910 karma · joined April 13, 2019
I believe this comes from the fact that I am presented with a new _kind_ of bug: async syscall corrupting memory because the stack was unrolled (by an exception). And I integrate this is my mental debug checklist.
Because compiler cannot prove that what you're doing is safe it is your responsibility to do so. Once you've _proven_ that your unsafe code is safe, then it cannot have propagating effects in the rest of the code.
A lot of people get this confused. They think unsafe means you can do whatever you want. In reality it means you'll play by the rules even if the compiler cannot verify them all. In truth it is not as hard as it sounds, we do it in C all the time.
Facebook actually accepts three forms of your password:
* Your original password.
* Your original password with the first letter capitalized. This is only for mobile devices, which sometimes capitalize the first character of a word.
* Your original password with the case reversed, for those with a caps lock key on.
[0]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-passwords-are-not-cas...
I can't certainly imagine the pressure of those involved in causing and fixing this issue.
> ping facebook.com
PING facebook.com (31.13.83.36) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from edge-star-mini-shv-01-mad1.facebook.com (31.13.83.36): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=12.2 ms
64 bytes from edge-star-mini-shv-01-mad1.facebook.com (31.13.83.36): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=12.1 ms
64 bytes from edge-star-mini-shv-01-mad1.facebook.com (31.13.83.36): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=11.7 ms
Can't yet traceroute to a.ns.facebook.com tho
I discovered it yesterday and migrated my backup system to FreeFileSync (well, actually I made a double backup with the old and new system). It is _AWESOME_. I finally feel in control of my backups.
I am not sure if the market has fully collapsed (Unfortunately?).
I don't see people commenting on this one! That may be a good thing because it means people are not questioning it :)
So cool. I wish there were more steps in this direction.
> Should these be mandatory?
As an outsider, I would say no. However that should have a detrimental effect on the ability to get published if you are from an academic institution. I can totally see a gray area when it comes to non-academic publishers.
> There's also the question of what code should be made public
Shouldn't it be as much as possible? The way I see it is that the easier to replicate a paper, the more people can focus on its true utility. That is, by abstracting ourselves away over the details of the paper, what does this really contribute? From my point of view, publishing as much as possible maximizes the real-world impact of the research.
- It would be much harder to hide makeup results and cherry-picked seeds
- Useless research would not be as easy to hide
- The real-world impact of the research would be more valued.
- Researchers would be forced to recheck their code for it to be presentable, which could be a net benefit in terms of finding mistakes
- and so on..
I do imagine this could harm the number of replications of the research. However, I think there can be a net positive effect from such a policy. What do you think?
This upgrade is awesome.
Otherwise, I can impersonate anyone with any name and contact image that I want. The way it is set up, you are the only one who has control over the displayed name (with fallback to the phone number). I actually like it that way.
As a native Catalan myself I was quite surprised by the title.
This kills my soul. UML is being presented as a way to abstract away from the actual processes. But not everything can be abstracted away. The fact that we need to picture a UML diagram to represent a user stuck in FTP is outright a waste of time, money and human labor.
You can read about it here: https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4197
I didn't start this project and I am not the sole contributor. The project is medium-sized.
I hope PEP 649 or a similar proposal is approved before 3.10.
I think this is a pretty decent example of a Neural Net becoming better at something than humans are.
BQ is liquidating [0].
[0]: https://www.lainformacion.com/empresas/fabricante-moviles-bq...
Because I have seen quite a few consumers get guided too much by the "more frequency, more better" motto.
Moreover, it doesn't stop there. I have seen papers where the only thing cited is the frequency of the processors, and no other reference to the manufacturer/architecture/version of the processors used.
> IPC itself is somewhat arbitrary. in the real world, IPC constantly varies with the mix of instructions, cache-friendliness of the program/data, memory performance, etc.
Absolutely, I would also be skeptical of an "IPC" metric. Performance is the only thing that counts.
Sure, but the performance doesn't scale linearly with the frequency. So how can we account for that? Also, the i9 10900F and i9-10850K have the same turbo. How long can they sustain in for? On how many cores? What frequency is left afterward? This gets even weirder with more recent technologies that push the frequency higher depending on power delivery stability and thermal constraints.
I agree; the frequency is indicative of performance within a product lifecycle. But I find it too meaningless to give an approximate delta on the performance. And this assumes the process you are running is not too much memory bottlenecked or I/O bound and this delta in performance can be measured. (And the setup can sustain higher thermals).
While not perfect, I prefer to look up benchmarks that resemble my workload and call it a day. Processors are too complicated for me to try to compare with simple numbers.
To me, the frequency has become a "blob". It means nothing. If anything, I see more frequency and I think more power draw and less stability.
Real performance is a function of IPC and frequency and that is the only thing that really matters.