real-change. and, as you alude, simply make everything worse for everyone.
can you expect the management correctly identify the right people to fire, especially when they are themselves heavily over-represented in that class?
as a sibling comment said: "idiots all around".
or perhaps simply extremely bad at interpreting and handling social skills and emotions.
short answer: state laws. longer answer is it's done with a patchwork of federal and state laws, partially to avoid calling a permit a "permit" or saying "gun registry" out load for politically charged reasons.
without editorializing on the morality or pros/cons:
- (as mentioned in the article) ATF Form 4473 is federally required for transfers between people who do not reside in the same state. interstate commerce and all that. this includes a NICS background check and must be performed by a dealer holding a Federal Firearms License or an "FFL".
- this form is not a joke. answering "creatively" is a felony. this is what hunter biden did, for example. you can see an example of the form and the sort of questions here [1].
- this, combined with the background check, definitely has aspects of a "permit": you pay a fee and some agency "permits" the transaction (or denies it). in many states, this is only required for interstate transfers though; doesn't count swap meets, selling to a friend, etc.
- on the surface, this is not a "registration" scheme and the records of the transaction are stored privately by the dealer in the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS).
- but federally, this also backs into a pseudo-registration system because the ATF can and very much does, inspect theses records whenever they want. and when the dealer goes out of business, the record ownership reverts to the ATF. one can pick and choose how much you believe that the government does or does not retain any records of the background check and transaction, and how good the security of any of these databases they may or may not have is.
- in california, starting in the late 1990s (1998, iirc), requires all handgun transfers to be handled by an FFL. since the FFL follows the process above, and is also licensed by the CA DOJ, there are also much more overt requirements, such as 11106 PC [2], to explicitly maintain a registry. basically, ca piggy-backed on to the federal process for interstate gun transactions for intrastate sales as well.
- starting in 2014, all gun transfers, not just handguns fell under this process. in 2022, certain "precursor" parts fall under this as well.
- in addition, the obvious workaround of "buying a bunch of guns as an AZ resident and moving to ca later" and things like that are also blocked by various ca laws: you have to register your guns when you move into the state (if they are ca legal, which is another very complex patchwork of laws).
- so basically, in ca, state law has closed nearly any loophole for obtaining or bringing a gun into the state without going through an FFL and both the CA DOJ and ATF are involved for any gun purchase. nowhere does it call it a "permit" overtly, but defacto that is what it is. federal law also tries very hard to not say "gun registry" out loud while doing it's best to make a defacto registry. ca skipped that and just says "sure we have a gun registry".
the only way to legally have a gun that isn't registered this way in CA is to have owned it in the state before 1998 (handgun) or 2014 (long gun).
so CA doesn't have a "gun permit" law. it just passed some state laws that made you use a particular federal process that isn't technically called a permit, but effectively is, for all gun purchases as of 2014.
and CA doesn't have a "gun registration" requirement law. perfectly legal to own a gun that isn't registered. as long as you've owned it in the state for 25+ years. there's technically no requirement to have your gun registered once you own it. but, of course, there's no legal way to obtain one otherwise.
an interesting aside, what happens when bureaucracies maintain big computerized databases? in 2022 the database was leaked [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473 [2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31910724
> people are still feeling the ... effects of the economy > they felt that and decided they wanted change.
this i agree with, except that effects are "residual". it's not improving for most people on the bottom 1/2. it's brutal out here.
> Americans still gave the Democrats the popular vote
now this is widely reported that as not true [1], CNN showing ~51.2%, which would be the best in 20 years [2].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/election/2024 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
yes, he didn't do anything by the book, but the command still suffered a great deal of embarrassment and loss. there's nothing dishonorable but it's normal to rotate him out of leadership.
openly going after him that way and trying to "destroy" him (letisha), using the legal system as a bludgeon for political reasons was a huge mistake. so this continuously worked for him, not against.
you could take anybody of any party and find a venue somewhere in the country with a cooperative DA and get a jury to convict on some felony. [1] people realize this and aren't fooled. so it just isn't done. it probably isn't done more because it's a self-own than because it's morally wrong, but that's politics.
the ends certainly do not justify the means, but regardless it's also an incredibly stupid strategy.
> racist and transphobic views
unfortunately, these words, as well as "nazi" and "fascist" have been misused, abused, and overused to the point of utter uselessness. so now it's far to easy for people to just say "maybe i don't like DEI or i do like having police dept. so apparently makes me a 'literally violent racist' now. this is just more of that same vitriol, ignoring it"
trump did not win the election. he just stood around while the radicals and extremists on the left lost it for themselves. bigly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_giv...
i recommend the "painless guide" for anyone constructing CRC algorithms in software. it breaks down the entire algorithm, including various trade-offs and choices, as well as for different polynomials and other parameters.
then you also have the catalogs of parameters [2] and [3]
[1] https://www.zlib.net/crc_v3.txt [2] https://reveng.sourceforge.io/crc-catalogue/ [3] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/crc/
don't equate what is essentially a riot with legitimate emergencies.
pretty much 100% at least injury and destruction of your minivan, possibly much worse.
participation in this is thuggery. i hope they do a lot more than seize the vehicles. this is a felony and cannot be condoned, whether it be for a BLM protest or a bunch of juvenile rickie-racers.
go to the track and/or get a job.
those of you who defend a bunch of bullies violently blocking a public passage for whatever selfish idea, really need to think though who are victims and who are the aggressors and where you would stack up. it's refreshing to at least see a tiny step being taken.
or give you that big, wide, very fake smile and proudly remember your name almost correctly.
will they ever actually tell you the prices of what you are asking for at the quantities you ask instead of a confusing impenetrable bundle of whatever they want to sell?
will they still be such transparently psychopathic compulsive pathological liars?
will they only call you back at the end of the quarter when they need a sale or two?
will they nervously shush their AI FAE if some engineering detail he presents works against selling you something you don't need?
honestly, i can't imagine why this wouldn't work other than the high-five.
