native_samples

Intellij Ultimate does the first two already. You can create new inspections using structured search and then mark any matches as errors. I've done this to make usage of one or two awkward APIs safer. Or you can quickly write a bit of new inspection logic if your inspection can't be expressed using a structured search. Those can be stored in tree.

It also has a pretty powerful diagramming tool.

Intellij does this (for html files at least)

No. There are tons of people who sympathise with that viewpoint.

The "death of expertise" phenomenon is given a grandiloquent title to cover up what it's really about: the death of trust in academia. Experts are a much larger category of people than academics and there's no generalized crisis of confidence in e.g. plumbers, electrical engineers, advertising executives, whatever. But those people are rarely interviewed as "experts" by the media and political classes. Instead, when these people push for new social policies on the back of "expertise" it's always academics.

And that's a problem because universities don't care about quality control at all and so academic expertise is absolutely overrun with fraud, stupidity, dishonesty and pervasively low standards. The average well read intelligent person not only can beat the career scientist in many fields, but often will, simply because the distorting effects of the academic system are so large.

Indie movies are absolutely notorious for their habit of appealing to low intelligence people, it's practically their main market. They don't have much budget to tell an interesting story with, and are often being written by grant funded people without much experience and who are just desperate to make a movie (any movie) so they end up relying a lot on faux depth and complicated BS to make the movie seem like it has more to say than it really does. Critics lap that stuff up but most people who just want to be entertained with a risky but well made idea that doesn't puff itself up, the bigger studios are where you'll find them.

Given Netflix comp levels, "trying to survive" might be overplaying it. The reason for the schadenfreude mentioned in the article is the massive cost inflation Netflix spending levels created.

I think a lot of the discussion in this thread could be summed up as, maybe Netflix should have been content to be a low margin tech supplier to the studios rather than try and spend it's way to becoming a new Disney. A lot of tech firms are built off the back of the fact that it seems to be harder for other industries to learn how to be a tech firm than the other way around. Streaming video is clearly one of those cases where it's the opposite and that fact had been hidden for a long time by the flood of QE funny money.

For what it's worth, even though I don't agree with you, your post really should not have been flagged to death. I don't see what rules it's breaking so I vouched for you to bring it back.

Ok thanks, that's interesting. It sounds strange, but I can see how this isn't much of an argument against constitutions after all.

Presumably companies were simply complying rather than getting fined. Companies are generally way more law abiding than individuals, it's a rare legal department that would sign off on "let's ignore the law and hope it gets struck down before we get fined and dragged through the mud". Would that even be compatible with the rules around ensuring shareholder value?

Nobody is arguing there are no biases or suboptimal behaviours in the global economy, only that so far capitalism is the best system known for optimizing out those suboptimal behaviours. And that in particular, having governments try to short-circuit the process often make things worse rather than better.

"Tax brackets, medicaid, and public schools, to name a few. None of those are communism"

Tax brackets and medicaid are indeed not communism, though in a communist system Medicaid would be the only option. Those are safety nets, not forced equalization of outcomes (state schools aren't really a safety net, and in my view shouldn't exist; governments have a poor track record with education and ensuring everyone has access to it could be done in other ways like voucher schemes).

"A mandate for diversity on corporate boards wouldn't be communism either - it'd be an attempt to undo historical biases that give people unequal opportunities based on their race or gender."

These laws aren't safety nets designed to ensure a minimum quality of life for all. They are communism because they are direct attempts to enforce equality of outcome for only special demographic groups who are favoured by the ideology.

Well, I didn't say I agreed with it, just that it's one of the stronger arguments. Creating a constitution is a fraught project that requires referendums and the like, so people have to believe it works. If courts are willing to injunct unconstitutional laws then why didn't it happen here?

There are lots of changes that could, indirectly, increase equality of outcomes, but:

1. Enforcing outcome equality directly by force of government, which is what we're discussing here, is pretty much the raison d'etre of communism

and

2. It starts from the premise that if an outcome isn't equal then there's automatically a problem created by people, which isn't true.

