>to my fellow local USsians.
I think you illustrated why the concept exists. USA actually has "America" in its name, unlike others - hence 'Americans' and not 'USsians'.
9,911 karma · joined September 1, 2011
I think you illustrated why the concept exists. USA actually has "America" in its name, unlike others - hence 'Americans' and not 'USsians'.
In general, I agree with your sentiment, but there are competent people in the administration. However, all of them are paralyzed because Trump can alter any plan or policy at a whim, and he insists being involved in everything. And you can see that in the interviews Bessent or even Lutnick give - where they hedge everything because they know it could change any minute. For example, there was no plan to set 145% tariffs on Chinese imports, Trump just did it out of nowhere on TruthSocial.
That's also true of foreign policy in general. Rubio and State Department have zero power at the moment. Neither the Russia-Ukraine peace plan, nor Iranian nuclear arms control, nor Gaza-Israel negotiations are going through the State Department.
>All of this is happening so the wealthiest 1000 people, who already pay almost no taxes, can pay slightly less in taxes.
I disagree with that. This all happening because Trump is incompetent but also arrogant and highly opinionated. I don't think there is a nefarious plan here. Trump probably really does think that you can replace income tax with tariff revenue.
You're making it seem that there's a plan ... but what if this is just regular incompetence coupled with capricious behavior from a chaos agent?
I'm watching various officials give interviews and all of them are non-committal as it pertains to expectations. Why? Because none of them actually know!!! Trump has arbitrarily and capriciously changed "the plan" many times.
Where did you get that?
Immutability does not mean replicating the 'process model'. It means removing (limiting) an entire class of bugs from your multithreaded code. There will still be shared areas - and those should be controlled.
Sorry, where did you get that this deal is for _FUTURE_ military resources??? Seriously - where did you hear that?
The only way the Trump administration characterized the mineral deal is as repayment for PAST military aid, even though it was perfectly understood that those were GRANTS (i.e. there were no terms attached to the military aid). The Trump administration also accused Ukraine of cheating/tricking the US/Biden administration to get this military aid ... and also of starting the war ... and also of being a dictatorship ... and also of being an obstacle to peace.
Trump administration also made it clear that the mineral deal is NOT a security guarantee, nor is the mineral deal payment for FUTURE military aid.
------------
It is a common pattern that whenever Trump says X, apologists, like you, come out of the woodwork and say something like "Well, what he really meant to say is Y".
Yes, it would be different if the mineral deal was payment for future military aid .. but it isn't - so why are you saying that?
OP should go through the rest of the code and see if there are other places where collections are potentially operated by multiple threads.
>The easiest way to fix this was to wrap the TreeMap with Collections.synchronizedMap or switch to ConcurrentHashMap and sort on demand.
That will make the individual map operations thread-safe, but given that nobody thought of concurrency, are you sure series of operations are thread-safe? That is, are you sure the object that owns the tree-map is thread-safe. I wouldn't bet on it.
>Controversial Fix: Track visited nodes
Don't do that! The collection will still not be thread-safe and you'll just fail in some other more subtle way .. either now, or in the future (if/when the implementation changes in the next Java release).
>Sometimes, a detail oriented developer will notice the combination of threads and TreeMap, or even suggest to not use a TreeMap if ordered elements are not needed. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen in this case.
That's not a good take-away! OP, the problem is you violating the contract of the collection, which is clear that it isn't thread-safe. The problem ISN'T the side-effect of what happens when you violate the contract. If you change TreeMap to HashMap, it's still wrong (!!!), even though you may not get the side-effect of a high CPU utilization.
---------
When working with code that is operated on by multiple threads, the only surefire strategy I found was to to make every possible object immutable and limiting any object that could not be made immutable to small, self-contained and highly controlled sections. We rewrote one of the core modules following these principles, and it went from being a constant source of issues, to one of the most resilient sections of our codebase. Having these guidelines in place, also made code reviews much easier.
Yes. This is exactly what it is. It is a "pragmatic compromise" to side-step major internal cultural and philosophical issues (not technical issues). You're basically telling a number of C maintainers that they can simply pretend Rust doesn't exist, even if it may be the case that Rust code is the primary consumer of that API. That's a workable solution, but it isn't an ideal solution - and that's a little sad.
Yes. And that involves not completely ignoring an entire universe of consumers of your API, *as a general policy*. This is especially true with modules that may have Rust code as the primary consumer of the API.
I admit, I don't know what not ignoring Rust code by maintainer means in practice, and I agree it shouldn't mean that the C maintainer code-reviews the Rust bindings, or has veto power over the entire Rust module, or that the maintainer vets the architecture or design of the Rust module, or is on the Rust module mailing list. But it also shouldn't be that as a *general policy*, the C maintainer does not take any interest in how the API is consumed by Rust, and worse, pretends Rust doesn't exist.
>So if someone wants to write software in Rust that just uses the DMA driver, that should be fine.
That part is sensible. Did I argue otherwise?
What if you're in a world where Rust code is either a significant or primary consumer of your interface ... surely as the API designer, you have to take some interest in how your API is consumed.
I'm not saying you become the owner of Rust bindings, or that you have to perform code-reviews, or that you have veto power over the module .. but you can't pretend Rust doesn't exist.
I don't know ... I think it's 'properly rated'. The movie is deeply flawed but it has stayed in public consciousness and is (fondly) remembered. The first half is pretty good. The second half is a total mess and makes the entire plot, characterization and pacing unsalvageable. The visual art style is generally great, but there are some glaring misses.
