pushrax

Right - I suppose any large associated data that does not need to be searched can be malloc()'d (via standard or fancy allocator) and you just store a pointer. Or if the other data is relatively small, just in another array.

One case where I don't know what to think: the implications of memmoving the subarray on NUMA cache invalidation in an extremely multithreaded application.

Once you are implementing your own allocator you need to worry about fragmentation under many operations, which would be the majority of the complexity.

Doesn’t this depend on the size of each element? What if each element is 1 MiB?

If your primary operation is inserting at a random location in the list, linked lists are faster than arrays at large sizes. You avoid having to move all the memory after the index you are modifying (to make space for the inserted element).

A linked list also avoids copying the entire array when you need to insert more elements than you have allocated space for.

Expanding on this: usually linked lists allocate each element with a separate malloc() on the heap, so they end up all over the place in memory.

You could, in principle, allocate your linked list out of contiguous memory in such a way that sequentially reading the list doesn't cause so many page accesses. That would itself be a complicated data structure to maintain, so simply using a linear array is often the right tradeoff.

Do they analyze the noise floor or something? I guess you'd have to defeat that with a noise gate.

Just mute your mic in hardware?

A few signs:

- taking a while to make an obvious move, especially in the endgame, where there might actually be only one move that makes any sense to make

- taking a very consistent amount of time between moves

- shuffling pieces around in a way that doesn't really accomplish anything but also doesn't cause anything bad

- playing normally, then a big pause and they go offline for a bit, then come back and start playing much better (connecting the client to an engine)

I think most people who actually want to cheat regularly on online chess also lack the skills to set up a highly effective and stealthy way to do so.

There are a lot of obvious cheaters that you can catch by looking at move times.

A woodworker would have more off the shelf tools if they were equivalently cheap/good/fast/efficient as a custom tool. Physical objects can’t be so freely copied as a software library.

I do agree fully that programmers should strive to understand every layer, and building your own tools is a great way to get experience that helps with that. Yes, left-pad is unnecessarily granular abstraction. However, in each domain, we inevitably depend on other software, and that breadth of that graph is part of the reason for why you can accomplish so much with so few people writing software.

An average engineer in any field probably has developed enough systems thinking to reason a great deal about the variation of wheels across applications.

Or a typical writable database. Resharding data may not be feasible at all during a high load event.

Vanity (in my experience). Though I don't know why web server logs aren't enough for that.

Engagement duration tracking is probably the most important thing client-side analytics brings for a site that's trying to make money, but for a personal site, seems unnecessary.

I always viewed AMP as being primarily for Google’s data collection interests, not primarily lock-in.

Gatekeeper-by-default is sensible IMO. I've seen how some people interact with these devices, and how easily malware gets on a computer.

As long as the walled garden can be easily circumvented, advanced users can do what they wish. "Able to learn about Gatekeeper and decide if they should turn it off" is probably an okay heuristic for "can tell a fake Flash installer site apart from a real one" or even "knows that Flash is pretty much abandoned, do everything you can to avoid it".

That said, it absolutely changes the incentive structures, and Apple is also doing it for profit. Will they cross the line in the future, with this goal? I expect they will conclude losing the advanced users would be a net loss.

The fact that this slows down devices boils down to a rushed or simply incompetent implementation.

It's sensible to require waiting for a certificate check the first time an app is launched, but after that, the cache validity should be indefinite, and updates should occur asynchronously in batches.

The timeout settings were also excessive.

Can't forget the blatant lack of encryption. They either forgot or thought it would be too much effort to set up.

Your interpretation is normal in Canada too.

Downvotes on this comment are probably missing the point (as I see it), which is that redirect/browser/other HTTP hijacking malware is pretty common and could cause something weird like this.

It may simply be that their obfuscation process removes those files and adds GHE-specific files, and none of it ran.

You don't need structure for secure control though, as long as the control channel is isolated. It's easier to make an insecure program when dealing with loosely described text streams, but it's by no means inevitable.

That makes sense. Though it seems like it should be inconsistent with "if the loan defaults, it's the partner bank's problem, not Ant's."

I'm not saying to follow a purely incremental optimization path, leading to local maxima. Thinking outside the box is clearly important for generating new ideas to test. We're not done until we run out of things to perfectly predict.

I would say some of the ancients did science too, to the best of their knowledge.

If the loan is actually written by another bank, why is there any requirement on Ant?

Though my position is that 30% capitalization is actually reasonable and that our current collective level of leverage is unnecessarily unstable.

My take on science is defined by the scientific method:

- we want to be able to understand and predict things

- we can come up with various explanations that might be able to do this

- if our explanation fails to predict an observation, it is wrong and we need to update or replace it

If you're doing that, you're doing science.

I agree, if anything the eventual goal should be to invert it. In applications I work on right now, trace tags contain the richest and best-described request metadata. Tags are indexed differently depending on their cardinality, and there is no cardinality limit.

Tempo's implementation seems pragmatic as a short to medium term solution though. Log engines still have a lot more investment and maturity than trace engines. In my work, even though the trace tags contain the best data quality, the tracing system is currently worse at answering a good deal of my questions. It's simply that Splunk has many tools that work well, and the tracing system is behind.

It previously returned an XSS test payload https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElAYZTcX0AEyFUY?format=jpg&name=...

The logical extreme of "no hierarchy of goals" is to have no law. A law is able to penalize certain goals that are actively harmful. This encodes consensus of a hierarchy, and many people believe it is useful (depending on the particular law).

What you are suggesting is a nihilistic approach. Despite our collective inability to determine any "root goal" of the universe to aspire to, we collectively benefit from certain "local goals" - such as trash collection, trying to stop people from running around and killing others, having food (ideally good) available, etc.

A "noble goal" is a social construct. You might actually define it as a goal with positive impact on a society that some members would rather not or cannot do themselves.

I agree that people should not have their goals forced. However, the concept of a "noble goal" is useful in describing this evolutionarily emergent social phenomenon. And I am in favour of a societal incentive system that rewards positive impact to society.

Most of my goals are pretty neutral, and I guess I don't really put much effort into any particularly noble ones. Open source software, I guess. Though I can see that some goals really have a large beneficial impact to the experience of life, and can't help but appreciate people who engage in those goals.

Perhaps “should” instead

There is a more general idea here: why don't we efficiently allocate resources, when we know that we could?

Why is the fashion industry so big? Apparently it causes >10% of carbon emissions. 85% of used clothes end up in the dump.

Why is marketing so big? It has long since surpassed the point where it simply matches products with demand. The best marketing is designed to create demand. I view that as a market inefficiency.

The human emotional system has been tuned for local optimization and self benefit.

Even if completely neutral with respect to the two parties, the effect of social media as a transport for political information means it has a high involvement in political activity.

Don't pretend those two parties form an ideal set of alternatives; they have many common problems maintained by their duopoly.