European countries are capitalist democracies though (modulo the EU institutions themselves, which aren't, but let's put that to one side). The differences between Europe and the USA are tiny compared to the differences between capitalism and communism. They aren't profoundly different third ways or anything like that. I live in Europe and the place I live has mandatory health insurance, rule of law, relatively free speech, a strong finance sector, good ease of doing business and high inwards migration. From the perspective of an average person life here isn't much different to life in the USA.

W.R.T. Europe doing better on those statistics, can you cite that? It's not really true I think. The USA and western European countries are comparable in terms of percentage of migrants:

https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/wmr-2020-interactive/

USA is ~15%, similar to the UK, Spain, France, Germany. Of course they would all be much higher if controls were relaxed. Many people would like to migrate to the USA but cannot, even from western Europe. Notably pale on the map: eastern Europe, China, Russia, Latin America etc. Migration stats are as I said - communist countries have very low numbers of immigrants and capitalist countries, which certainly includes western Europe, have much higher rates.

For life expectancy it's the same story. USA and Europe are very similar. The USA is a bit lower, probably due to higher rates of obesity, but there's not much in it. China, Russia and especially North Korea are both quite a bit lower.

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

"We could for example consider an economic system that included a basic income, which would allow it to be much more redistributive while still being market based"

Theoretical non-capitalist, non-communist systems are usually communist on close inspection. UBI is communism in its purist form, renaming it doesn't change that. If you want to know how well paying people regardless of work goes, take a look at the current rates of inflation, backlogs in government services and economic chaos that lockdowns and furloughs led to. That's peanuts compared to what a meaningfully sized UBI would entail.

You're wrong for objective reasons. People try to immigrate to the capitalist democracies at very high rates. The same is not true of communist states, which historically had to build actual walls to keep people in.

You can try to blow off actual, concrete performance in metrics everyone agrees on like "do people actually want to live in a place", life expectancies or things like food/medicine quality, but you will still be wrong by the mass collective judgement of many billions of people over a period of a century or more. Claiming otherwise is like claiming 2 + 2 = 0. There are no such things as walls around capitalist democracies to stop citizens from fleeing.

By "the consensus" you mean the press stopped reporting on objections and now tell you there's consensus?

There's obviously no consensus that it's positive. It's clearly, very obviously and very badly negative. It's blatantly sexist discrimination against men who have done nothing wrong, which is deeply immoral. It also many other subtle negative effects. It degrades the language and confidence in the rule of law because these laws that make people unequal are invariably presented as "equality" laws. It also makes it impossible to respect women on boards! Everyone knows they might be there only to satisfy a legal quota, not because anyone actually respected their abilities. I've actually heard quite a few women opine that they start out suspicious of women in powerful positions these days, because they know directly how easy it is to get there on the back of feminism, but they need competent services in that moment and not a job. If you want to create anti-female sexism where none should exist, forcibly replacing men for sexist reasons is a great way to do it across the board.

A constitution is just a piece of paper. It only has meaning because people respect it. Passing a law you know violates a constitution is a direct attack on the rule of law itself, and should probably come with penalties attached. Certainly, the fact that politicians in the USA very regularly and blatantly pass laws they know will be struck down by the courts a few years later is one of the stronger arguments I've seen for why the UK shouldn't bother with setting up a written constitution. It's got no teeth. Governments can simply pass and enforce illegal laws, exploiting the lack of speed and capacity in the court system. Then when one gets struck down, just pass another in a similar way.

There's no actual evidence that women on boards yields better outcomes, it's just another false belief propagated by junk studies.

But even if there was, would that be a good reason to act on it? This "logic" never seems to be deployed in men's favour. It's obvious that strong male firefighters will have better outcomes than female firefighters, that's why New York had to make the qualification tests easier in order to hire more women. Yet the rules were changed anyway.

