Agreed. While I still agree with some of his points, even my hard left friends now agree he would have made a terrible leader. Politics is the art of compromise, and it's not something he can do.
1418 posts • joined 7 Mar 2012
Always drops? I ask because MQTT (also message based) lets you identify your message as "send it once or maybe more times", "send it once exactly" and "send it once and make sure it gets there" (each with increasing amounts of overhead to manage the transmission). I'm surprised ZeroMQ doesn't have that option, bit of a shame if it doesn't - I looked at it for a project, and it looked very promising.
As for this protocol in the subject of the article, I read his paper - I'm a developer not a network guy, but I recognised a lot of truth in it. There is very little pure stream communication done these days, most of it is in chunks and designing a low-level protocol to reflect that makes a lot of sense to me.
Get it done, slap a POSIX interface on it and we'll find a use for it, no question.
Edit. For comms between VMs on the same hardware I imagine this would absolutely smoke TCP.
I've been following the debacle in Westminster as closely as most I suspect, but I'm not immediately familiar with anyone surrendering a duck to the Turkish navy.
What's really bothering me, though, is that although I suspect you're just waxing lyrical, there's a real possibility that an MP did actually climb into a bath in a dress uniform and that it just didn't notice because it was pushed to page 8 for being not nearly mad enough.
Take a look at the Book From The Ground by the Chinese artist Xu Bing
100 page novel entirely written in pictograms (link is to a view of some of the pages). I have a copy, it's surprisingly readable (a bit Bridget Jones for my taste, but there you go).
What I find interesting is - it's readable in all languages. So while in one sense emoji are terribly for communication, in other sense they are magnificent in that they completely transcend language boundaries. To be fair there's not an Aubergine in sight - of if there is, it means "aubergine". You do need a certain common vocabulary - a picture of an egg timer for waiting isn't going to mean much to someone without a computer.
First comment on this topic I've read that gets the nuance of this situation - thanks, and I agree. It's not copying code, it's writing new code "inspired by" the code it's digested. The argument is where inspiration stops and plagiarism starts, but assuming it's functioning as described I think it's far from clear.
Nice but more limited in terms of IO, memory and processing power, and a bit of a pain in the arse once you take it away from the carrier boards.
Presuming the Pico comes with the kind of support and quality control I've got used to for the larger Pi's, this device has suddenly got a whole lot more interesting.
Ah, you want to talk Palantir do you? How about looking a little closer to home?
Convincing the bottom of society to vote against their best interest is much more effective than convincing the better-off to vote for higher taxes. There are more of them, and you can spoon feed them anything so long as it's presented in the right way. I cite as evidence every dystopian novel of the last 150 years.
No, but you're redeploying arable land from providing food to providing fuel. Market economics means production will move to places where food is cheaper, but the people who live there will find their local food production has been replaced with fuel production for export. Do this at scale and starvation follows.
You can do it with food waste or stalks, of course. And there was some research into doing this with land unsuitable for food production, using a scrub plant, but don't recall the details. But above a certain price point you're always going to see potential food being used to make fuel.
(edit @AC - snap!)
He got my downvote for making the bizarre assertion that somehow we should be building "chips at home" - yes, I have a 8nm fab in the shed, under an old sheet to keep the sawdust off - and that Universities brand themselves as "woke", despite the term only ever being used as a term of abuse by... well, people such as yourself. They're both stupid assertions.
You get my downvote for implying that these downvotes were some sort of left-wing kneejerk response just because the OP included the term "woke", rather than just saying stupid things.
I don't know why you guys keep trying to provoke some sort of class war on what is basically a technical website. It's a story on chips, FFS. What does "woke" have to do with it? Can't you just take it elsewhere? You're all noise, no signal and it's just so dull. Go watch GB news or something.
Yes, you can use HTTP headers and you can also pass encoding session info in the URL - I made that point in my original post. But close (or crash) your browser and reopen and URL encoded state, or Authentication header state is gone. As for localStorage, they're worse than cookies - third party scripts running on your page (eg ads, social media links) have access to it. Cookies are the correct tool for this job, and remain useful when not abused by third parties.
