Huge spikes over a short period of time are hard to deal with for anyone, and payment processors have their own infra whose scalability Steam can't necessarily control.
471 karma · joined December 28, 2013
The part about interface-typed values [1] is interesting. They do dynamic dispatch as a fallback when the function is too polymorphic to be be specialized.
In Rust terms it's as if it picks between `dyn` and `impl` automatically. It looks convenient, but also a bit of a non-obvious performance pitfall.
[1] https://shader-slang.com/slang/user-guide/interfaces-generic...
For instance, either new physics is involved or it isn't. Finding solid evidence for or against it does not seem impossible, and it would definitely constitute meaningful progress, at the very least by ruling some theories out.
Seems plausible that a detailed enough mapping of correlates one day uncovers a single thing/feature/location/architecure/pattern/whatever that is present only when qualia are, and absent in all other processes. That would at least point us in a concrete direction.
Wanna do quaternions next? :) Many have tried..
I suppose it's the natural way to do it when implementing a language and not thinking about it too much. It makes a for-loop equivalent to a simple while loop with the loop vvariable initialized outside of the loop.
It also makes sense in a statically typed language with union types, think `string | undefined` in TypeScript. The extra layer added by Some/None is not fundamentally necessary for safety.
You can't loosely couple around questions like these most of the time, at last not without excessive abstraction.
For "how do I structure this reasonably isolated 0-1kLOC component", I agree, easy to fix later if needed.
The more code your design decision will affect, the more up-front planning it deserves.
In your example, Scala 2 would let Int32 and Int64 inherit a trait that Str doesn't. TypeScript would let you write a union type Int32 | Int64 that doesn't include Str (or add ExtraValue), and I think Scala 3 will have something very similar.
- they seem to recognize the problems caused by recommendation engines optimizing for engagement
- they seem to oppose automated content filtering
My main worry is that attacking targeted advertising misses the mark: platforms would still be incentivized to optimize for engagement. Forcing platforms to make algorithmic recommendations optional would be as useless as all these cookie warnings.
I didn't see anything about encryption based on a cursory read. Does WebRTC have some built in or is this unencrypted?
Impressive! I've understood this to be a hard problem. Unity has promised this for years but still hasn't delivered, last time I looked.
Is there anywhere we could read more about the tradeoffs and challenges involved?
Also, how widely has this been tested?
Perhaps most importantly: how can I extend this determinism to my own code?
There are nuances about the UI and wording as discussed elsewhere in this thread, but my main objection is about Apple positioning themselves as the only one who decides which apps don't get that warning.
> [..] I don't think Apple will ever relinquish the strategic power to force developers to adopt APIs and track their lifecycle, and never again have to deal with the Flash scenario.
I don't see how alternative stores would prevent Apple from breaking backwards-compatibility on an OS they would still control. Even open source projects do BC breaks as they see fit. And I think Microsoft demonstrates that proper BC is something a company the size of Apple could well afford to do if they cared to.
The Flash case could be seen to support my position as well. Wasn't it a case of Adobe getting into a dominant position (for their particular niche) and then "abusing" it by letting Flash stagnate with awful security? It's good that we eventually got rid of Flash, but wouldn't it have all been much easier if Adobe had never become that dominant in the first place?
You can of course say Apple would never let something stagnate in that way, but all companies have their (sometimes shifting) priorities and interests. Often they'll align with you as the user - that's the nice thing about capitalism - but there's no guarantee that they always will (e.g. that Hong Kong example), and a dominant player in the absence of healty competition is always incentivized to charge as much as the market will bear.
> If they let the door open to "alternative stores" good luck explaining to the general public how it's not their fault if <insert major app> works like shite and kills hardware performance.
Is this really that big of a problem? Seems like something platforms already deal with by surfacing and by default restricting apps' energy use etc, though this too can be a double-edged sword. I have a few apps on Android that need to constantly show a pointless notification just so they can run in the background, and they have legit reasons to do so, and I'm OK with the battery drain.
Again I'm compelled to draw an analogy to society: freedom indeed requires some degree of responsibility and understanding from everyone. Benevolent dictators are a great place to "outsource" all that. The trouble is that they (or their successors) rarely stay benevolent for long, especially if you're not in their ingroup. I've yet to see power accumulation have good long-term consequences in history.
Even giving warnings by default about unsigned apps requesting high privileges would be fine if the implied message weren't basically "everything we haven't checked is malware". Something like "We nor any other provider you've chosen to trust have no idea who made this and we haven't checked if it contains malware. This program may steal and delete all your files. Be really sure you trust the author before running this." would be much more honest.
Good security does not require a single entity becoming the sole gatekeeper and taxman for a huge fraction of users.
> Why must everyone constantly have to risk their own neck to defend someone else’s perception of freedom. Why should they all pay (in terms of risk and time mitigating against it) for something that benefits someone else alone?
I'm not advocating for Windows-levels of "install anything with access to everything with barely any warnings". And I wouldn't say you're "constantly risking your own neck" if you deliberately ignore warnings.
In computing as in society, I don't see how we can remove all possibility of getting cheated into hurting yourself (by installing malware in this case) without essentially submitting to some form of autocracy. And I think freedom benefits almost everyone, at least indirectly. As a concrete example, in the Apple/Epic case, an alternative game store would likely result in healthier competition i.e. lower prices. As another example, Hong Kong protesters with iPhones would have had an alternative way to coordinate: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49919459