mjw1007

87 ms·

781.
by mjw1007 8y ago
The whole github purchase is premised on the idea that Microsoft have changed their ways in the last few years. So it isn't safe to assume they aren't changing to a more Facebook/Google-like data-selling business model.
782.
by mjw1007 8y ago
It might not be about Microsoft specifically. It might just be about github no longer being independent. Or it might more to do with the $7.5 billion sale price, and a wish not to join in a game of "you have to be on github because eve
783.
by mjw1007 8y ago
I'd add one more option to that list: it is _finished_ (and implemented in a language with good backwards-compatibility discipline).
784.
by mjw1007 8y ago
I think it's likely that there are fair number of people who were already thinking "I should probably move to GitLab one day", and have taken the recent announcement as a reason to actually get round to it (rather than being
785.
by mjw1007 8y ago
It seems rather likely that he is donating.
786.
by mjw1007 8y ago
Quick summary of what happened next for anyone who comes across this thread in the future: Under pressure from outside, the wikipedia admins decided to reopen this case. They fairly quickly came to consensus that Cross was violating the par
787.
by mjw1007 8y ago
For what it's worth, their FAQ says « If this happened in 2011, why is the claim only being brought now? In 2015, three individuals brought a claim against Google claiming their privacy rights had been breached by Google using the Safa
788.
by mjw1007 8y ago
That's certainly the sort of thing that can happen, but as far as I can tell the COIN report was within Wikipedia norms, and closing the report two minutes later with "Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross,
789.
by mjw1007 8y ago
Said admin also wrote «As long as you don't request community-imposed sanctions posting at WP:COIN is fine.», and I observe that the KaiHolmann's posting there did not request community-imposed sanctions.
790.
by mjw1007 8y ago
The admin who summarily closed the conflict-of-interest report explains his motivation as follows: « You can't amass 130,000 edits, as Philip Cross has, without being reasonably committed to Wikipedia. You'd be noticed if you were
791.
by mjw1007 8y ago
Is it still believed that Stuxnet was never intended to escape and infect machines worldwide? If so, I think that blunder deserves to be a more prominent part of the story.
792.
by mjw1007 8y ago
That's perhaps an excuse for having imperfect documentation. I don't think it's an excuse for it being in the state it's currently in. Have you looked at that chapter recently? It starts by saying « A Rust program's
793.
by mjw1007 8y ago
I have one gripe about Rust: The Rust people appear to be actively proud of their documentation, and they appear to be proud of their memory model. But the documentation of the memory model in the reference manual is seven short paragraphs
794.
by mjw1007 8y ago
> But popular mainstream GPG clients don't honor that warning, which doesn't say "Stop, don't process this plaintext I am showing you", but rather "message was not integrity protected". As more informat
795.
by mjw1007 8y ago
You might be piping its output into `head` or `more`.
796.
by mjw1007 9y ago
I've been surprised to see an apparent consensus from the filesystem developers that Postgres should be using direct IO. I worry that if the Postgres people do make that change, they'll find themselves hearing from a different set
797.
by mjw1007 9y ago
As far as I can make out, that isn't what happened in this case. It seems to me that WHATWG settled on the behaviour that the reporter of 255107 originally asked for, and Firefox recently changed to match. The work just wasn't tra
798.
by mjw1007 9y ago
Because of an "unforeseen code relationship", they say. What more could we want to know? It sounds like some other piece of MS software is relying on .NET not performing the checks that it should have been performing.
799.
by mjw1007 9y ago
That sounds reasonable. So with the OLPC's (pie-in-the-sky) design lifetime of 10 years, maybe it should be compared to 200-300 books. But if you could get thousands of books on a laptop you wouldn't need to know _which_ 200 books
800.
by mjw1007 9y ago
You are right that the $100 robust laptop didn't exist and still doesn't. But I believe that _that_ is « The real reason why OLPC failed », not that it would have been a bad idea if it were possible.
801.
by mjw1007 9y ago
Licence costs aren't an inherent advantage of 'digital' distribution over paper, though. But if we could get to the stage where the licensing costs are are small compared to the production costs, the laptop would do better, b
802.
by mjw1007 9y ago
Paper books are expensive to print, warehouse, and ship. If someone could make a robust laptop for $100 I could easily believe in it being a net gain, even if it was only ever used for reading textbooks.
803.
by mjw1007 9y ago
The «Fuzz Revisited: A Re-examination of the Reliability of UNIX Utilities and Services» paper in 1995 reported on exactly that. It made a bit of a splash at the time because the GNU command-line tools did noticeably better than the commerc
804.
by mjw1007 9y ago
He writes "Like the way ANSI thinks about it, if you eliminate dirty reads, non-repeatable reads, and phantom reads, you’re serializable.", but that isn't true. The sql-92 standard was already clear: « SERIALIZABLE is guarant
805.
by mjw1007 9y ago
I think asking the GCC developers for a builtin form of __is_constant would be a sensible step, so that the worst of those macros can eventually be retired.
806.
by mjw1007 9y ago
In linux, renameat2() with RENAME_EXCHANGE on directories ought to be a very helpful primitive. Does anyone know what the state of glibc support is? The last thing I saw was this thread: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-a
807.
by mjw1007 9y ago
The question of API copyrightability seems to have been a big failure of the legislation-and-precedent system. The theory is that instead of the legislature trying to think through all the corner cases ahead of time, they pass a somewhat va
808.
by mjw1007 9y ago
Kogan was pretty open in his BBC radio interview that his research on personality types and political views (which was the nominal purpose of gathering his data) shows only very weak effects. I could easily believe that CA's data set p
809.
by mjw1007 9y ago
Thank you very much. He does say he's reporting the minimum latency; I was thinking that no case would be faster than reading from L1 cache, but it makes sense that store-forwarding can be faster.
810.
by mjw1007 9y ago
If I discovered a lost work of Milton and pretended it was my own, then that would be acting at the expense of Milton's reputation, in the sense I mean. So I don't think it matters if the "someone else" happens to be dea

More ›