oggy

10 ms·

31.
by oggy 7y ago
I agree that we shouldn't be taking the supply away from the professionals while there's a shortage, but your statement was that they were ineffective in the hands of laymen, and I don't think that's true. I'm not a
32.
by oggy 7y ago
The effectiveness doesn't need to be perfect. If I'm now only 50% less contagious to others with my no-longer-sterile mask, that's a huge win.
33.
by oggy 7y ago
If there are 100 or more asymptomatic and untested cases per tested case, then the disease is very highly contagious, given the timeframe we're looking at.
34.
by oggy 7y ago
What do you base the months and months estimate on?
35.
by oggy 7y ago
I'm trying to learn a bit more about how testing works. Aside from the logistics (getting the samples to the lab, etc), what are the necessary steps for sample prep? Heating to inactivate the virus? Splitting the sample into RNA/D
36.
by oggy 7y ago
I'm pretty confused by the European government's responses. While the UK is the most brazen, all others are essentially also saying that there's no other way other than letting a non-negligible percentage of the population di
37.
by oggy 7y ago
The Herlihy-Wing paper defining linearizability is a good read https://cs.brown.edu/~mph/HerlihyW90/p463-herlihy.pdf and explains the difference with good examples, although it might be too mathy/formal for m
38.
Israeli Moon Lander Poised for Lunar Touchdown Thursday(space.com)
11 points by oggy 8y ago|2 comments
39.
by oggy 8y ago
The DAML landing page gives a nice overview of the unique language features: https://daml.com/ Disclaimer: I work there. Very exciting to see it open-sourced!
40.
by oggy 8y ago
No, you don't get linearizability of all operations, you might not even read your earlier writes - but the whole point is that you sometimes don't need these guarantees for reads. You get a consistent snapshot read, and that'
41.
by oggy 8y ago
You're comparing apples to oranges. If read coordination can be avoided (and it often can, even in systems with consensus), whether you stick a cache on the client or not is completely orthogonal to whether the system uses consensus fo
42.
by oggy 8y ago
That's not really true. With a single, non-replicated server, you're also very much exposed to network failures. If the server's connection goes down, you're screwed. Compare this to a Google replication setup of 2 East
43.
by oggy 8y ago
That's an excellent explanation, except for couple of points which I think can be misinterpreted. A distributed system with consensus will in practice provide higher availability than a single-node system, because it provides fault-tol
44.
by oggy 8y ago
Based on the paper, the title is clickbait; it does not talk about intercepting calls at all. It does mention that one of the attacks in the paper can enable "further attacks", but if call interception was one of them, I'd im
45.
by oggy 8y ago
What is your definition of a nondeterministic system then? Typically it's a system with a non-deterministic transition relation. E.g., assuming for simplicity a system state sharded into two shards with numerical states, and the initia
46.
by oggy 8y ago
I don't understand how this can be generalized to non-deterministic systems. First off, the definition of non-deterministic is unclear to me. His definition of deterministic seems wrong, as he's using a set of requests. Sets are u
47.
by oggy 8y ago
I don't understand your point about only a subset of shards running code that may abort. Since we are talking about transactions, if there is even a single shard S that may abort (based on its state), then all other shards must also ab
48.
by oggy 8y ago
Last week I took part in a formal methods workshop where one of the topics discussed was "why we don't have formal specs for most things" (which is a more modest ask than verification). Many things we came up with were what y
49.
by oggy 10y ago
For more random interesting theorems with outrageously clever and beautiful proofs, the "Proofs from THE BOOK" [1] book is a fantastic collection. As a curiosity, "THE BOOK" in the title comes from Erdos, who often refer
50.
by oggy 10y ago
Consensus is not about transactions, it's about agreeing on a value (a single value, strictly speaking, unlike atomic broadcast, which is about agreeing on a sequence of values, although people often identify the two). But anyway, your
51.
by oggy 10y ago
The split-brain scenarios you mention cannot occur, since all the proposals have to go through the leader before they are agreed to by any processes. Moreover, the leaders are lease-based in the author's proposal, so I believe that wha
52.
by oggy 10y ago
It didn't "just work (TM)" for me, I had to customize the intero-package-version in my .emacs when using it with a project with the latest stack-nightly, to bump it up to "0.1.16". But other than that, wow! I was al
53.
by oggy 10y ago
And the 3rd person version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17elclJuXxQ
54.
by oggy 10y ago
Thanks for that post, that's interesting. Do you by chance have any pointers to a good textbook that covers these things?
55.
by oggy 10y ago
> Haskell -- like other pure FP languages -- is built around > the approximation of denotational semantics, Interesting, do you have any references for this? I thought that the primary reason for purity was to enable equational reason
56.
by oggy 11y ago
Yes, I also use CLR(S) as a reference, when I need to quickly look up an algorithm. But it doesn't really explain how to come up with algorithms - for that, my favorite is Udi Manber's "Introduction to Algorithms: A Creative
57.
by oggy 11y ago
That's pretty awesome that you could get this verified down to the implementation. We had a related project [1], where we verified a persistent storage system under restarts. Our case study was much simpler than a full fledged file sys
58.
by oggy 11y ago
This is great news, and thanks to everyone involved. I've been using TextSecure for a while, and it's really "pretty good security made easy". Yes it is not perfect for the super privacy-conscious (depends on Google Play
59.
by oggy 11y ago
You're misguided. What you describe is not really an issue for dependent types. Your attitude seems to be shared by a lot of people, so I'll try to clear things up a bit. I think it helps if I use refinement types (as used in F )
60.
by oggy 11y ago
Thanks for the informative post. Could you please clarify a couple of things for me? > Named instances are incompatible with coherence. We could > just put one named instance into a runtime object Could you give an example of what you

More ›