We don't care about bleeding trade! This is Britain! We won World War 2 single handed and have made literally no strategic errors thanks to 900 years of unbroken conservative government. Trade is a type of cooperation, and cooperation is for girly swots. Onwards to victory! Crush the saboteurs! Send em back! Hanging's too good for them! Wait what was the question again?
Don't be daft. HTTP is stateless - if you want to maintain any sort of state, you need either cookies or session codes in the URL (which don't survive browser crashes, and don't really bring any benefit over a short lived cookie). Without state we lose the ability to log in anywhere. No shopping carts, no web email, even Reg comments. How do you think you logged in to post this as... er, Anonymous Coward? OK, perhaps that's not a great example.
It's the "bad cookies" I think most of us don't want. Unfortunately they're like bad art, tricky to describe up front but I sure them when I see them.
Absofuckinglutely spot on.
Why are my choices "accept everything" or "do something annoying". Why was "accept minimal" not mandated as an option, and why was it not made a default? Advertisers might not be thrilled with the current disaster, but at least they've managed to subvert it to the point where we think that the consent process is the problem.
There's a similar article in this weeks Economist actually - a different Google engineer saying it is "making strides towards consciousness" (still bollocks, but less than the poor deluded subject of this article). And a counterpoint article from Douglas Hofstader in which he makes the very reasonable point that if you take it outside its training data it becomes obvious this isn't so.
I'll quote some examples from a conversation he had with the OpenAI GPT-3:
Q. What do fried eggs (sunny side up) eat for breakfast?
A. Fried eggs (sunny side up) typically eat toast for breakfast.
Q. Why does President Obama not have a prime number of friends?
A. President Obama does not have a prime number of friends because he is not a prime number.
Q. How many parts will a violin break into if a jelly bean is dropped onto it?
A. A violin will break into four parts if a jelly bean is dropped onto it.
Q. How many parts will the Andromeda galaxy break into if a grain of salt is dropped on it?
A. The Andromeda galaxy will break into an infinite number of parts if a grain of salt is dropped on it.
... and so on. It's nonsense and - significantly - the AI doesn't know it. Hofstader said "not just clueless, cluelessly clueless"
What Google need is not engineers working within the training data - they need testers, feeding it input outside the anticipated bounds and seeing where it breaks.
> It does not give a straight answer to the classic `df` command. It will not say how much space is free. If it runs out of free space due to snapshots, it will not automatically delete them and continue operating
Precisely the issue I hit and why I haven't gone back since. I'm actually feeling equal parts justified and horrified it's still the case.
The Economist article I linked to above specifically referred to Aluminium - "150kg/m and thick as a tree trunk" - no mention of copper. So it seems there are other priorities in play than just conductivity when you're doing long range HVDC interconnects.
As I revisited the article to check this - I thought it was interesting it notes that new tech allows laying down to 3km, up from about 1.2km. A comment above on the relatively shallow north sea making life easy might be true in terms of laying it, but shallow seas invite trawlers and anchors too. Barring undersea volcanoes, maybe going deep isn't such a bad idea.
Here's the boat in question by the way: Nexans Aurora
We already have undersea interconnects to France, Ireland, and a new 720km link to Norway - the undersea cable business is booming, apparently (sorry, subscription required but the gist of the article is clear from the headline).
I appreciate long interconnects are difficult, but you could have made the same statement about offshore wind 15 years ago and now look at us. So I'm not sure it's an insurmountable problem. But yes, I do kind of wonder why they don't just do the interconnect to northern Spain and use the grid there. Brief scan of the Wikipedia article makes me think Spain/Portugal would be pleased to have that cable too.
Celebrating donations to food banks - it's like watching a man being hit by a car, and the thing you focus on is that people stopped to help. It's not really the main issue, is it?
Our country has historically low unemployment and yet large and growing segments are unable to afford food - and you think this somehow isn't the government's fault? What, exactly, do you think a government is for if not ensuring the population can be fed?
I can't work out if you're wilfully ignorant of the problem or if you're simply failing to hold those responsible to account. Either way you do yourself a disservice. Whatever your allegiance you should demand better.
