saurik

7 ms·

61.
by saurik 11mo ago
The point is that you aren't guaranteed the room type you select: you'll show up at the Marriott and they'll give you a room with one king instead of the room with two queens you thought you booked; your selection is just a p
62.
by saurik 11mo ago
So like, in the United States, if you book directly via Marriott, the number of beds isn't guaranteed unless you have some reasonable status at the hotel.
63.
by saurik 11mo ago
> Why would someone think they would keep the weight off? If they could they would have before Ozempic. I think the intuition many people have--which I am not at all defending as correct, but it certainly isn't so obviously wrong
64.
by saurik 11mo ago
> I'm also not a fan of buy bigger storage concept, or the conspiracy-theory on 480 v 512. I don't understand why this is being called a "conspiracy theory"; but, if you want some very concrete evidence that this is h
65.
by saurik 11mo ago
> My ideal environment would be Windows 95-like WM with zero configuration options which just works out of the box the way I want. Why would we have any reason to believe that there would ever be a super-opinionated desktop environment t
66.
by saurik 11mo ago
I really really wish the ecosystem had simply gone with "trunk" (which is also what Subversion had used, in addition to actually matching the metaphor in play; though, I get that some people don't consider trunk to be a bra
67.
by saurik 11mo ago
But that isn't what you said? ;P "f you wait seven days, you're pointlessly vulnerable." <- this is clearly a straw man, as no one is saying you'd wait seven days to deploy THAT patch... but, if some new configur
68.
by saurik 11mo ago
Only if you already upgraded to the one with the bug in it, and then only if you ignore "this patch is actually different: read this notice and deploy it immediately". The argument is not "never update quickly": it is do
69.
by saurik 11mo ago
If your internal process is willing to ship and deploy upgrades--whether to your code or that of a third party--without testing even so minimally to notice that they cause almost a 100% chance of crashing, you need the advice to slow down y
70.
by saurik 11mo ago
But you could have made those changes incrementally in a way that more cleanly worked across both Python 2 (which already had this split: the default type was just wrong; all of my code, for instance, worked great!... it was just super awkw
71.
by saurik 11mo ago
(Same... I know people use them to get some pretty effects; but, they add a frame of latency I do not want and require lots of memory and assume acceleration I don't need.)
72.
by saurik 11mo ago
I guess, in my mind's eye, I see a world in which Python dominated, and that didn't happen: it didn't die the death Perl did, but, in the grand scheme of where it was going -- and even what it had been -- it has become a very
73.
by saurik 11mo ago
Python 3 was a debacle that nearly destroyed the Python ecosystem due to egregious incompatibilities when it was decided that, not only could they fix a few important things, but in the process they might as well throw backwards compatibili
74.
by saurik 11mo ago
Tell that to the Wayland people? ;P
75.
by saurik 11mo ago
I dunno: I have never ever wanted to make a compositor -- which, to me, feels like a really boring piece of graphics infrastructure -- and yet I have used multiple window managers over the years and have absolutely wanted to make my own win
76.
by saurik 11mo ago
I would claim the dictators -- even the "benevolent" ones--tend to do this more often than committees, as they have more inherent power to do so: the committees tend to get stuck in backwards compatible land forever (for better or
77.
by saurik 11mo ago
> IMHO, with hindsight, they should have done this... FWIW, it was also obvious to many people--certainly anyone who had ever been part of one of these big refactors before, whether as the platform or the user--that this is how it should
78.
by saurik 11mo ago
It isn't particularly easier to make your own compositor either, as you now also have to bring your own window manager. What made the X architecture much more interesting is that it avoided coupling the window manger to the compositor.
79.
by saurik 11mo ago
Right: I agree with you. I'm saying the article is making an unfounded assumption and am providing more reasoning for why you are correct.
80.
by saurik 11mo ago
This mechanism doesn't do a PATH lookup: #!bash would only work if bash was located in your current working directory.
81.
by saurik 11mo ago
Or, like, if you aren't reading and caring about what the interpreter is--as that's the only time this can burn you: it isn't doing a PATH lookup, so you can't walk into this one on accident--then it could literally be s
82.
by saurik 11mo ago
> Python 2 features were reintroduced in basically every P3 version until at least 3.5 If they had just done this from the beginning there wouldn't even have been such upgrade drama in the first place... like, as an obvious example,
83.
by saurik 11mo ago
I'd think a POSIX mutex--a standard API that I not only could implement anywhere, but which has already been implemented all over the place--is way more "cross platform" than use of atomics.
84.
by saurik 11mo ago
1) But with quite a hefty penalty on writes... I'd think you would be better off without a primary key and just using a BRIN index for that use case? 2) Even if you did really want that B-tree, you can still have it and not have to hav
85.
by saurik 11mo ago
If your specific and narrowly scoped instructions cause the agent, acting on your behalf, to click that link that clearly isn't going to help it--a link that is only being clicked by the scrapers because the scrapers are blindly downlo
86.
by saurik 11mo ago
Discourse, not Discord.
87.
by saurik 11mo ago
There are many things one can do to mitigate the (weaker) point 1, including simply not supporting any kind of migration at all. I only bothered to go there to demonstrate that the ability to live migrate is a liability here, not a benefit.
88.
by saurik 11mo ago
I continue to disagree: the socket does not need a timeout, it can simply go into an infinitely held state. Take a web browser (a very typical "outgoing socket" case): there is no value in either the browser or the socket having
89.
by saurik 11mo ago
1) If you were GCP (as they are the attacker in this scenario), you'd attach the analyzer to ANY (!) ONE (!) server and then you migrate the user's workload that you wanted to snoop on (or were required to snoop on by the FBI) to
90.
by saurik 11mo ago
People put a lot of timeouts in code when there are humans in the loop that should handle the timeout. An outgoing socket (as is the case in this scenario) really should not have a timeout. An incoming one might could have a timeout if ther

More ›