gnode

While certain uses of the symbols are not illegal, they do have a negative effect on age ratings / classification board approvals (relevant to this discussion).

A famous example, is that Wolfenstein 3D was outright refused a rating in Germany. Arguably it may have been legal as artistic use, rather than propaganda promoting an unconstitutional organization, but that was not sufficient to get a rating.

It's actually worse than this; this map neglects the zones around international airports.

The hypocrisy of Google notwithstanding, I'm not sure why something being included in Unicode should have any bearing on its societal acceptance or consequently its age rating.

The Swastika exists as a Unicode character, yet is outlawed in Germany, along with other Nazi-associated symbols (Strafgesetzbuch section 86a).

You don't get the 2nd amendment at the border either.

I think it's difficult to read "the one programming language that's close to being flawless", without interpreting it as being someone's opinion.

Reading the article though, I'd say a good objective argument is made that Fexl is "flawless", insofar as it being the "thinnest possible functional programming layer on top of C." Whether that's useful or good is another matter.

I agree that there's a programmer cost to having a multiplicity of ISAs. However, ISAs still have some relation to the design of the microarchitecture, which for x86 processors is not open. The RISC-V ISA for instance was created mainly because it helped the effort to create open CPU hardware.

I'm pessimistic about governments coming together and coordinating an expensive effort to avert climate change. I also think the world is on a course to become increasingly divided and rivalrous, such that collaboration would be less likely, and nations less willing to compromise on their economic competitiveness.

I think if there is an effort made (which there will probably have to be), it'll be something cheap and dirty, like stratospheric aerosol injection.

Although Kubernetes is for containers, so you'd also need to re-implement Linux in Rust.

> This is up-and-coming

Real-time raytracing is usable in games today. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/quake-ii-rtx-ray-t...

Given slowing growth of computing power, and that ray tracing algorithms are already mature and well studied, I don't think high-sample real-time raytracing will come along for a long time.

Instead, I think de-noising based on machine-learning will be the crucial factor for real-time raytracing, as Nvidia has been showing.

I think a coming advancement will be in dispatching rays based on ML too. That is, economically deciding where to cast rays, based on feedback from the de-noiser.

Or at least such lawsuits should be recognised as the vexatious and frivolous litigation which they are, and sanctions made accordingly (pay the defendants' costs, and disbarment for repeated cases).

There are two separate issues: the commercial exploitation of personal data, and state surveillance.

My understanding is, that while the US has virtually no statutory protection of privacy, DDG has a privacy policy, and deliberately violating it would be fraudulent, contravene COPPA, and make them liable in tort law.

As far as state surveillance goes, the EU is not a haven, the UK, despite being a member, is one of the worst offenders. Some European countries have relatively good surveillance laws, such as Iceland and Switzerland (neither being in the European Union).

Or maybe it's CBP business. If a foreign regime is turning the trade taps on and off to impose their values, then the counter to that is to turn those taps off yourself and sever that influence.

The trouble is, there's lots of evidence, and also lots of evidence that it isn't. The only way to draw a conclusion is by making a judgement about which evidence is better: which scientific experiments are better designed?

File systems are just one approach to storage. Databases can use file systems, block devices, or object-based storage (such as distributed storage systems, e.g. Ceph, Amazon S3). Traditional file systems are, by themselves, inadequate for many use case, as they don't provide things like versioning.

The strength of the file system, is that much tooling already exists for it.

> Literally no one cares that you watch excessive amounts of fetish porn [...] or sell a few grams of cocaine on the side

Actually such people are great targets for blackmail, to be used in espionage and interference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruitment_of_spies#Recruitme...

It's completely naive to think that only serious wrongdoers are the targets of SIGINT, rather than simply anyone with usefulness to state motives.

The article is correct that fiber connections can provide a higher bitrate than cable and 5G, but it fails to explain why that makes it a better social or economic proposition.

My 200Mb/s DOCSIS cable connection is well below the theoretical maximum, and is good enough for streaming 8K video, downloading a Linux distro in seconds, downloading a game in a few minutes, etc. The social effect of having this, versus 0.1Mb/s connectivity I had before is huge, but greater bandwidth would not greatly change my experience.

