jcranmer

No, that's categorically not true!

Germany required like 10 percentage points more of its labor force in agriculture in 1939 than the US did, and that still wasn't enough to make Germany self-sufficient in food; the US was of course one of the major food exporters in the world (in neither case were agriculture workers more than a third of the population, I should note). US agriculture also had largely mechanized in the 1910s, albeit many farms did switch back to draft animals during the 1920s and 1930s due to the collapse in agricultural prices, making animal feed grown on your own farm cheaper than buying fuel for the tractor. Europe agriculture largely didn't mechanize until the 1950s, after WW2.

> The opposite scenario of Germany controlling all the resources of Europe and Africa is a scary proposition.

It shouldn't be. In WW2, in 1942, Germany did essentially control all of Europe, save only the UK. And at the height of its power, Germany's vast industrial machine produced roughly on par with the UK. Not the entire British Empire, just UK.

It turns out that the Nazis were complete incompetent buffoons when it came to economic management. Their grand master plan for Europe was to overrun the east, not for some vast rich treasure trove of minerals to fuel an industrial juggernaut, but to plop down more homesteads to feed their inefficient agricultural economy. And even if the Nazis had a grand plan to become an industrial juggernaut, they still faced the prospect of the industrial juggernaut par excellence, the US.

> Also, maybe Heisenberg didn't want to succeed? Has that ever been resolved to some degree?

From the Farm Hall transcripts, it seems that Heisenberg was "happy" to have been working on a reactor and not a bomb, but from context, this seems less like an objection to the principle of working on a weapon and more like gratitude that the Allies couldn't hang him for working on an atomic bomb. Recall that the conversations took place after Germany had been utterly defeated and the scientists were prisoners at the mercy of the British--prisoners in a gilded cage, but prisoners nonetheless.

You're wrong. See e.g. https://llvm.org/pubs/2002-12-LattnerMSThesis.pdf, the original thesis proposing LLVM.

LLVM was always trying to pitch itself as a whole-lifetime optimization system. In practice, this meant focusing on LTO and PGO compilation modes. The idea of runtime or idle-time optimization were always kind of a next-todo step rather than anything actually implemented.

The answer to that question should be blindingly obvious: you don't.

It should be clearly evident that trying to use IQ to establish that "<insert ethnic group here> are stupid" is bad science. It's the same sort of science to establish that "<insert environmental factor here> causes stupidity," so we also need to reject it even if the environmental factor is clearly something problematic. The problem isn't the conclusion, it's the methodology.

IQ is a very bad tool for measuring populations. That's because IQ is definitionally designed to force a population to adhere a particular metric: a bell curve distribution, with the median at 100 and the standard deviation of 10. Whatever the thing you're measuring is--and there's good reason to think it's not "intelligence"--you're crunching and distorting that measurement to get the number at the end of it to force the population to adhere to a standard distribution.

We don't have a good model of what intelligence is. But since IQ studies are fairly common, there's a lot of data collected that uses IQ, and since it IQ looks vaguely like "intelligence," a lot of researchers who are motivated to find reasons to declare particular people intelligent or unintelligent are more than happy to use that data to support their claims.

There is more genetic diversity among Africans than among all of the non-African groups. And yet I haven't seen a racial typology that didn't lump all of the Africans into one race, very often while they're trying to declare differences between people in the same European cluster.

One thing I sort of wished was touched on a little more: the concept of country is surprisingly modern. Modern international relations theory tends to trace the concept back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, but honestly, even that is really too early.

The map shown of 14th century Europe is doing better than most in that recognizes that several borders (but still too few) are fuzzy rather than lines on a map. The other problem you run into is that, in most non-state societies (in the Weberian sense of "monopoly on the legitimate use of force"), political linkages tend to be fragile and based more on personal ties so that a Big Man's successor may well repudiate the alliances and homages the Big Man makes. Which makes it hard to draw maps, because is Burgundy a part of France? The Duke of Burgundy is as often as not fighting the French king.

This is what makes adjudicating the "oldest continuous republic" hard, because at what point do we say that the homages San Marino is paying stops counting as being part of that country?

LLVM was never meant to be a virtual machine, which is the reason why its name was ultimately changed. (It's closer to an instantiation of the C abstract machine, which is where the "virtual machine" came from.)

