dwattttt

27 ms·

451.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Their anti-bot detection is pretty aggressive. The server insists I'm a teapot, and I haven't checked today, but I'm pretty sure I'm at least humanoid shaped.
452.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Your statement > by writing kernels... his use-case is much more practical than anything that compiler designers could imagine. States that compiler designers cannot even imagine the practicalities needed to write kernels. Which is quite
453.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Are you sure that if you don't attempt to set any affinities, Windows won't schedule 64+ threads over other processor groups? I don't have any system handy that'll produce more than 64 logical processors to test this, bu
454.
by dwattttt 1y ago
The linked Processor Group documentation also says: > Applications that do not call any functions that use processor affinity masks or processor numbers will operate correctly on all systems, regardless of the number of processors. I sus
455.
by dwattttt 1y ago
> A whole separate register? There are quite a few registers (in all the ISAs I'm familiar with) that are defined as not preserved across calls; kernels already have to wipe them in order to avoid leaking kernel-specific data to use
456.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Even more weirdly: affinity was set to the P cores, so it wasn't being scheduled on E cores at all. Maybe it was spawning more threads than P cores, because it expected to be able to use all cores.
457.
by dwattttt 1y ago
"inline(always)" I expect matches Clang's "always_inline", and Clang's documentation makes what it does clearer: > Inlining heuristics are disabled and inlining is always attempted regardless of optimization
458.
by dwattttt 1y ago
To be fair, lots of fields have a notion of a "control" system. Control Theory doesn't have a monopoly on the term, for all that the field revolves around 'control systems'.
459.
by dwattttt 1y ago
> Function calls also have that negative property that the compiler doesn’t know what happens after calling them so it needs to assume the worst happens. And by the worst, it has to assume that the function can change any memory location
460.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Apologies, yes, "control system" is somewhat niche jargon. "Balance system" is probably more appropriate.
461.
by dwattttt 1y ago
It's that there's nothing special about blending "operator initiated animation commands" with the RL balancing system. The balance system has to balance anyway; if there was no connection between an operator's wave
462.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Having worked on control systems a long time ago, that's a 'nothing' statement: the whole job of the control system is to keep the robot stable/ambulating, regardless of whatever disturbances occur. It's meant to re
463.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Microsoft moved to a Universal CRT (UCRT) around Windows 10, both C# and C++ are calling into the OS UCRT there.
464.
by dwattttt 1y ago
I did this with a moderate sized cli tool; it was really good to be able to see effectively every error state you could have at the top level of the program. Something I didn't find an ergonomic solution to though was pulling out commo
465.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Resizing has to happen regardless of the ability to delete a key, unless you know upfront how many entries you're going to add; I'd be much more worried about a home grown hash table's tuning to rebalance itself at say, 80% b
466.
by dwattttt 1y ago
> That's because of private institutions too. Regulatory capture is the reason we can't govern worth a shit in the US I think the ingrained "every person for themselves" attitude is more fundamentally a problem. Fix o
467.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Do you mean a data structure they only use once? Or one that's never been done elsewhere? If they only use it once, that seems like the worst effort/pay-off ratio you can get writing it yourself. And I don't think there'
468.
by dwattttt 1y ago
You could take away anything you use and say "but we could make it ourselves", that doesn't mean it's helpful.
469.
by dwattttt 1y ago
When all you have are arrays, everything looks like a problem you solve with arrays. There are quite a few problems that specialised containers are suited for, that's why they were created.
470.
by dwattttt 1y ago
A framing about the problem I don't often see is: when do you want to throw away information about an error case? Losing that information is sometimes the right thing to do (as you said, maybe you don't care about which file isn&#
471.
by dwattttt 1y ago
An error type per function doubles as documentation. If you treat all errors as the same it doesn't matter, but if you have to handle some, then you really care about what actual errors a function can return.
472.
by dwattttt 1y ago
I believe the specific advice they're referring to has been stable for a while. You take your generic function & split it into a thin generic wrapper, and a non-generic worker. As an example, say your function takes anything that c
473.
by dwattttt 1y ago
> unless you find it terrifying that owners of hardware have control over their hardware I mean that the presence or absence of an IOMMU doesn't impact whether owners of hardware have control over their hardware. It just means that
474.
by dwattttt 1y ago
And if they want complete control, they can choose not to use a vendor and do it themself, for all the control they could want. Hooray, freedom!
475.
by dwattttt 1y ago
Mightily resisting the urge to be flippant, but all of those benefits were achieved before Docker. Docker is a (the, in some areas) modern way to do it, but far from the only way.
476.
by dwattttt 1y ago
It's been a very slow learning process trying to undo the "performance at every cost" mantra.
477.
by dwattttt 1y ago
It's your IOMMU, you can do what you want with it. Maybe you need to write heaps of stuff to take advantage of it, but what's new there? The only thing you're getting by saying "no IOMMU" is "I want any devices
478.
by dwattttt 1y ago
I recall reading Raymond Chen mentioning that Notepad actually gets more exercise than you'd expect; it's a common guinea pig for features: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180521-00/?p=98...
479.
by dwattttt 1y ago
A person should get out more. They'd probably learn a lot, by the sound of it.
480.
by dwattttt 1y ago
I would say in many cases they were right; the history of Python package management is littered with winners as well as losers.

More ›