muxator

Thank you. Sorry for my bad English. "This July" from now on :)

For context: it seems that the author passed away on last July

https://www.winchesteruu.org/2023/07/25/joys-sorrows-and-tra...

The top intuitive to use TUI editors in my heart will always be: - MS Dos Edit - Turbo Pascal 6

Edit felt like a windows application: select with shift+arrows, move fast with ctrl+home/end.

Turbo Pascal's keybindings were a bit influenced by WordStar's, I think, so a bit old style already at the time. But, my friend, the TUI Toolkit, TurboVision! What did they do there! Multiple windows that could be dragged and resized, blazingly fast. All of this on a 486 with megabytes of ram.

I never found any TUI editors like those two.

Complete final program for the laziest of us (after incorporating @10000truths's advice):

  const int main[] __attribute__ ((section(".text"))) = {
      -443987883, 440, 113408, -1922629632,
      4149, 899584, 84869120, 15544,
      266023168, 1818576901, 1461743468, 1684828783,
      -1017312735
  };

Compilation (gcc 13):

  $ gcc -Wall main.c -o main
  main.c:1:11: warning: ‘main’ is usually a function [-Wmain]
      1 | const int main[] __attribute__ ((section(".text"))) = {
        |           ^~~~
  /tmp/ccsWmdiD.s: Assembler messages:
  /tmp/ccsWmdiD.s:4: Warning: ignoring changed section attributes for .text

Execution:

  $ ./main 
  Hello World!

What was the power consumption of these chips?

More interesting yet it would be to know the Power/speed ratio compared to modern chips.

Now I know I'll never be half the father this guy is!

Yeah, agreed: in that case spinning a container is evidently an operational advantage.

However, I was specifically answering to the different case highlighted by the parent comment: how a potentially cohesive application is cut along some of its internal APIs, and some functionality is allocated to different processes living in different containers.

It is an extreme point in the continuum "single thread" -> "multi thread" -> "multiple processes" -> "fully distributed". In that continuum scalability increases, while efficiency progressively decreases.

Cornering oneself to a specific point in the design space is problematic, and for some cases has direct implications on how many resources are wasted.

A very didactic experience is, for example, running a simple local application under a microarchitecture profiler, such as Intel Vtune. It is not uncommon seeing that even straightforward C/C++ programs use a core resources less than 10%.

What I am reflecting about is that the choice of fragmenting that program among tens of systems (maybe in a scripting langiage) should be conscious, and done after encountering performance or scalability bottlenecks.

How much of the resulting total system workload would be useful work?

The quantity of potentially wasted resources is astonishing if you think about it.

> Instead of composing libraries into an executable you can use containers to compose services into an application

This is the most concise and exact definition I've heard lately.

My only problem with the consequences of this approach is that the amount of overhead for performing the same operations is astonishing.

Messages pass on a network instead of stsying in RAM, CPU context switches every other ms to handle IO for what could have been a simple function call, etc.

It's amazing when it's needed, but seeing this approach becoming the standard for a big part of the industry almost turns it into an environmental problem. How much energy is wasted juggling bits around?

Thanks for this comment! It is a very helpful design document for improving one's future event loops architecture!

256-QAM encodes 4 bits on the "phase" component and 4 on the quadrature one. They can be regarded as independent signals. Think about a sin() and a cos() being orthogonal to each other even for the same frequency.

Same effect here, and same bad conclusions about the world's smell. It's like a superpower, only detrimental.

Humble question:

> Maybe (optionals) - chain steps and abort if any step is empty.

Could this be (remotely) akin to the following shell pattern?

    set -o pipefail
    cmd1 | cmd2 | ...

This would either return the result of a successful execution of tje whole pipe, or return at the first command erroring out.

Does it make any sense?

Yep, github too is guilty of this sin.

I think this is a normal (and unhealthy) consequence of the JS browser APIs keeping expandong. A sort of Greenspuns Tenth Rule Of Programming that happened on the web platform.

I am not sure there is a cure. Every successful platform would have been bound to eventually become that.

