strictfp

Same here. Could it be some rate limiting of the height data? I'm on a Samsung S20.

It would be great. We need a way of preventing "death by a thousand cuts" by bloated organizations and processes. I also think it would be good to upturn most processes since people learn how to exploit systems quite quickly.

But maybe it would be better to reset in a cascading fashion, rather than all at once.

Well, the novelty of course. Everything has it's way. Radio, TV, telephony, the internet; all have gone through different phases of commercialization and exploitations.

It takes time for bureaucracy to take over. Think of the natural cycle of a startup becoming an enterprise, a niche shop becoming a large chain.

i.e an ABA problem

In a sense, all security is by obscurity. Security-wise, your PIN is in fact pretty much equivalent to a random port.

I share the opinion that DoD is an optimization technique, and that it shouldn't be applied too generously from the get-go; you're essentially optimizing for specific usage patterns, which might be difficult to predict and often are contradictory.

What one can consider is to use ECS. The separation of data and logic into components allows you to apply DoD in a more predictable way. The data which is unique to a particular component can in this way be vectorized across entities.

The ECS approach doesn't solve the problem of data shared between components though, and like others in here I'm also interested in solutions which could optimize access in the same way that relational databases can optimize multiple different access patterns to the same data.

Not so sure about that. I know plenty offices in Stockholm with free food, drinks and entertainment for employees.

Happened to me as well. Was writing an authentication service. We thought we were paying for an actual security audit, turns out we payed for a simple word scanning of our codebase. The review didn't find any of the canaries we left in the codebase, and we could never argue back with them. Big waste of money.

This is what I'm also afraid of.

But then "Gay" just meant happy. And "retard" means slightly slowed down (development). Those were probably all decent words from the start.

The words aren't the problem, their usages are. I'm not convinced that we should allow the meaning of words to slip and replace them when they become offensive.

Incremental development in Rust isn't particularly slow; it's compiling all the dependencies which takes the most time, and when you make changes you only recompile your local crate, which typically is quite fast.

Consider using wrk2 in order to avoid coordinated omission.

Coll simulation! I'm looking for any pointers to noise or other generative methods which looks like eroded terrain from the get-go, without the cost of simulating the erosion process. Any tips appreciated.

Yes! This is spot-on. This is a social construct and a good example why I think we should focus more on male gender roles in order to achieve better equality.

Males have strict roles, expectations and reward structures in society, just like we all do. Equality movements have expected men to step down without giving them an alternative way of achieving self-worth. They still have the same pressures applied, but are expected to ignore them.

I think we should abandon the traditional work roles which cater so obviously to traditional male power and status, and also find a way to liberate men, so that they aren't pushed to such extremes to achieve status.

I'm convinced that the best thing we as society can do for gender equality right now is to abandon the corporate roles that cater unreasonably much to the stereotypical macho male gender role.

These are roles which in principle require you to abandon your private life and spend all your mental energy on the company.

Why do we even have these roles? Well, according to behavioural psychology males fight for status, and the ultimate sacrifice gives the ultimate status.

No wonder that no sane person wants a role like this.

What is holding these roles in place then? Well, I think the business sector and legislation is largely to blame.

Laws stipulate corporate structures, and business schools teach corporate structure perfectly in tune with the last industrial revolution.

If there is anything we can do to make the work environment more egalitarian, it's to change corporate structures and create roles which aren't unreasonable and/or customized to old-fashion gender roles.

I always found it ironic that you get most of this for free if you design your sql updates and save/query the transaction log and/or history. A lot of relational dbs have functionality for that.

And if you don't want to use that, there's also products for this specifically, such as event store.

One other huge downside of frameworks is that they don't (easily) compose with other frameworks and libraries.

I guess most holes got patched. I worked with the same things around 2007.

The thing is that this is too much magic. You end up wasting time getting your literal right. Whereas Cs solution is simple and just works.

I much prefer Cs solution to this problem; you can write multiple literals in sequence and they will be concatenated:

  char* text = "hello" " dear"
  " sir";

This is great, because it doesn't make leading whitespace significant on the lines which the text block spans.

The Java approach, which seems similar to the Python approach, looks really silly when you are defining a literal in a nested scope;

  def hello():
    def world():
      text = """hello
  world"""
      print text

I'm not convinced. It would use every trick in the book to punch holes; stun, upnp, sip, it's own protocol on top of udp, it would even send data over port 80 or 443. And if that failed Skype would use a third Skype client to open a port, or even route the calls through the third party.

I always thought this was the major reason why Skype was so successful. It would penetrate almost any workplace firewall and "just worked" for most people. Shady, yes, but it worked.

Think of all the open source libs. Generally speaking, anyone can contribute to any part of the project.

That's not to say that some people are better than others at certain parts of the codebase, but you don't want people fighting to keep old cruft in because it's on their job title (figuratively speaking).

You can organize around customers, use-cases, platforms, concerns or other things. Some might naturally map 1-1 to software components, but the software component should not be the "reason d'aitre" for a team, rather the customer experience or something else which can transcend multiple interations of the software.

That's generally true, and it's a big problem with microservices, because they need so much upkeep.

But if your code is living as a few hundred or thousand readable lines in the common codebase, that isn't really a problem. The code is there, readable and working, and if anyone needs to change it they can. If it falls out of fashion, it can be deleted.

I agree with you in such cases, but I'm willing to bet that most codebases don't need to be as big as they are, and that it's better to create an incentive to collaborate and keep the codebase maintanable and small.

I think the ties arise because people are actively seeking areas of responsibility. Software components are an obvious grab if your eyes are on the software specifically. But there are other ways of dividing your teams; based on for instance customers, use-cases, aspects of the code (performance, security).

The problem is that the software usually keeps expanding until programmers find it hard to cope. If you split teams up so that some people are only concerned with a certain part of the codebase, chances are you are going to grow the size of the codebase by a quite large factor.

I think there should be an incentive in place to keep the codebase small and understandable by most.

Noo! Building teams around software components cements your architecture and prevents most cross-cutting improvements.

I'll claim that splitting a well-structured monolith into microservices will always make it less maintanable, but it might be worth it if you need to for some reason like elasticity or failure tolerance.

But for the love of god, keep the design open. Don't tie the existence of internal software components to peoples livelihoods.

Ask people more thoroughly. A lot of people in my circles have had vague symptoms like itchy throat or eyes, vague chest discomfort, general fatigue. I would say the 40% sounds about right.

I've wanted a protocol reference site for years, listing different network protocol dumps and examples. In fact, I bought pdumps.com and set up a wiki for it, but then the site got hammered with spam so I shut it down.

I have been thinking about setting up a static site instead, having pull requests as a gating procedure to fight off spam.

If more people here are interested, I'm willing to set it up again. Help doing the basic static webpage setup and reviewing PRs would be appreciated. Please reply in thread if you're interested.