Veserv

30 ms·

421.
by Veserv 2y ago
I know, right? John Sculley ran the, at the time, most successful computer maker, Apple, for 10 years. Brian Krzanich ran the, at the time, largest chip maker, Intel, for 6 years. They were the authorities; their decision-making and abiliti
422.
by Veserv 2y ago
They are not. Cisco and literally every other major commercial IT vendor has software that can only be considered a pile of trash that is grossly and criminally inadequate against commonplace threats and attacks. But imagine how bad your so
423.
by Veserv 2y ago
You mean present it non-deceptively without exaggerating to the detriment of the user. What would the developers tell their partners or friends in confidence? Are their claims in confidence supported by evidence that they made efforts to va
424.
by Veserv 2y ago
That is not completely true. The parties can incorrectly value the items being traded resulting in a non-positive sum trade for either or even both parties. However, absent intentionally deceptive information (i.e. the overwhelming majority
425.
by Veserv 2y ago
That is not a TCP/IP stack in 200 LoC. The thing described is a TCP/IP segment parser with response packet encoder. The “stack” described [1] can not transmit a payload stream. That also means it avoids the “costly (in terms of li
426.
by Veserv 2y ago
While time-travel debugging would provide such capability, it is highly unlikely they are describing that due to timeframe and unfamiliarity with debuggers. They are most likely describing the much simpler feature of having the debugger dro
427.
by Veserv 2y ago
You can not just discard the oldest data of a long-running execution trace when doing replay-based time-travel debugging. You can not replay execution without a known state followed by all non-determinism after that state which is most eas
428.
by Veserv 2y ago
Those are only sufficient to produce a execution trace rather than a full data trace which is needed for time-travel debugging. Though they are sufficient to do what the person you responded to asked for which is just execution trace.
429.
by Veserv 2y ago
You disagree with “lawfare”, as in the biased application of the law to further individual interests? Having presented no hard evidence for your claims, I can only assume the standard you demand is the scrupulous separation of interests, co
430.
by Veserv 2y ago
I do not like his policies that enabled the free and unrestrained usage of the N-word and Swastikas in his Fremont, California Tesla factory. Do you? Please explain why you agree that is acceptable workplace culture. If you are unaware of t
431.
by Veserv 2y ago
The Kardashians did not have money disbursement and firing authority over vast swathes of the US federal government. Maybe it is just me, but I feel that demands a little more scrutiny than reality TV stars. We certainly should not lower
432.
by Veserv 2y ago
Yes, I am aware. I was using “resistant to sustained aerial bombardment” in the general sense of all classes of mitigations, not just fortification. But thank you for elaborating when I was too lazy to. It helps further reinforce my point t
433.
by Veserv 2y ago
It is not about “active war”. It is about mitigating known, routine risks. You are confusing a description of the problem and a description of the solution. Routine harmful cyberattacks is a problem. You do not get to abdicate responsibilit
434.
by Veserv 2y ago
It is not about war footing it is about mitigating known environmental hazards. This can be done geopolitically, collectively, technologically, etc. but the point is that you need to mitigate or accommodate the known, routine risks. It is
435.
by Veserv 2y ago
Your logic is backwards. Factories are not designed to withstand sustained aerial bombardment because the chance of sustained aerial bombardment is small to non-existent due to effective (geopolitical) mitigations. But, if you are in a acti
436.
by Veserv 2y ago
“Recall” is and has always meant that a version of the product has a public critical safety defect, not the remedy. “Initiated safety recalls require a manufacturer's action to announce and remedy the defects. A recall is issued when a
437.
by Veserv 2y ago
Three system calls per packet is not a serious design. First of all, QUIC supports ack ranges which allow ack coalescing, so you do not need to average one ack per packet. Second of all, QUIC supports frame packing, so you can piggyback on
438.
by Veserv 2y ago
The person I responded to stated: "AMD server processors are so big these days that you could spend a quarter of your compute on QUIC without blinking an eye". I was pointing out that seems ridiculous since even minor performance
439.
by Veserv 2y ago
I mean, it worked and is working for the other company named after Nikola Tesla, Tesla. Straight up lied about FSD, its capabilities and it's current state, to include faking test results as "proof" that it worked. One exampl
440.
by Veserv 2y ago
You are arguing: “Why should Google care about wasting 25% of their compute costs?” I do not know how much that is, but presumably it is in the billions per year. A 1% saving would be tens of millions per year and that would only require a
441.
by Veserv 2y ago
5 GB/s per core would still be 40 Gbps per core, so only ~15% of their time would be spent in encryption. They spend 5x longer doing the non-encryption stuff. Also, it would be silly to bottleneck your protocol implementation benchmark
442.
by Veserv 2y ago
Do we know if that is true for whatever Google is using internally on their servers? Are they also only getting ~7 Gbps per core or are they going much faster either due to software or hardware? What are the actual exemplary implementations
443.
by Veserv 2y ago
I assume their network protocol benchmark meant to show how fast their protocol implementation is relative to others is not being bottlenecked on their network bandwidth because that would be positively idiotic. Given the machine the benchm
444.
by Veserv 2y ago
Their dashboard [1] shows the library only gets ~7 Gbps on what is presumably a single core (given that it is single connection benchmark). Is that considered fast? The memory bus on that system probably pushes at least ~400 Gbps, and even
445.
by Veserv 2y ago
Oh I see. You appear to be unfamiliar with how to evaluate failure rates. You appear to be under the mistaken assumption that your sample size needs to be in proportion to the failure rate you hope to achieve to draw any conclusions. That i
446.
by Veserv 2y ago
Are you joking? It is a rate. It is cited in per 100,000 because that is the characteristic rate that results in low integer-scale values. Rates are scale-invariant so you could just as well cite it in per 1,000 if you desire, but then you
447.
by Veserv 2y ago
Of course you can. In accordance with proper science and research they made their methodology and used dataset clear and transparent allowing you to run your own analysis. Compensating for dataset bias in your preferred manner, we get 4 fir
448.
by Veserv 2y ago
The analysis is quite lackluster because it only compares vehicle quantity where as fires are more a function of quantity and usage, so you should really be comparing vehicle-years or vehicle-miles. For the Tesla Cybertruck, we can overesti
449.
by Veserv 2y ago
Great, so you agree that there exist classes of neuroscience research and experiments that are “worse” than eating animals, so the fact that animals are eaten in bulk does not give a free pass to all classes of “neuroscience research”? We a
450.
by Veserv 2y ago
You wanted to test implant A, but you unintentionally used implant B in half of your experiments is not "learning". Unless you needed to learn Surgery 101 like maintaining and going through checklists, but then you are grossly ill

More ›