> Prompt engineering is kind of like alchemy. There's no clear way to predict what will work best. It's all about experimenting

I know this sentence is true for prompt engineering, but please help me with my language barrier. Is the meaning of "engineering" in this context more akin to "hammering out"? Does English have a specific ambiguity here? In my language "to engineer" means a specific technical activity with strong scientific roots, and a regulated profession. You cannot legally call yourself an engineer unless you jave a specific university degree and have a specific certification.

Nothing of what is described in this sentence would ever have anything to do with "engineering".

If I'm not mistaken the linux port of ZFS that later became OpenZFS started at LLNL and was a port from FreeBSD (it may have been release ~9).

I believe it was called ZFS On Linux or something like that.

Nice how things have evolved: from FreeBSD to linux and back. In my mind this has always been a very inspiring example of a public institution working for the public good.

Limiting the scope to software, I'd say it's fair to distinguish MIT licenses from GPL. The latter provides way more freedom for the user (as opposed to corporations willing to profit without giving back). I am fair more comfortable contributing to an AGPLv3 software as opposed to a MIT licensed one.

I can't talk about licensing for content creators (like youtube), because I do not have much experience about it.

At the dawn of browser sync technologies, it was possible to self host a Firefox sync server. I think I remember there was a component for authentication and one for storage proper. You could use each one of them, or both.

Is this still a thing? How would today's firefox handle a custom sync server?

Thanks for explaining.

I never really used Tumblr, I just know it's the site Yahoo bought many years ago instead of Netflix.

The website in this submission is probably just a low technical effort site. This would explain its flaws.

This site is impossible to visit on my setup. Firefox 114, default tracking protection, uBlock origin with default settings.

I am not interested in spending time debugging it, and I can live without seeing those photos.

Better spend that time whining here, where I suppose the ratio of web developers is high: what happened to web development? How come is it so complicated to write a site that displays some photos without falling apart at the first not-totally-mainstream user agent?

Just wow.

There are many facets to security. I would not like someone to have shell access + bash, curl, awk, jq in a container that has full network access to sensitive systems in my applications both upstream and downstream.

As per the dependencies of important projects: yep, I read their release notes. And since I do no like to do it, I try to keep them to a minimum, unless it is a prototype or a research project.

I get everyone has his sensibility, but please next time try to respect those who have a different attitude. Nobody attacked you or wants to.

I understand this is easy for a developer, but I think it is not responsible security-wise: that container is a whole toolbox at the disposal of whoever may breach in it.

On top of this, as some sibling commenters were saying, it is a waste of bandwidth, time and disk space.

Thanks, just today I decided that the current status of Meld (https://meldmerge.org/) was untenable for me.

It used to be a fast program, with a reasonable interface.

For a long time now its interface has been "simplifed" following GNOME 3's User Interface Guidelines, and everything ended up being hidden inside a hamburger menu.

But what definitely made it untenable was not the UX, but its tendency to crash and being really slow under the slightest load.

I was considering contributing to the project, but honestly a better engineered alternative would be welcome.

Thanks for the info (and thanks Kai Willadsen for Meld).

> Some compiler needs to implement -Wunderbar

Hidden gem!

On a more serious note, the author of this little proposal (officializing "_" as a no name placeholder) had to perform a thorough research to show that this change would not break existing code.

This kind of attention is necessary for a language with broad scope and a long successful history such as C++, and would be for every other language with such characteristics.

While more modern languages benefit from the errors of the older ones, I do not think they will be exempt from this kind of responsible growth process when they will become decades old.

Hidden gem! Thanks!

And this is by Demônios da Garoa no less! A band that has been existing for more than 80 years now.

I do not know why you were downvoted.

What a badass program it was!

Not every sshd is configured to allow port forwarding. In fact, I'd expect that on critical systems this is explicitly forbidden.

> Power can sometimes be won or maintained without violence, but never without fraud, because it is necessary to make use of the masses, and the masses would not co-operate if they knew that they were simply serving the purposes of a minority.

This depends on when you started using the web. 15 years ago an (additional) navigation bar at the bottom was not surprising.

Hamburgher menus, albeit fancy, where really confusing at the start. Personally I still think overusing them is design laziness.