Given that all of the objections are explicitly over contracts, and only contracts, and not any of the other half-assed features in C++26, I don't think it's fair to say that that lesson isn't being drawn.

> As the story goes, these guys pushing contracts systematically pushed a broken proposal by dismissing criticism with bureaucratic chicanery such as purposely ignoring feedback and criticism by claiming that if other people voted in favor of their proposal then they shouldn't need to bother with feedback from those who opposed.

From what I've seen of the story, the opposite is true. The people opposing contracts are the ones who have been engaging with bureaucratic chicanery to try to rip it out of the standard. In the discussions within the committee, they've been given every opportunity to make their case and had their arguments heard, even when those arguments failed to persuade anyone and are simply relitigated again and again in subsequent meetings as if they're new. In at least one national body, the anti-contracts people used the bureaucratic process to change the vote of the national body.

The vote for incorporating contracts into C++ was 100 in favor to 12 against.

Consensus is not the same as a majority vote. But it also doesn't mean that a small minority gets the right to block the feature forever.

I find it amusing that of all of the half-assed features in the standards, it's contracts that causes the vote to fail. I've seen firsthand how the standards committee just fundamentally disempowers anybody from actually objecting to a feature, and yet contracts is the one feature where all of those objections were heard at length, entertained repeatedly, and survived because the small coterie of a dozen or so people were unable to convince the other hundred people of their objections. The C++ committee process is deeply broken, and yet contracts is the one major feature where that process wasn't broken.

Scotland and England were not united into a single Kingdom of Great Britain until 1707 (under Queen Anne), and it did not become the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) until 1800 (under George III). So technically the "U" actually refers to union of Britain and Ireland, not England and Scotland.

Before the Acts of Union of 1707, England and Scotland were not united into one kingdom, but two kingdoms that shared the same king under a personal union.

There's been some modifications to that image for the AI era. I don't know where the original source is to properly credit the creator, but one example is here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/darshan-j-baligeri_all-modern...

Compiler optimizations are a trade-off between compile time, runtime, and code size, mediated by the availability of developer time.

Perfect hashing for switch tables is useful mostly for large, sparse switches, but hot large, sparse switches are rare, and the closest examples I can think of (e.g., parse tables) are themselves likely generated from other tools, which could itself be changed in lieu of the compiler. It really doesn't come across as a useful optimization to try implementing in a compiler.

To hammer this point home:

The sender and the receiver both have a copy of the email. The receiver's MTA pretty much has to have a copy of the email for sane antispam to work. Email itself intrinsically leaks the sender, recipient, and time as part of the SMTP message, which means anyone with access to email server logs can recover this information no matter how much security and encryption you try to put on top of it, and that means that whatever three-letter agency you care about probably has access to all the information they want anyways.

The only meaningful difference in security is going to be whether or not the outgoing MTA is going to try to use (or even require) TLS on the MTA-MTA connection, and what level of encryption is applied to the at-rest email.

Personally, I'm not too fussed about a mail system administrator being able to read my email because of the BOFH principle... it's not worth the sysadmin's time to read my email, because it's just not interesting.

Yes, people use it in practice. But it's not being used for the thing you're thinking of.

RGB is fine for specifying a color. I mean, there are issues with RGB colorspaces and whatnot, but if you need to pick the background of a page or the color of text, there's no real reason not to use RGB.

The problem with RGB is that it is really bad at color interpolation. You can't take the average of the red, green, and blue components of two colors and expect a usable color in the middle to come out. Instead, you need to move to a perceptual color space. CIELAB is the old perceptual color space of choice; Oklab is the new perceptual color space of choice.

Color interpolation is needed for things like gradients or information visualization, where you need to say things like "20% of the way between color A and color B".

I think it's useful to link to a lawyer's take on the utility of a similar tool that was built by somebody else here: https://bsky.app/profile/questauthority.bsky.social/post/3mj...

The tl;dr is that doing git-style change-tracking of the legislation isn't as helpful in practice as you'd think (especially because a lot of the very basic change-tracking is already available in the existing tools that lawyers use!).

Nah, it's pretty damn common in any legal system.

If you've got a statute like "no vehicles in the park," the fundamental issue is that you have to interpret "what is meant by 'vehicle'?" and no legal drafting is going to be good enough to actually cover all the possible cases well enough. The main difference between a common law and a civil law system here is that in a common law system, you have to cite the previous similar cases (because precedent is binding) whereas in a civil law system, you're merely using those previous similar cases as persuasive evidence. At the end of the day, it boils down to arguing for your interpretation.