> Why is the FDA warning that some compounding pharmacies are using the salt forms of semaglutide and tirzepatide?
because $
$$$$$$$$$$$$
that's why. not safety. MONEY.
while there may be some very shady sources of fake grey/black market semiglutide that should be avoided, there are also the legal "compounders" who produce white-ish/grey market semiglutide. in the later case, it's the same active ingredient. the FDA, in it's infinite infallible wisdom (and $$$$$$$ pressure from pharma) refuses to acknowledge that while there is a tiny risk that the different buffers, processing methods, delivery and non-active ingredients, etc. have "not been studied" and might not be "less effective", that these are really small risks. tiny.
i feel like the FDA deliberately conflates the dangers of questionable overseas knock-offs with the legitimately pure, regulated, legal products of compounders.
are these guys violating a patent or two? meh? (note: this is a tort, but is not illegal) so sue them. but is it safe? it's as safe as anything else the FDA allows.
meanwhile we keep supporting a system of patents in medicine (and software) that are actively doing exactly the opposite of what the system was put in place for: stifling innovation instead of encouraging it. padding the rich cats pockets instead of giving the small guys a chance.
sheesh, patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US4814976A/en is a real "gem"
but its probably a good example: faulty patent (later invalidated) to do something obvious
MIPS sues a company that doesn't even implement the odd instructions because it traps them, allowing a possibility of emulation.
there's literally no case here
just to sue them into oblivion and squish them with superior cash resources. and then to get squished by ARM because they weren't paying attention.
it's like a dark fairy tale. i hate corporate lawyers.
i'm not sure this is true. certainly "chip" IP has been a real legal quagmire since, forever.
but it was my understanding that you could neither patent nor copyright simply an "instruction set".
presumably what you get from ARM with an architecture license would be patent licenses and the trademark. if so, what patents might be relevant or would be a problem if you were to make an "ARMv8-ish compatible" ISA/Architecture with a boring name? i haven't seen much about ARM that's architecturally particularly unique or new, even if specific implementation details may be patent-able. you could always implement those differently to the same spec.
to further poke at the issue, if it's patents, then how does a RISC-V CPU or other ISA help you? simply because it's a different ISA, doesn't mean its implementation doesn't trample on some ARM patents either.
if it's something to do with the ISA itself, how does that affect emulators?
what's ARM's IP really consist of when you build your own non-ARM IP CPU from scratch? anyone have examples of show-stopper patents?
don't sweat the lazy ones, teach the ones who want to learn.
it sucks that a college degree is no longer a sure way to spot the "good students", but meh, been like that for 20 years or more.
the multi-thread abstraction attempts to be: "hey, you know how that imperative model works? now we can have more than one of these models (we'll call them threads!) running in parallel. neat, huh?"
it's things like memory barriers and race conditions, etc. that are the "leaks". but it's the threading/multi-core abstractions that are leaky not (back to the article) the "blocking" code.
i can write single-thread "blocking" code all day long that does all kinds of interesting non-trivial things and never have to worry about leaks wrt. blocking, in-order execution, etc. even in the presence of out-of-order execution processors and optimizing compilers, VMs, multi-user OS'es, etc. effects are observably identical to the naive model.
the author didn't do a good job of clearly defining anything, but i bristle at the idea that the basic "blocking" code abstraction whats leaky - it's the async, threads, event-driven models, etc. that are (necessarily) a bit leaky when they break the basic imperative blocking model or require accommodation of it.
then it immediately conflates the need for that accommodation (difficulty of calling one type of code with another) with "leakiness". so essentially "calling blocking => more accommodation" (e.g. from event loops that shouldn't block).
- that's logically incorrect, even in the author's own argument (A => B, B, therefore A is the affirming the consequent fallacy).
- that's not what a "leaky abstraction" is. not everything that doesn't fit perfectly or is hard is due a "leaky abstraction". rather it's when the simplistic model (abstraction) doesn't always hold in visible ways.
a "leaky abstraction" to "blocking" code might be if code didn't actually block or execute in-order in all situations. until you get to things like spinlocks and memory barriers this doesn't happen. but that's more a leak caused by naively extending the abstraction to multi-core/multi-thread use, not the abstraction of blocking code itself.
i love the passion for `async` from this fellow, but i think he's reacting to "async is a leaky abstraction" as if it were a slur or insult, while misunderstanding what it means. then replies with a "oh yeah, well your construct is twice as leaky" retort.
that's not a leak, that is the abstraction for procedural/imperative code, or at least an important part of it. essentially: "each step occurs in order and the next step doesn't happen until the former step is finished"