Philips Ultra Efficient bulbs use only 4 watts, and they have a glass bulb and metal base, so they might feel cool to the touch anyway. Or at least feel plausibly the same temperature as the room, depending on how hot it is in there.
The really crazy thing to me is when a game is updated to remove copyrighted songs they lost a license for.
That was apparently never a problem back in the days of CDs, but now they have to do that or else the poor music companies will go bankrupt.
Its pretty well known that “lines of code” is a horrible metric to judge programmers with. It seems “number of new projects” is pretty similar, though at a higher level of abstraction.
Unfortunately that metric is applied to a lot more than just programmers; and I think getting rid of it would involve completely restructuring the type of activity our society is oriented around, and would run up against the life philosophy of the people in charge.
Of course I’m not against progress, but I’m talking about executives that don’t plan beyond the next quarter, politicians that don’t plan beyond the next election cycle, the endless pursuit of growth, and the inability of market economies to cope with the fact that sometimes inaction is more advantagous than action. All of this encourages endlessly churning out ‘new’ things, without designing those things to last or putting in the effort to maintain them.
In my opinion a single weird person doesn’t warrant an entire complaint post with 100+ comments of discussion (which, yes, I know I am adding to).
I don’t know how Micro works, and I don’t actually use emacs day to day, but as I understand it emacs works a bit like:
Does Micro work anything like that?
Not everyone knows how to, or is physically able to, cook food, but its pretty rare for people to get angry and offended if someone tries to suggest a recipe to them. People do that a lot with computers though.
And yes I use the term evangelist for a fucking reason, and that is because you people are as fucking pushy about your ideology as evangelical Christians.
I didn’t realize we were sending gay kids off to camps to be given electroshock therapy.
I, too, have wished to be able to easily embed prolog, or at least its reduced non-turing-complete version, datalog, into a less declarative language.
Also, I think integration with answer set programming for static code analysis could be useful. This is sort of a mid-way point between test driven development and something like the type level programming in languages such as Haskell or semi-automated theorem proving in languages like Coq.
It’s a tool, useful in some contexts and not useful in others.
In my opinion this is a thought terminating cliche in programming and the IT industry in general. It can be, and is, said in response to any sentiment about any thing.
Now, saying what sort of context you think something should or should not be used in, and what qualities of that thing make it desirable/undesirable in that context, could lead to fruitful discussion. But just “use the right tool for the right job” doesn’t contribute anything.
I agree with you then, you can’t make a good webpage if your boss tells you to fill it with garbage.
If your motivation is to see old html pages, with minimal style, well it’s impossible to do them reliably.
Not only should your site be legible without JS, it should be legible without CSS, and infact without rendering the effects of the HTML tags (plain text after striping the tags).
At one point in time this was the standard, that each layer was an enhancement on top of the one below it. Its seems that web devs now cannot even imagine writing a news article or a blog post like, something that has the entirety of its content contained within its text. A plain .txt file renders “reliably” on anything. You are the one adding extra complexity in there and then complaining that you’re forced to add even more to deal with the consequences of your actions.
FOSS doesn’t mean “we think people that make software should work for free because we like free shit”. It means:
When you want to modify something someone else made to your benefit you should recognize the work they did for you and pay it back in the form of contributing those changes back to the project. Beyond that, it also benefits you directly because someone else might build on your improvements (well, that, but also its easier to stop your changes from breaking in new versions of the software if other people are aware of them). Like the other commenter said, its communal development, sure lots of people do it at least partly because they want to make the world a better place, but the primary reason it works is because the various parties mutually benefit from mutual cooperation.
The belief that you should have complete control over your own computer, which you can’t do in practice without being able to view the source code of the software you run.
So did they take the firefighter out afterwards and shoot him as part of the staging?
However, this fuckin’ half-in/half-out state has become the engine of a manifold of security issues, primarily bc nobody but nerds or industry specialists knows that much about it yet. That has led to rushed, busy, or just plain lazy devs and engineers to either keep IPv6 sockets listening, unguarded, or to just block them outright and redirect traffic to IPv4 anyway.
Its kind of interesting to me how conservative the IT industry is with stuff like this.
The industry loves to say “move fast and break things” or “innovate and disrupt”, but that generally only applies to things that can be shat out in a two week long Python project (or shat out in 2 weeks after publicly funded universities spent years figuring out the algorithm for you). For anything foundational, like CPU architecture, operating systems, or the basic assumptions about how UI should work, they’re terrified of change.
I understand your frustration and I apologize for reading into your comments something you didn’t mean. I, too, wish people would say what they mean and mean what they say, and that when you say something its taken to mean what you said.
