pickdenis

If you don't need mobile support, you (not parent, but someone else reading this) should try Unison. I use it and can vouch for its reliability, and if your use case is simple (sync files between N computers with a central server), then it's probably the best tool for the job as it's considerably faster than syncthing.

My understanding is that there's no way around it if you want the best possible optimization. Otherwise you'd have to insert extra runtime checks, right?

But there's at least a pretense that it (goods purchased with tax money) will be, right? Forget about what actually happens for a moment and consider that the tax-collecting colonists didn't even seem to bother with such a pretense. The way I understand it, they just bought the goods, turned around, and sold them again (which does not align with any notion of "providing government"). Of course, I know very little about economics or history, but I just wanted to point out what I thought was a logical inconsistency in the root comment.

When the government buys things with tax money, the things are supposed to be used for the benefit of people who paid the taxes. It doesn't seem like the Company even pretended that this was the case.

I hope they pawn that monopoly money for the real deal immediately after collection.

Well, not anything I can easily share, but here's a simple-enough example. I was writing code to handle base-pair sequences (ACTG) in a very strange encoding, which naturally lead to tons of edge cases. I carefully wrote my code for appending two sequences together, but was not totally sure I got it right, but decided after writing a few unit tests that it was probably correct. Sure enough, a couple of months later, I received bug reports that, after debugging for a while, I pinned down to sequences not being appended properly.

I stared at the code for some time and couldn't see any mishandled edge cases. It was then I realized that I could automatically generate an arbitrary amount of unit tests, because it's simple enough to call strcat and encode that to get the correct result. So, that's what I did: generate two strings of ACTG, encode them, concat, and compare against the result against that of the encoding of the two strings concatenated. Sure enough, a mishandled edge case popped up after trying a couple hundred strings. There was probably no way I could have found that bug without this approach.

It's a really simple concept, but you need a couple of things: first, a very wide input space. Next, you need an alternate way of verifying the result. If you just want your program to not crash, you get this for free. In my case above, I could apply the two functions (concatenate/encode) in the other order to easily calculate the expected result. If you have these two things, a fuzzer is the logical thing to write to make sure your code is rock solid.

Fuzz testing is probably one of the most underused tactics, at least in my observations. It's easy to write a decently thorough fuzzer that will absolutely crush a wide class of bugs that you have.

Nim's `multisync` macro is another cool approach to this. It allows the function to be called isomorphically regardless of synchronicity, determining the latter using the type system. In the following example, the `writeResponse` proc can be called from either a synchronous environment on a `Stream` or from an asynchronous environment using `AsyncStream`.

https://github.com/sid-code/nmoo/blob/master/src/nmoo/sidech...

There is a bit of glue code holding this together, but I find it really neat. There's no event loop hack, just static polymorphism.

I don't buy that the probability of a new grad being successful is independent of the name of the school from which they received their degree. Sure, maybe the link isn't as strong as it's made out to be by hiring practices but it can't be nonexistent.

A simple scan of the repo's description and the first sentence of the linked article should answer that question. LKL is a library that allows you to do Linux things (read/write linux filesystems) from outside of Linux, essentially re-using the kernel's code. UKL, is an unikernel which essentially allows you to compile an application into a standalone OS that runs it (not sure if that's entirely correct).

Now that I think about it a little more, they're kind of similar but I think unikernels are more of a way to get an application to run on hardware without all the extra bloat of a monolithic kernel (like if you're running a web service on a small virtualized machine) and the LKL is just for re-using Linux code.

What's wrong with using GNU/Linux?

Also, they (Apple, MS) don't want your money. They want your freedom, which is virtually priceless. I'm sure a fat monthly fee will suffice, but yeesh.

Because that would be unnecessary. This is only worth it when there are "unusual radiation patterns" (from the wiki article)

I wrote that part of my comment in error. It wasn't my intention to blast the iPad's software suite as inefficient, but rather draw attention to the fact that the user's DESKTOP computer couldn't handle what the iPad could easily handle.

This argument is disingenuous. I hope people would stop spouting it.

There will ALWAYS be an advantage to wired headphones over wireless: reliability and versatility.

Bluetooth headphones can be VERY finicky about who they'll connect to and with how much hassle. They also cannot be plugged into a separate DAC/Amp setup.

Perhaps if it were standard for headphones to allow the user to bypass the bluetooth DAC and run the drivers on our own signal, but I haven't really seen this on affordable headphones.

> Are people really that attached to their old wired headphones?

I'm sorry if wanting to spend half as much for better sound offends you, but yes; I much prefer my wired headphones over any bluetooth headphones. Perhaps some $300 bose headphones would win me over, but I doubt they would sound any better than my $150 wired cans. Not to mention that I can plug my headphones into my amp/dac setup when I get home and get sound quality that bluetooth headphones can't even dream of.

I don't really like bending over to the will of the greed-infested industry, and I really don't like that the average person does, but I'll stand for my values as long as I can. I won't buy a phone without a 3.5mm headphone jack until I literally have to.

> My desktop would have shit itself.

There it is. There is a coordinated ploy by the industry to sell more expensive hardware: shitty software. I find it hard to believe that such simple multitasking (using compute-intensive software + watching videos) could cause a well-built desktop computer to slow down.

Since there is no alternative to inefficient software, products such as the 2019 iPad are praised because they can bludgeon through these tasks and still appear fast, but only due to their sheer power.

It's disgusting, honestly. Apple pushes iOS so much because that's where they have almost full control over software, and therefore they have full control over your device's perceived performance. This isn't even limited to Apple. Case in point, https://mail.google.com

What are we, responsible computer enthusiasts, to do about this?

Why do people even use Medium? Doesn't this kind of stuff go against the ethos of being a computer scientist?

Is this real? I wonder if he's told to announce his position on social media; it almost seems as though his job is literally to let people know that "Google cares about ethics."

They don't say so but people have calculated estimates and it seems there's hardly any way youtube could be _making_ money. Just google it, there's tons of articles with interesting speculations.

> why aren't these techniques turning into AGI?

What prompted you to even ask this question? Where in the article does it say that "These results are step N on the path to AGI!"? This is research: the researchers found a problem that had limited solutions before (learning concepts with limited examples) and came up with a better solution. It's not clear why you're questioning this.

> [on the computability of human intelligence]

This is just silly. Even if human intelligence was beyond the reach of silicon (which I and many real researchers doubt), this work is still useful even if it doesn't result in AGI.

You're too fixated on AGI. It's not the end goal.

I think you're making an implicit assumption: your brain's cognitive load is capped singularly. This may not be the case; we may have separate, independent caps for personal decision-making and work-related problem solving. If you choose to go to the same coffee shop every day, you may just be increasing your capacity to make more personal decisions but not really affecting your work.

Nanotechnology must be the answer, then.

> Google knows the websites I visit thanks to Google Analytics running on most websites

Not if you hosts-block the domain from which g-a is served. In fact, that's probably far more impactful (however you want to measure this intangible impact) than simply not using google.

Don't be disingenuous, there's a difference between moving to USB-C and removing the damn esc key. In any case, I don't want to get caught up in details. I was just expressing my pity towards people like the author of the linked article; do you really think Apple is ever going to listen?

The current state of Apple users is pitiful. Wishing for features that were removed? How can you support a company so much for caring about you so little?

Ha, that's going to thermal throttle like nobody's business. Just get a proper laptop if you want specs like that.