If the aim is to improve the lives of as many people as possible, it takes more to justify a more expensive project, than just: it will be faster.

My primary concern as a politician would be which solution can be affordable and adequate for the largest number of people who do not currently have something adequate.

I'm fond of this Lego acid house machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fat8ptpiufA

I think what was being referred to is the technique of defining a program, not as source code files which are then compiled/run in an interpreter, but as an in-memory VM environment (think REPLs). The memory-based environment can then be saved to a file, similar to making a core dump.

This changes the structure of programs from a file/disk based structure, to the potentially richer structure of the programming environment (e.g. graphs of objects). Although it comes with disadvantages like losing the tool inter-operability of files.

> I have strong negative opinions about putting a web development platform entirely inside an RDBMS.

What about your experiences led to your negative opinions?

It's ironic that bad faith accusations of insanity against people with different opinions are generally more tolerated than good faith assertions of mental issues impeding those who we are sympathetic to.

That inference comes from a long pattern of speech and behaviour made in public. Far from being private or personal information, it's an elephant in the room.

It's necessary to be able to critique leaders. Discussing a person's mind with regard to their fitness for leadership is not the same as making a personal attack at somebody's mental health.

I remember hearing a story about some fluid getting in the eye of an astronaut working on the exterior of the ISS, and them not being able to wipe it away due to the helmet, so just continuing while in pain / discomfort.

Perhaps spacesuits could do with some kind of manipulable swab within the helmet to deal with situations like this.

I don't think the problem trying to be solved is: allow more people to exist. Rather: cluster more people in one geographic location.

The way to avoid the problem would be to not require everyone move to the bay area to be economically prosperous.

They're contracts, so generally contract law. Although such contracts would have to be careful to not run afoul of employment laws, or laws against slavery.

It seems income sharing agreements typically include clauses which mitigate their risk of becoming invalid as voluntary slavery, such as limited time, a minimum income threshold, and buyout options. They could also be structured as a debt, with a payment structure based on income. Potentially bankruptcy law would affect their interpretation also.

As I stated in the last paragraph of my comment:

> Mozilla is based in a country with sweeping surveillance legislation, and so should not be trusted to hold or process [potentially] personally identifying data, no matter how well intentioned they themselves may be.

Even if Mozilla are completely trustworthy, nothing is stopping them from being forced to give up all that data with a national security letter (accompanied with the customary gag order), to be mined for insights by alphabet agencies.

While nice for supporting the development of Firefox, it adds nothing to your subjective browsing experience. As far as I understand, disabling it is also not a data point by which you could be fingerprinted.

You're taking it for granted that the reported data is adequately anonymized to the point of being impossible to make any inferences about individuals, which is a huge leap, not only in trust, but data science.

As mentioned later in the article, Mozilla is based in a country with sweeping surveillance legislation, and so should not be trusted to hold or process [potentially] personally identifying data, no matter how well intentioned they themselves may be.

> Establishing intent requires mind-reading

Philosophical discussion of intent, unlike legal discussion, isn't necessarily concerned with what you can externally establish. It is still useful for answering questions about your own conduct, like: "would I be lying if I say something I know to be false, which I don't expect others to believe?"

I think another problem (both in philosophy and law) is that intent is not binary. If I do something without wishing a particular outcome, knowing that such outcome may likely happen, and not attempting to mitigate it, is it intentional? For instance, if I knowingly made a false accusation that some person is a criminal, uncaring whether it was perceived as sarcasm or truth, and some listeners understood it to be a truthful accusation, what is my level of culpability for libel?

All contest files here: https://www.ioccc.org/years.html#2019 (under "lynn" section)

Direct link to C source (not the only relevant file): https://www.ioccc.org/2019/lynn/prog.c

This isn't about being caught without cash. Whenever I've gone to London I've used my contactless credit card to pay for transport, not because I don't carry cash, but because it's convenient -- you just hold it near the gate and go through; no need to visit a ticket machine.

A problem with this convenience is that you don't get any kind of physical receipt to prove you paid. Perhaps in my case, a ticket inspector could scan my credit card to check it was used to pay, but in the case of a dead phone, it can't be queried.