Unfortunately very often people will make a very reasonable (even factually true) point as a preamble to support something very unreasonable. If you agree with the reasonable point the person will then act like you agree with the unreasonable one. This is not only more time consuming and tiring to argue against, it also lends a great deal more credibility to the unreasonable point than it is really owed. To the uninformed reader to looks like the two sides of the argument partially agree, when nothing could be further from the truth. Its immensely frustrating to have your words used against you like this, so many people try and preempt it by jumping straight to (what they assume to be) the unreasonable point and arguing against it directly.
This is toxic for actual discussion. It means that good faith actors have to add all sorts of qualifications and clarifications about where they stand before they say anything about anything, which is tiring in itself. But its the world that we live in. If someone makes an unqualified comment about the CO2 emissions of volcanoes in a thread about anthropogenic climate change people are going to assume that they don’t think climate change is real. And, operating that way, those people will be right more often than they’re wrong.
Then you should probably be a little more explicit about that, because I have never, not once in my life, heard someone say “well you know wearing a seatbelt doesn’t guarantee you’ll survive a car crash” and not follow it up with “that’s why seatbelts are stupid and I’m not going to wear one”.
I want you to imagine that your comments in this thread were written by an engineer or a surgeon instead of a programmer.
Imagine an engineer saying “Sure, you can calculate the strength of a bridge design based on known material properties and prove that it can hold the design weight, it that doesn’t automatically mean that the design will be safer than one where you don’t do that”. Or “why should I have to prove that my design is safe when the materials could be defective and cause a collapse anyway?”
Or a surgeon saying “just because you can use a checklist to prove that all your tools are accounted for and you didn’t leave anything inside the patient’s body doesn’t mean that you’re going to automatically leave something in there if you don’t have a checklist”. Or “washing your hands isn’t a guarantee that the patient isn’t going to get an infection, they could get infected some other way too”.
A doctor or engineer acting like this would get them fired, sued, and maybe even criminally prosecuted, in that order. This is not the mentality of a professional, and it is something that programming as a profession needs to grow out of.
Yeah, it doesn’t actually make much of a difference:
Fundamentally the idea of having a separate admin account, which is completely protected, and a user account where everything can mingle together and see everything else, is a 1960s security model. It was originally created for a world where the owner of the computer and the user of the computer were two different people. In that world the user provides all the software that they want to run in their account (they probably wrote it) and the OS’s job is to protect the admin account from users and the users from each other.
Fast forward to the present day and this security model is completely mismatched with the reality of a personal computer. The internet exists, the user and owner are the same person, and they’re probably not writing all their software themselves. A piece of malicious or compromised software can encrypt every file in your user folder, steal your browser history, your saved passwords, and (on xwindows) record your keystrokes and make your screen display anything it wants, all without privilege escalation. But you can rest assured knowing that the user account can’t violate any timeshare limits that the root account placed on it.
The one thing you could argue is that a separate admin account makes it easier to detect and fix a compromised user account, but:
Most people are not in the habit of regularly logging into their root account and examining all the processes that are running in their user account. In fact many distributions do not even have a separate root account.
If you do think your computer has been compromised the sensible thing is to wipe the disk and restore from backup. It just doesn’t make any sense to fiddle around trying to figure out just how compromised you are and trying to reverse the process in a running system.
If you’re running xwindows I hope you never install updates or type your password for any other reason while some malicious software is running, since, as previously stated, anything running under your account can record your keystrokes. In that case your admin account is compromised anyway without having to use any privilege escalation exploits. Can you see how all this stuff was built with the assumption that the user and owner are two separate people with two separate passwords?
With Wayland and containerized applications we are slowly moving away from that 1960s security posture, which is something that’s long overdo. But currently something like Linux Mint is not really much better off than Haiku, from a pure security model standpoint.
In any case its security model is not the interesting thing about Haiku.
In the transition from plugboards to programmed sequence control the thing that took over the task of routing values between registers, through the ALU, and to/from IO ports was the control unit. Microcode being one way to implement functionality in the control unit.
One other approach was to use what was basically a finite state machine, implemented physically in-circuit. The output of that FSM was fed into a series of logic gates along with the current instruction value, with the output of that combination being connected to the control lines of the various CPU elements. Thus the desired switching/routing behavior occured.
Modern chips are really complicated hybrids of microcode and a ton of interacting finite state machines. Especially in x86 complex or less commonly used instructions will be implemented in microcode, whereas simple/common instructions will be implemented by being “hardwired”, somewhat similar to the FSM technique described above (although probably more complicated).