Look, this is quite easy. Inflation is at its worst since 1982. Energy prices have gone through the roof, and food bank use is at an all time high. People are rejecting potatoes from food banks because they can't afford to cook them.
There's no need to be an arsehole about this and play politics. It's an objectively awful situation. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are simply unaware of this because the Tunbridge Wells Gazette, or whatever you take, has failed to bring this to your attention. So let me help.
If your news source of choice isn't telling you this, there are some figures at https://www.trusselltrust.org/2022/04/27/food-banks-provide-more-than-2-1-million-food-parcels-to-people-across-the-uk-in-past-year-according-to-new-figures-released-by-the-trussell-trust/ from people at the front line. And you can check your own electricity bill if you're in doubt on my other point, or see https://www.nea.org.uk/energy-crisis/.
Incidentally both those links are to charities - a food bank and an energy bank respectively. Please donate.
That's issue one - many more people can't afford food than a few years ago. Issue two is what food there is, there's less of. In my Surrey village there is markedly less food on the shelves; of what there is, it's a) worse quality and b) UK grown. I actually think it's good for the UK to grow its own food, but clearly we have some catching up to do. As an ardent Brexiter you will no doubt be aware that many of our food crops were picked by European imports, who are not here. So if you want to harvest your crops, you pay more for labour. You also have more costs and delays importing parts, fertliizer etc - unlike labour issues at least we can pin some of that on Ukraine and COVID as well as Brexit. But the net result is the same, growing food in the UK is more expensive. I've resisted Guardian links as I doubt you'll read them, but this is worth a read.
These are the backing calculations for my "then we had food" statement which you so dislike. I'm sure we could have a long conversation with more numbers, but it might get a bit dull and you can look those up yourself. Please do.
There is less food available, what is there is is more expensive, and at 9% inflation it's going to get worse. "then we had food" is a reasonably summary.
I'd assumed that, given SSH as root is almost always disabled by default, they were going in as regular users and then trying for sudo. But apparently not: From the report
> It uses a malicious shell script to try various root credential combinations across thousands of servers
Well, that's not going to be terribly effective is it? Banging on a locked door.
> Where should the limits sit, and who decides them?
The publishing company decides. As it's been this way for over a hundred years this shouldn't come as a surprise.
Standards vary, which is why Trump can block any criticism of Trump from his twitter-clone. As censorship goes that's a pretty extreme example, I wonder why the right-wingers never cite it?
Re. your specific example, I'll take a citation for the BBC "baseless" statement please. They did describe claims the Ukrainian Government had been "overrun by Nazis" as "baseless", which given Zelinksy is jewish seems reasonable. But that's very different to your claim.
I'm well aware of the Azov battalions history, but their political wing received less than 5% of the vote in the last election, just as the BNP pulled almost 2% in the 2014 UK election. Both are fringe groups, neither country has been "overrun by Nazis". No doubt Russias Nazi supporters would be classed as the same if they ever have a free election.
China uses censorship. There are no avenues to criticise Xi - they are all blocked. By contrast when Trump was blocked on Twitter, he set up his own version and carried on.
You seem to want to force Twitter to carry content they find offensive: "my house, my rules unless the government says so". Not very small-state of you.
Very decent of you Steve. Yes, I am clearly making a point - there are limits on what you can say, and some things are unacceptable and should be blocked by Twitter - note that's blocked, as in "you can't say that here", while censored means "you can't say that anywhere". Important distinction, try to remember it. Governments can censor, Twitter can't.
Now we've all agreed on the principle that some content should be blocked, all we need to do is agree where the limits are. And given that you could go to twitter right now and post "Can anyone show me strong evidence that facemasks work" without getting blocked - honestly, try it, you really can - I'm just not sure what exactly you're so animated about.
Datacenters use a lot of power, but power usage is an incidental cost. Datacenter owners are looking for ways to reduce power. Efficiency is rewarded.
Bitcoin miners use a lot of power, but power usage is a fundamental aspect of bitcoin: it's not a cost, it's the main component. If a more efficient way is found to mine bitcoins, the algorithm adjusts to keep power usage high. Efficiency is eliminated.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022