"I honestly don't know how anyone can believe the market will find the optimal outcome."

Because of enormous amounts of history, theory and practice showing that it will? BTW the "confused, reactionary, panicky, racist, sexist, bigoted people" would appear to describe the people breaking the law in order to ban men from powerful positions on the basis of their gender, wouldn't it.

Normally working out how a complex piece of software works from only the source code is called reverse engineering.

I've encountered this "readable code means I don't have to document" idea before. I have no time for it, it's just wrong:

1. Important things aren't easily visible in the code, most commonly why the code does a particular thing. "Readable" code, which is a very subjective standard, can only tell you what it does but not the underlying rationale.

2. Writing docs often exposes the fact that the way the code works, or is expected to be used, doesn't make sense or is sub-optimal. If your docs include lots of caveats or explanations of nonsensical behaviour then it's a good hint you should go back and think again.

3. Figuring out stuff by reading the code is often drastically slower than reading the docs. That's why all professional APIs have good docs and people grumble and moan when expected to use code that doesn't.

4. The sort of people who argue this, in my experience, often don't actually write readable code, they just tell themselves they do.

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say, this part:

> We also write tons of useless papers, to justify that we are productive with this money.

doesn't seem to be a logical part of your argument. Writing useless papers is not a form of insurance nor proof that work is being done. It's rather the end product, what all the 'insurance' is trying to ensure gets done. The fact that academia outputs a torrential flood of useless papers has little relevance to the corporate world where the final product is, hopefully, useful despite sometimes being inefficient to get there. After all companies that produce truly useless outputs do eventually get the rug pulled from underneath them, either by bankruptcy or forced sale.

Well, it's worse than that. The whole schtick is that it's only pure, real content by folksy people like us. The top reason to use it on the about page is:

Indexes only user-submitted sites with a moderation layer on top, for a community-based approach to content curation, rather than indexing the entire internet with all of its spam, "search engine optimisation" and "click-bait" content.

So I tried searching [kotlin] and got 123 results ...

https://searchmysite.net/search/?q=kotlin

... of which the 9th result is SEO spam! It reads:

PersonalSit.es | Yes we got hot and fresh sites https://personalsit.es/ ... Shandilyahttps://msfjarvis.devTagsandroid, kotlin, rust Go to feed Go to siteradoslawkoziel.plradoslawkoziel.pl ...

That looks like junk to me. How is that possible if what the developer says is true, that it's all verified and pre-moderated?

Didn't azakai just say that?

> That has a standard deviation of 0.5 in the very worst case

followed by

> the standard deviation of a random sample scales like 1 over the square root of the sample size, so 0.5 divided by 10 => 0.05 (5%).

What does heavyweight mean here? You can compile truffle interpreters to a single native binary, if that's what is being meant here.

Not sure where you see the condescending manner in that thread. Honestly having read about this storm-in-a-teacup in various discussions without having previously read the thread that started it, it all seems remarkably mild and polite compared to expectations.

At the end you can see Casey is getting frustrated and doesn't really understand the WT team's responses, or why they're making a big deal out of it. The WT team in the meantime clearly feel they have higher priorities than raising performance in their legacy code, don't relish tossing their rendering pipeline to make a new one, and don't understand why Casey is so focused on performance. But they're definitely trying to find some mutual understanding and Casey is clearly trying to help them. There are way worse programmers-butting-heads threads out there.

Here's a controversial thought: the reason this blew up in such a big way isn't really to do with any of the people involved or their tone on some random GH issue but rather what this says about Microsoft and the general decay of the Windows platform. That frustration is widespread and totally understandable. The Microsoft devs on that thread all come across as very nice and reasonable people, but they also come across as inexperienced and out of their depth. This problem is not unique to that team. Microsoft are charging good money for this stuff (not WT directly but Windows as a whole). Many, many people are forced to deal with Windows whether they want to or not and end up having to deal with poor implementations even if they'd rather be using Linux or macOS.

