torstenvl

7 ms·

91.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
This is an intellectually and morally deficient position to take. There is no moral principle in any system anywhere in the history of the universe that requires me to bind myself to a contract that nobody else is bound to. We can all agree
92.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
Objectively incorrect. There is no reasonable argument that it's ethically unsound. The fact that you immediately Godwin'd should have been your first clue.
93.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
It isn't ethically unsound. It's a commons/coordination problem. What is the optimal strategy in infinite-round prisoners dilemma with randomized opponents? The randomization effectively makes it an infinite series of one-rou
94.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
> Sinking half a dozen ships in international waters is a crime. Citation needed.
95.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
This is awesome! (Just so you know, RTL doesn't work. حبيبي comes out as ي ب ي ب ح. See https://imgur.com/a/HiXxqZ2 )
96.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
I think I understand now. That's reasonably fair. I don't necessarily share in your ultimate conclusion, but I can see how your opinion is well-reasoned.
97.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
Which assembly? Assembly with macros? Assembly with synthetic instructions? If you use mov %i0, %l0 instead of or %g0, %i0, %l0 Then that isn't "the lowest level you can target."
98.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
I don't understand the argument you're trying to make. You seem to be arguing that C isn't a high-level assembler because some compilers generate different machine code for the same source code. But (a) that doesn't co
99.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
I don't think clang is being "aggressive" on ARM, it's just that all aarch64 targets support fma. You'll get similar results with vfmadd213ss on x86-64 with -march=haswell (13 years old at this point, probably a saf
100.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
> C isn't not a high level assembler Hmm. The text following this heading seems to take the opposite view. I suspect this is a typo. However, I think the heading is accurate as written. The "C is not a high level assembler&qu
101.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
I'm finding A Deepness in the Sky pretty drudging to be honest.
102.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
Strongly second Exhalation by Ted Chiang. "The Life Cycle of Software Objects" is especially compelling.
103.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
Airbags do not kill people. There were fewer than 300 airbag-related deaths of the course of two decades, and the vast majority of those deaths were caused by not wearing a seatbelt.
104.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
Not relevant. Safety designs that kill people are indefensible.
105.
by torstenvl 10mo ago
That's what seat belts are for. Making unbreakable glass is morally repugnant.
106.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
What ramp up? It's been less than a year since they discontinued the SE 2022. Apple could have kept improving the CPU and camera and not much else and would have had a steady stream of income from those of us who want to use our actual
107.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
I don't understand why you need to be so dishonest about this. It remains the objective and inarguable fact that Apple does not have a monopoly here. Period. End of story. It simply isn't true. Whether their behavior is otherwise
108.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
Font generally looks nice, but I really hate the trend of overly-curly curly braces. (Also, I'm judging the C code. No check on the fopen()? fclose() on a possibly invalid FILE *? No return from int main()? "FILE *f"?!?!)
109.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
Anyone who determines language solely from IP is per se incompetent and needs to be completely blacklisted from the industry. The Accept-Language header exists for a reason.
110.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
That seems unrelated. Did you mean to respond to someone else?
111.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
This is exactly the kind of dishonest manipulative baiting that makes people feel uncomfortable. Absolutely nothing InvertedRhodium said was in any way racist, and your allegations otherwise are both wholly devoid of evidence and against th
112.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
No. Also irrelevant.
113.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
This is utterly irrelevant. I don't know what point you're trying to make. It remains objectively inarguable that Apple does not have a platform monopoly on (ARM-compatible) smartphones the way Microsoft did on ("Intel-compat
114.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
Apple does not have a platform monopoly on smartphones the way Microsoft did on PCs.
115.
by torstenvl 11mo ago
If nearly all biometrics systems currently on the market are insecure, then it is fair to say biometrics have been made insecure. Of devices currently sold, the only secure biometrics I'm aware of are on iPad mini/Air; Google Pixe
116.
by torstenvl 1y ago
Are you aware that 28 of your last 30 submissions are promoting your own site? And that your discussion of this topic jumps into partisan political insults in the first sentence?
117.
by torstenvl 1y ago
Yeah, the latter. All kinds of reports of siblings (including fraternal twins and non-twins) being able to unlock each others phones. https://duckduckgo.com/?origin=funnel_home_google&t=h_&q=fac... Fingerprints are
118.
by torstenvl 1y ago
Would be nice, but biometrics have also been systematically made less secure. Apple, for example, no longer sells a phone with Touch ID.
119.
by torstenvl 1y ago
You're right. It looks like the new full VM emulation in 20.2 doesn't use Rosetta. https://www.parallels.com/blogs/parallels-desktop-20-2-0/ Nevertheless, running x64 software including Docker containers
120.
by torstenvl 1y ago
It's a bizarre assumption that this is about "neglected software." A lot of software is for x64 only. If Rosetta2 goes away, Parallels support for x64 binaries in VMs likely goes away too. Parallels is not neglected softwar

More ›