What is an example of that, because I governments do a reasonable of moving towards a global min/max. Where we haven't gone towards a global max/min is because it's actually hard. In many cases, the global min/max either isn't well defined, or if it is, you have to contend with existing infrastructure and huge costs to get there. For example, upgrading the electric grid to support massive amount of solar and wind power, is a multi-decade/multi-trillion dollar initiative (and this assumes solar and wind is even a 'global max/min' for carbon reduction .. and it isn't clear it is) ...
Are they though? We're quite good (and dare I say it: 'efficient') at feeding, housing and transporting huge populations. Almost all the inefficiencies you mentioned are preference and/or comfort based. Society is not separated from laws of physics and economics. Everything is balanced against the cost of those services - when/if costs go up, you do tend to see corresponding change, typically in efficiency increase (e.g. smaller more efficient cars as gas prices go up).
>endless streams of 2000kg+ hunk of steel, plastic and glass, 95% of them transport about 80kg of human, 95% of the time they're just parked taking space for no reason.
That's true ... kind of ... there is a cost for car ownership and use that is different in different regions. If you're in New York, you're probably not driving to work.
The human part of car ownership is freedom. It's not ultra efficient to own a car, but there is something about it that is liberating for many people of all economic statuses. Most likely, in the future, car ownership will go away for the vast majority of people, and it will be sad when it does.
I found it reasonable.
The 5% improvement was balanced against the cons of increased cli complexity, lack of native JS zopfli implementation, and slower compression .. and 5% just wasn't worth it at the moment - and I agree.
>or at least I think they warrant further discussion
I think that was the final statement.
The rhetoric may be superficially similar, but facts on the ground aren't. The Russian state is not under an existential threat in the same way that Israel would be with Hezbollah in the north, and a similar entity in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is a tiny nation with a tiny population. Russian and Israel's security issues are simply not comparable.
>talking about the West Bank doesn't justify anything to do with Gaza, which is geographically separate
They are linked, and highlight the core problem to Israel - namely - disengagement does not work with a hostile entity.
Israel in 2005 disengaged from Gaza. It wasn't a full disengagement as Israel still exerted control over the airspace and territorial water, but it also wasn't nothing and it was an olive-branch and a big opportunity. Instead it resulted in a Hamas electoral victory, and rocket attacks, and a circle of retaliatory actions from Israel and Hamas. Imagine a world, where post-disengagement there were no attacks from Gaza, no preparation for war and smuggling of weapons into Gaza by Hamas - by this point, where would we be? Would Israel still maintain the same kind of blockade? I just don't think so. I truly believe it would be a model for permanent peace and Palestinian statehood.
>And why the 1967 borders rather than the 1948 ones?
I mentioned 1967 borders, because as best as I can gather, that is the current Palestinian position. Although it isn't clear exactly what the Palestinian position is as Palestinians do tend to maintain some level of ambiguity on this point.
> If Israel's war is with Iran, why is that war not being carried out in Iran?
It goes the other way actually - Iran is at war with Israel. Iran is using proxies, Hamas, and Hezbollah to strike at Israel.
Israel, as it it currently constituted (based on 1967 borders) is not a viable state if the West Bank is a hostile entity with a standing army, and funded to a similar extent as Hezbollah. The West Bank bulges into Israel and effectively cuts the country in half and places all strategic targets within shelling distance.
The Palestinian position seems to be "trust us that if you give us full, un-fettered independence, then we will not be a hostile entity" - but that's asking for Israel to place an enormous amount of trust in present and future Palestinian people and leaders, without any historical reasons to base this on, and highlighted by the worst case scenario of Hezbollah in the north, a foreign-controlled militia funded to the tune of 1 billion / year, and potential a hostile party in the West Bank (and Gaza) - effectively surrounding the country.
And it is more than just demilitarization. A demilitarized Palestine is not enough if, for example, Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars in arms to militia groups.
Hence we are where we are .. with Israel unable to disengage because doing so presents an existential risk to their nation.
Was it expected? Eh - kind of. In the last few weeks much of Trudeau's cabinet has resigned or voiced their disapproval. NDP has signaled they would support bringing down the government.
You highlight the danger of goal setting - where the goal becomes an end onto itself. I disagree with your adjustment however. It's too vague as written, and if you attach KRs to it, you'll end up where you started (with a KR like 'improve fps performance of game X by 25%')
Ideally, you fix the issue, but you track it as having impact on achieving the OKR. Achieving OKRs should not be seen as a "be-all and end-all" ... Failing an OKR should be seen as a opportunity for improvement. If the corporation sets a goal of improving game FPS performance but is unable to meet it because of technical debt, that is good information that needs to be managed.
WHERE???? Nobody gets their electricity this way at any reasonable scale.
>- Never exceed the speed limit or follow too closely
I would give credit to Waymo and Self-Driving systems for this. The promise of self-driving is that it won't do stupid things that humans may do that increase chance of accident.
Because PII detection is a probabilistic exercise. You will miss things.
Having said that, I am usually empathetic to these kinds of 'unlimited' deals because even though they aren't really 'unlimited', they do tend to be generous to the average use-case and average user .. Inevitably, and unfortunately, someone decides to test the limits and the entire thing collapses.
It reminds me of the Blockbuster "No more late fees" policy, which was a really good customer-friendly policy (speaking as someone who regularly returned rentals late) .. but then they were sued because an aspect of the policy had Blockbuster charging the cost of the rental to the customer if it wasn't returned in some period of time .. and because that charge looked like a 'late fee' they got sued. Urgh.