The WT devs are IMO doing way better than the average dev working on Windows - they engaged seriously and honestly dev-to-dev, they admitted when they were wrong, they improved the product, and they've even given credit to the people who embarrassed them in public. If only everyone were so good natured!

I won't say which area because this is my anon account and I reported some bugs publicly but I've recently been dealing with a different Windows team (as an outsider) and smacking right into the exact same problem. The task their subsystem handles is a very easy one and yet it's filled with critical bugs. We're not even talking performance here but the basics like data corruption bugs, hangs, absurd security flaws, broken APIs, over-complicated file formats, the works. The actual feature spec is fine - whoever designed it at a high level did an OK job - but the implementation is just very poor. It's clear that the devs assigned to it are overwhelmed and seem to lack senior people who can catch basic mistakes during code review. Also even though this subsystem doesn't need high performance they're writing it in C++ instead of .NET, which is certainly making their lives harder. Unfortunately the team is like the polar opposite of the WT team. They don't engage with their user base, only via clueless devrel PM types who can't understand anything they're being told. The relevant systems aren't open source. They don't backport things. They don't communicate. Their docs are flaky, often advertising features that aren't even shipped yet or don't actually work. They make sudden decisions out of the blue that screw their users. Bug reports tend to get met with a stock response asking for submission of logs which are invariably then either "lost" or never heard about ever again.

It's clear that the Windows org has lost the ability to execute. It feels like the start of Atlas Shrugged, where everything is slowly falling apart and nobody can quite put their finger on why. Yet, we are stuck with it. There is a dire lack of competition in the desktop OS space.

Huh? No way was that the first game to implement it. I remember implementing exactly that approach in a simple open source video game in the mid 90s. It was the only practical way to do it with OpenGL1 because textures had to be powers of two in size and you couldn't have all that many of them. I was a very junior/teenage programmer at the time so ended up laying out the glyphs by hand using Paint Shop Pro and then slicing them using glScissor, which was a bad idea because scissoring turned out to be very slow and unoptimized. But it worked. We got text in the 3D engine.

I don't really remember where I got that approach from but very unlikely I came up with it. Most likely it was from GL tutorials.

I don't think prefixing the word vaguely would change anything about your point, which is about ideology and which doesn't make sense for logic reasons alone independent of personal views on whichever is preferable. You can't use people's social behavior in a formerly communist country (one that still has many communist approaches to things), to derive conclusions about libertarians i.e. the exact opposite kinds of people. Russia is like China, it's a nightmare society for libertarians. Nothing about it is libertarian.

The replies you're getting, wow. Can't imagine a better way to prove your point.

Intel is in general heavily constrained by whatever Microsoft chooses to do with Windows. It's not like Apple where they can introduce a new hw feature and then immediately use it in the operating system. For example the M1 Macs have the big little architecture integrated with Grand Central Dispatch. Many, many interesting Hardware features have died in the Intel world because the Windows team simply did not add good enough support for it and there was nothing Intel could do.

In this case detecting DRM software and scheduling it differently would require sophisticated support in the operating system, or even ideally DRM support implemented by the operating system. However these things are probably beyond Microsoft's capabilities in its current state.

You picked a bunch of conditions you don't happen to like and then projected this onto the technology along with a giant helping of victimhood, but again, RA is morally neutral. It's like encryption, it can be used for things you may agree or disagree with but the tech is just a tool. In this case it's just a way to enforce agreements.

So here are some agreements that maybe you'd actually like to enforce on other people, using the exact same technology.

1. Cloud privacy. RA and related tech let's you request a remote attestation from the cloud provider that proves your VM memory is encrypted such that the hardware provider can't read it. This means you can compute in the cloud and not be spied on, not even if the legal system in the remote jurisdiction suddenly demands it.