And in my experience working on language standardization (which is closer to a civil law system than a common law system), it's fairly often that I have to resort to looking up not just when a change in the text occurred, but dive deep into the discussions of the paper proposing the change to understand what the committee thought it was doing with the change. The complexity of law is fairly similar--the changes to the law themselves often require understanding the legislative and interpretative history of the law to understand what the intent of the drafter was to be able to rule on how the law is extended to an unanticipated scenario.

There is definitely an unanswered question as to what the metric, but no, JavaScript is not 90+% by any useful metric. Most code is not a website, and JavaScript penetration outside of the client-side code on a website and some GUI applications on various operating systems is almost nonexistent.

Remember that all of the code in operation includes code like the microcontroller in your mouse, the hundreds of chips in your car doing things like keeping the engine running or "window goes up when I push the button," the DVD menu (which is actually Java code), not to mention all of the staid systems responsible for things like writing your paycheck every other week.

The argument would be that you were elected to the office of Vice President rather than the office of President.

I'm not really sold on the idea that nuclear weapons are a salve against conflict. The only real examples are North Korea not getting invaded and maybe tamping down some of the India-Pakistan conflicts (note that India and Pakistan have had armed conflict with each other since both acquired nuclear weapons!). On the contrary, we can see times where nuclear weapons seem to have emboldened leaders--Putin has definitely played the "you can't retaliate against my aggression, I'll nuke you" card, and the Cuban missile crisis had both the American and Soviet militaries stridently arguing for a nuclear first strike because going second would be so calamitous (it was avoided largely because both Kennedy and Khrushchev were reticent to do so).

One of the striking features of the last decade or so of global politics is the willingness of middle powers to arm and fuel regional conflicts, so I think it entirely plausible that a world where middle powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran gain nuclear weapons is one where, say, the Sudanese Civil War involves nukes.

The general assessment on Iran has long been that they aim to become a nuclear threshold state (have the ability to make nuclear weapons quickly (~1y timeline or less) should they need to), but not actually acquire nuclear weapons for themselves.

In the interests of pedantry, that's not what the writing says. The operative text is quoted here:

> No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

The 'obvious loophole' is that the text doesn't constrain the number of terms anyone can serve, but instead constrains the number of times someone can be elected as president, so if you run as vice president for someone who agrees to immediately resign to let you be president, you technically don't run afoul of the rule.

(The more likely loophole, following from Trump v Colorado, is that nobody is actually allowed to declare somebody ineligible for president, so the constitution's strictures are meaningless in practice. It truly is a disgusting SCOTUS decision.)

> You got Trump and Biden as a direct result of term limits.

The US only enacted term limits in 1951. Before that time, only two presidents had attempted to seek third terms (another two attempted but failed to secure even a nomination by a political party), and only one was successful.

And, quite frankly, the only president since the 22nd amendment who I could see wanting to run for a third term is Trump, who does seem to be campaigning for one anyways despite being constitutionally barred from it.

I think you misread the question I asked.

Nonetheless, even today, the vast majority of countries are not self-sufficient on defense infrastructure, and this has been true for most of the modern era. The most obvious deficiency is in naval terms: the number of countries who have enough of a navy that they can do something about "my shipping is being attacked by pirates" without help from other people is plausibly at most five (US, UK, France, Russia, China), and I have my doubts about half of those.

If we're being pedantic, the US is not a nation-state (because the US doesn't really have a coherent "nation"), and I suspect for similar reasons you could claim that Belgium is not a coherent nation either, given the Flemish/Walloon divisions in the state.

That said, a lot of people use nation state as a synonym for sovereign state, and Belgium is as much a sovereign state as the US is.

Most countries are roughly the size of a US state. How many US states could be entirely self-sufficient on defense infrastructure?

The "... in mice" qualifier is somewhat overdone, but for Alzheimer's in particular, it's actually extremely important: mice do not experience Alzheimer's. We test Alzheimer's drugs in mice by artificially inducing something that produces similar dementia symptoms, and then seeing how the drugs influence that progression. If that model is different from how Alzheimer's works--and there's pretty decent suggestions from the history of failed Alzheimer's drugs in humans that our models of Alzheimer's are in fact wrong--then anything that fixes that model has suspect utility.