joosters

22 ms·

211.
by joosters 5y ago
Apologies, the article mentions nothing about pay and internships just implied unpaid to me.
212.
by joosters 5y ago
Agreed. The way the EU has handled this is naive at best. How so? The law is explicit that it should be just as easy to refuse the cookies as it is to accept them. Companies are ignoring the letter of the law anyway.
213.
by joosters 5y ago
That Usborne book series was amazing - it seems amazing nowdays that there were books explaining machine code targeted at children , young me was so glad that they existed. I can remember writing machine code for my spectrum with it (and t
214.
by joosters 5y ago
The drones have a big problem in that they can be knocked out of communications with the ground support infrastructure using fairly cheap portable ECM equipment I am nowhere near an expert on this subject, but it seems to me that drones c
215.
by joosters 5y ago
But why not? Which technologies are lacking? We can make remote controlled drones now, so it seems (to me) that a remote controlled F-35 is feasible today. And once you take the pilot out, designing a pilot-less fighter plane should be sim
216.
by joosters 5y ago
Are manned fighter jets obsolete by now? Surely we can produce drones that are just as capable, if not more so, and they would be vastly, order-of-magnitude cheaper than the planes that have to protect squishy human beings. Being cheaper me
217.
by joosters 5y ago
I hope you're not advocating the return of the portmapper?
218.
by joosters 5y ago
I've no idea if their self-declared 'back of the envelope' calculations are realistic, but it doesn't really matter. The comparison is plain dumb because unlike Bitcoin, clothes driers actually do something useful with t
219.
by joosters 5y ago
Not just the protocol makers/devs. Let's pretend you are trying to buy something online with ethereum... (ridiculous of course, who uses these coins to buy real stuff?) You'll have to trust: * The website you're usin
220.
by joosters 5y ago
It's the same as any other crypto coin; a negative-sum game, where investors (as a whole) are guaranteed to lose. https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2018-07-18-0148-va...
221.
by joosters 5y ago
Mythic Beasts do PI hosting with their own servers, and are a very good company: https://www.mythic-beasts.com/order/rpi
222.
by joosters 5y ago
Somewhat ironically, I'd guess that putting a server inside a wind turbine makes it less likely that you are utilising green energy. The power and comms connections to that location are there primarily to monitor the turbine, and the
223.
by joosters 5y ago
I’m sorry, but I’m still not following… why must a cache be (in theory) flushed more often without overcommit?
224.
by joosters 5y ago
Sure, but it doesn’t state how they knew that the speaker was the attacker… perhaps this was one of the details that they couldn’t tell us about, but absent that, it is fair to question why they are so sure. Especially if the video is pub
225.
by joosters 5y ago
It’s a weakness of the fork()+exec() model, for sure. However, creating a fork_and_execve() API is extremely tricky. Just think of all the innumerable setup options you would need to give it, e.g. what file handles should be closed or left
226.
by joosters 5y ago
Those objects must exist with and without overcommit, I don’t understand why they must make one less efficient than the other. (I’m talking in general here - not Linux specifically)
227.
by joosters 5y ago
Solaris does have this problem! If you have a huge program running, fork()img it can fail on Solaris, even if you only want to just exec a tiny program. The key way of avoiding this is to ensure you have lots and lots of swap space.
228.
by joosters 5y ago
In theory, a system without overcommit can run just as efficiently, IF you have reserved huge amounts of swap space. As long as swap is available, the OS can do all the same COW and efficiency tricks. It’s not the physically backed memory i
229.
by joosters 5y ago
The difficulty is that the lack of memory might be discovered days after it was allocated (an over-committing allocator simply doesn’t know at the time whether there will be memory or not) - how do you asynchronously tell the program that t
230.
by joosters 5y ago
Please don’t blindly declare it ‘totally dumb’. If you disallow overcommit, you can end up with a system that can’t fork and run /bin/true, even if there are gigabytes of memory left. Both styles of memory allocation have their us
231.
by joosters 5y ago
Or maybe the questions were innocent and legitimate, but another listener realised the value of the answers?
232.
by joosters 5y ago
Looks like HN comments have ads too...
233.
by joosters 5y ago
Resolution control on my mac mini + 3rd party 4k monitor works just great, you can choose to have native resolution, 'retina' (i.e. 2x scaling), or a few steps in-between the two, there's plenty of flexibility. Plus, the way
234.
by joosters 5y ago
The compiler will warn about potentially confusing situations involving different scripts. For example, using identifiers that look very similar will result in a warning. Unfortunately, I've little experience of rust, so I don't
235.
by joosters 5y ago
So, if you connect a non-4k display, the Mac will render in a way that won't look as sharp as the display could. That's not true. A display will happily utilise it's full hardware resolution. The problem, as I understand it
236.
by joosters 5y ago
Their advisory is well-written and explains the problem well. The example code they use: if access_level != "user" { // Check if admin opens up a whole can of worms though. You don't need cunning invisible co
237.
by joosters 5y ago
Stable coins are all the rage to fight inflation. 'Regular Joes' call them dollars, they exist as pieces of paper you can hold in your hand. They don't need to play silly games with crypto scammers.
238.
by joosters 5y ago
Ah, you're completely right, the compiler couldn't hid or assume away the aborts as they would now be part of the spec.
239.
by joosters 5y ago
You are reading words that nobody wrote. No-one claimed that they were redefining the ‘C spec’ by passing flags to their compiler - the standards board’s job is still safe!
240.
by joosters 5y ago
Sure, but I understand why the C spec does not define this - because not all processors can trap these events, at all times and in all situations, without added costs. And C is very much of the opinion that it doesn't want added costs

More ›