You might think cloud providers would never offer this but you'd be dead wrong. Both Azure and GCP offer RA in which you are the one checking them and they offer it today.

2. Blocking spamming without needing captchas or modern JavaScript based equivalents. In turn that means you can now much more easily self host email and retain control and privacy currently sacrificed to big email providers.

3. Copyleft enforcement. Yes really. It'd require toolchain integration but it's possible.

4. Eliminating backdoors inserted by cloud CI systems. They prove what compilers they're using via RA.

Etc. This is just a few examples.

And that's why your argument is frankly morally flawed. Agreements and contracts are something everyone relies on whether they realize it or not. The fix for terms you don't like is not to demand leaky enforcement but, as always, market competition. If you hate Oracle's "no publishing of benchmarks" clauses - which are by the way unenforceable with RA anyway so that's a bad example to pick - then use postgresql instead.

At any rate, it's all rather irrelevant. You have much more bargaining power than you think and that is in fact why RA has never taken off. Outside of very controlled environments like games consoles or cloud VMs it's considered too complicated and excludes too many users who don't have the right hardware etc. Consumers effectively "negotiate" by picking services compatible with what they've got.

You can believe the information coming out of the war zone is too corrupted to draw conclusions without being motivated by wanting to disagree with the New York Times.

There have been several major, heavily hyped stories about the war so far that just weeks later were admitted to be deliberate lies to booster Ukrainian morale. The Ghost of Kiev and his many kills: never existed. The "fuck you Russian battleship" guy who turned out to be captured, not heroically self sacrificed. Etc. These events weren't mere exaggerations, they were entirely made up.

Given this it's pretty reasonable for rational people to assume we have no idea how the war is going. After all, for every made up Russian kill that gets detected there must be many more that don't. And the same in the opposite direction with Russian state media of course.

This feels like some cartoon villain stereotype of a libertarian. Actual libertarians are big into contracts and contract law. They aren't against agreements, let alone politeness or manners. Heck one of the reasons I eventually became a libertarian (UK sense) myself was due to noticing how unfailingly polite and unassuming they all of were despite often being faced with the most vile hatred.

Consider how nonsensical your comparison really is. The problem in question appears in Russia, a place where the largest official political alternative to Putin is the former Communist party. It's the opposite of a libertarian country. Places like New Hampshire or even relatively non libertarian places like the UK on the other hand, simply can't imagine behaviour like that. It's the whole reason it's an interesting anecdote to begin with.

BitLocker type solutions don't rely on remote attestation. RA has never really taken off in any context.

Regardless, arguments against remote attestation are always very tricky. You're acting like it's morally clear cut but it's not.

RA is designed to stop you lying about what you're running to other people. It doesn't stop you running things, but it may mean others choose not to trade or engage with you based on what you're doing with the computer. So this is a direct translation to standard libertarian philosophy. You can choose your own terms but you can't force your preferred terms on others - you have to negotiate a contract that's mutually acceptable and then that contract needs to be enforced. RA is a kind of technologically enforced contract, instead of relying exclusively on the legal system.

That's why arguments that RA is evil always skip a few steps. The argument goes:

- I want to run X (typically some Linux distro)

- Some service Y won't trade with me unless X will do Z (typically enforcing some sort of agreement e.g. anti-cheat or license).

- X chooses not to do Z but I want Y to service me anyway. So I want to lie to them and feel entitled to being able to do that without being caught. This is moral because Linux.

Often with a helping of "I'm afraid that actually service Y might be most services".

The concerns here are valid - it would suck to no longer be able to use Linux with various remote services - but if you look at how the TPM and related tech are designed there's no actual technical reason you couldn't make Linux satisfy remote attestations. It's simply that Linux users would usually refuse to do so on philosophical grounds. Well, that's fine, but from a political and philosophical perspective it's reasonable for your counterparty to want some assurance that you'll actually implement the agreement you're claiming you will.