nsajko

69 ms·

661.
by nsajko 6y ago
My point was that PRNGs like the PCG family don't get peer-reviewed anyway (if they're not meant as CSPRNGs), although the way PCGs were presented is problematic because the author lays claim to "many of the benefits" of
662.
by nsajko 6y ago
> That's not technically true. So your argument is that rejection from peer-review counts as peer-review? > I'm confused about why the author didn't just resubmit it elsewhere [...] concerns were about presentation rath
663.
by nsajko 6y ago
You're kind of confusing different issues. On the one hand, PRNGs aren't a very popular research subject AFAIK. The Blackman/Vigna PRNGs (which are the other recently popular PRNG family) likewise only got papers on Arxiv, AF
664.
by nsajko 6y ago
The author of PCG published a new member of the family on her Github in 2019. There was no blog post and I think the only announcement was on a certain Numpy Github issue, but the DXSM variants are supposed to be faster and have even better
665.
by nsajko 6y ago
I don't want them to focus on RISC-V. Only time will tell how appropriate RISC-V can be technologically in a smartphone application, and why would you want the company that focuses on open source to invest themselves into it? Are you a
666.
by nsajko 6y ago
No, there is no relation. You are conflating the ISA with its hardware designs. I'm not an expert, but imagine an ISA being like a C library API, in that case the hardware would be the APIs implementation.
667.
Cplusplus/draft: C++ standards drafts(github.com)
4 points by nsajko 6y ago|0 comments
668.
by nsajko 6y ago
> I don't see that the particular techniques used in the design, such as microcode, would matter. The question is whether the published netlist matches the one on your chip. You're missing the fact that microcode lies between t
669.
by nsajko 6y ago
> One of the killer-features of RISC-V was being backdoor-free I think you are confused. RISC-V is just an ISA, not a hardware design, so it can't have a backdoor or, on the other hand, be free of them.
670.
by nsajko 6y ago
> It's an open source processor, right? The term open source was used in the article, but did they mean that in an accurate sense, or was it just empty marketing? Also, I can't find the source after a short search. > Could
671.
by nsajko 6y ago
The misconception you present here seems to be widely held, so I'm actually going to upvote you; RISC-V being an open ISA just means that the standards describing the ISA are open, there is no relation with open source hardware. I.e.,
672.
by nsajko 6y ago
These four Unicode symbols have a similarly obscure origin: EDIT: automatically removed by HN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)#Notation_and_recordi... Relevant thread on the Unicode mailing list, with Subject &q
673.
by nsajko 6y ago
> All in all it took us under a week to secure the assignments, and any who did not sign we simply rewrote their lines of code, or we would have, but everybody signed. IANAL, but this doesn't make much sense. Changing all lines that
674.
by nsajko 6y ago
As-in-beer freedom.
675.
by nsajko 6y ago
What you fear is sadly true. See my top-level comment in this thread for some elaboration.
676.
by nsajko 6y ago
I agree those features are essential for an Xorg replacement, but you're missing the fact that the Wayland designers excluded them intentionally, so Wayland is intrinsically hostile to the features and the power-users that use them. Se
677.
by nsajko 6y ago
> Just because Red Hat is moving resources away it doesn't really mean it is sabotaging the project I think you may have misunderstood the commenter you replied to: they were probably referring to the careless breaking of backwards
678.
by nsajko 6y ago
> we can finally abandon xfree86 The trouble here for those who use Unix-likes as graphical programming environments is that Wayland is the intended replacement for Xorg, and the quoted statement comes from the perspective of making prod
679.
by nsajko 6y ago
You are being dismissive of Axler (with the "personal crusade" comment) and disagree with his position, but it would be less disrespectful of Axler and more beneficial to the discussion (and interesting to me) to give at least som
680.
by nsajko 6y ago
> An idiosyncrasy of Axler's book is that it introduces determinants only toward the end I think the idea is that determinants do not necessarily belong in linear algebra proper, at least not with as prominent a position as they are
681.
by nsajko 6y ago
> by eventually only having a single compositor implementation I'd just like to note explicity that this would probably be a compositor that tries to cater to only 80% of users (if that), with the rest of us being told to fuck off.
682.
by nsajko 6y ago
Considering you're this deep in the discussion with your comment, you've managed to overlook quite a few expected and needed features that Wayland misses (or is even hostile to) compared to X, and which thus make your analogy obvi
683.
by nsajko 6y ago
OK, X sucks in a way (although your argumentation for that is wrong), but replacing X with Wayland is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. (Also, I don't think Wayland fits in any hole nicely, with it being hostile to even
684.
by nsajko 6y ago
It is my understanding that the Arcan system enables such usage: https://arcan-fe.com/about/ https://github.com/letoram/arcan https://github.com/letoram/arcan/wiki&#x2F
685.
by nsajko 6y ago
Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about, with the feature only coming in 2020 and being specific to Gnome.
686.
by nsajko 6y ago
OK then, if Wayland is meant for closed and user-hostile platforms, why is it being marketed as a X11 replacement? Why is there a constant FUD-included push to dissmis Xorg in favor of Wayland compositors?
687.
by nsajko 6y ago
One more thing: the Wayland security model doesn't make much sense anyway, considering that running untrusted code over a large attack surface and without at least virtualization is probably a bad idea anyway nowadays (and even virtual
688.
by nsajko 6y ago
You're missing the point, which is that all of this should have been a part of Wayland, because "the desktops" will never agree on a common protocol. Also, you're wrong that this isn't related to security, I can&#x2
689.
by nsajko 6y ago
No, it's just awkward and unfortunate wording :)
690.
by nsajko 6y ago
If Wayland is the future, the future is grim. People often complain that Wayland is taking a long time to catch up to X11, but that actually stems from a deeper issue: Wayland has a horrible design, for an X11 replacement, a design that lea

More ›