stkdump

I experienced something similar at a famous parisian landmark with a person trying to sell souveniers. When I declined he got strangely aggressive and I felt like quickly getting away even though the place was packed with tourists. In Istanbul there was a man selling flowers getting a bit agressive when I declined. So like said elsewhere in this thread, this phenomenon is not drug specific.

I guess since strlen uses an unsigned size, which has specified overflow behavior the compiler not only has to proof the initial iteration, but also all the ULLONG_MAX+1 multiples, which of course refer to the same memory address. But maybe its harder for the optimizer to see.

If we are being cryptic already, why not

    int num_empty_strings = !!*s1 + !!*s2 + !!*s3;

I don't know. The US has the biggest public support for nuclear power amoung all western nations and even amoung the world is close to top. Also a lot of public figures that are vocal advocates of nuclear power are Americans. The most powerful group of voters (due to the two party system), the independents, favor more investment in nuclear power. So I don't see this at all.

Sounds a bit like what seastar.io is supposed to enable. On their website they say they focus on IO bound applications. I wonder how well that model fits to parallelize computationally intensive work.

The esp32-s2 doesn't have Bluetooth.

All makes sense, and that is why I said pay-per-use is usually less profitable, because back when dail-up was available, my internet bill was really lower than it is now. Granted, I am comparing apples and oranges, because I am also using the internet much more nowadays. But the argument that the greedy music industry wants to milk us by asking us to per-per-use is nonsense. They would make less money and probably people consume music more consciously.

I don't get it. If you pay per use, i.e. pay the same if you listen to the same song 5 times vs 5 different songs, why should it inhibit exploration?

I would assume the pub would pay for playing it, same as radio is paying for playing it.

I actually like the idea. Many things pay-per-use are actually cheaper unless you use it basically constantly, because if it isn't cheap enough, many people would stop using it, thinking: is listening to it right now really worth X amount? People have a strange attachment to the concept of ownership, so that they are willing to pay extra for it. Pay-per-use is actually a more profitable concept only when people are hesitant to buy something fully, because they are not sure if they would use it enough.

No, the idea here is that after all the original GPL licensed code (not own code) was step by step fully replaced by by own code (Ship of Theseus). Then you can change the license, because it is 100% your own.

I think you always retain the right to change the license of your own code. If something is 100% your own code, you can choose whatever license you like.

> changing the palette will affect all pixel of that color

Not necessarily, because same color doesn't require same palette index. If you are going to preprocess the image anyway, you can assign one palette index to each connected component.

I think money spent on VPN and mdn+ goes more directly to funding Mozilla. But I would actually prefer to see a Mozilla that tries to become fiscally independent of partnerships like Google and fully commit to the donation model (+ maybe selling a few products like VPN and mdn+) closer to what Wikipedia is doing.

Note that you loose 1-2 orders of magnitude just by the screen resolution (in the early nineties we used 640x480, sometimes even 320x200 vs 4K nowadays). Another order of magnitude is lost by using a more high level programming language, which sure you could probably optimize down to factor 2-3. Plus sublinear scaling of stuff like memory latency since the 90s. All in all I agree we should be able to do better, but it is by no means trivial.

My point is if it were possible we should see at least some examples of it happening. So far it is an often recited conjecture without any practical proof, so I remain sceptical.

I have the experience that the quality of the office building makes a difference. We moved to a new building a few months back with more space, fewer people crammed into one room, generally quieter. People that used to work from home now prefer to be in the office as much as possible.

In the past we had indexed color screen modes. You could draw all pixels to the screen once and give each pixel an index into a color palette. When you would start, they would all be mapped to white, but as you start with coloring, you would then just change the color of the palette entry (truly a O(1) operation) and your graphics card would then do the work at scan time. I guess the closest equivalent nowadays would be to do this inside the pixel shader.

If efficiency gains were the secret go (infinite) growth, then companies would be able to grow their business without growing their workforce, building more factories, warehouses, etc.

I never said that pipelining is synchronous communication. If our go back to my original post. I merely said that (a)synchronicy is not a feature of a protocol, but how sender/receiver handle the communication internally.

I was not referring to the statement that pipelining serves maximizing throughput. I agree with that. I was referring to the statement that pipelining would be a kind of asynchronous communication.

I don't think that is a widely held opinion. Nor is it a helpful way to describe it.

I believe what you describe is called pipelining.

I think if we want to use language we should know what we are talking about. I understand his point to be: people have differing opinions of what asynchronous communication (back in the day it was called asynchronous I/O) means, so let's not use the word at all. Instead just describe what you are doing which more words, which are needed anyway and drop the word asynchronous.

I think it is a good idea to give this topic some attention, but I think it is defeatist to conclude that the word is doomed to be useless.

I don't think the communication protocol between two processes, services, whatever has have the property of being synchronous or asynchronous.

It is more about how each side of the communication handles it internally. Synchronous means I shoot off the message, wait until it is processed and I got a response (in case there is supposed to be a response), doing nothing else in the meantime and only after everything is done continue with the next thing I need to do. Asynchronous means I continue doing any type of work in the meantime while the message is sent and processed. That usually means anything that doesn't depend on the response.

Note that my communication partner will usually not care/notice if I am doing anything else in the meantime. I am saying usually because he might notice if I continue sending the same communication partner additional messages before I got a response.

Now the reason why we talk about synchronous and asynchronous communication when communicating between people is that some like to invoke a false equivalence. In the person-to-person communication it is fair to say a phone call, meeting, etc. are methods of synchronous communication and email asynchronous communication. This is more a social thing and has to do with the expectation of time for the response. When I speak on the phone, the receiver has to listen, process and understand exactly at the time I am speaking, i.e. synchronously. That need arises from my social expectation that the person is able to respond in some form seconds later (as opposed to hours or days for something like email). It should be clear here that the terms are used in a different sense as also mentioned in the talk, this is about context, which is also clear in the twitter responses he got. We sometimes have arguments when to prefer one over the other in person-to-person cummincation, and then sometimes this false equivalence with sync/async I/O is invoked.

Those identities do hold though, as long as zero and negative zero compare equal, which according to ieee754 they should. Performance degredations happen in other places such as denormals.

I bought the 9 Pro instead of the 10 Pro, because there is no (even unofficial) Lineage build yet. Apparently they stopped supporting a tool that was needed for ROM development.

I don't know. I am not a native speaker, but I think it is ok, maybe even better. We have gotten used to 'OK', despite its questionable origin (or origin story).

No, 2030. Lignite is West Germany also in 2030. Lignite in East Germany is set for 2038, but currently in discussion to also move forward to 2030.

I've read that a number of times now, but I have trouble matching it to my perceptions. Can you point to a specific website where you notice that slowness and then describe what action is slower? (Initial load, clicking stuff, scrolling, etc.)

Just as an example, loading jslinux.org for me in Firefox is about twice as fast than in Chrome. That might be a special case of course, because it is a very special type of workload that probably is not common on other websites. But I would love to see concrete examples of the opposite.

Peter Zeihans insistance on birth rate is a bit silly. Most developed countries, including the USA are in the 1.5-1.7 range. There are outliers like France that are higher. There isn't this huge demographic difference between Europe and the US. He is selling his message to American conservatives, so I guess the one who pays the piper calls the tune. I don't think he cares about immigration much.