GC tuning can do a lot, but yes, huge heaps where the GC cannot keep up with the rate of garbage requires a full stop the world collection. However, if your application is really keeping a 15 gigabyte working set, I suspect you'd hit problems with fragmentation and memory leaks using something like Rust long before scaling to such sizes.
I hadn't heard of minnows, and didn't know what it was until I looked it up now
We also all have an uvula, those trees can often have galls and many buildings have dormers. Doesn't necessarily mean they belong in a short childrens dictionary, though. After all, there are "real" dictionaries as well as the internet for anything not covered in the shortened one.
Why don't you watch the talk and find out?
Actually I'll just summarise it for you. If you run a lot of Tor nodes you will eventually get picked to host a hidden service directory. Then you can measure lookups for the entries of hidden services to measure their popularity, and crawl them to find out what's on them.
[Java took a very different approach to the problem of "how to we get rid of segfaults and memory corruption". Java basically banned all interesting use of the stack, forcing everything onto the heap, and barred developers from using RAII. Nowadays, with more advanced compilers able to do advanced lifetime analysis, we can reconsider languages - such as Rust - that take a less draconian approach.]
I think it's rather misleading to state that more advanced compilers have obviated the need for Java's approach.
Firstly, Rust doesn't solve automatic memory management like garbage collection does. Their solution appears to be basically smart pointers with move semantics + reference counting for the cases where data doesn't have a lifetime cleanly tied to scope. Well, great. It's back to the 1990's and COM. Reference counting notoriously cannot handle cycles, which are very common in real programs. Any tree structure where you want to be able to navigate both up and down, for example.
In addition to the difficulty of breaking reference cycles and preventing memory leaks in complex programs, refcounting also has poor performance especially if you want threads involved. Garbage collection has now been optimised (in good implementations like HotSpot) to the point where it's faster than refcounting.
If we start seeing teams of non-expert programmers writing large programs in Rust, you will see programs with memory leaks all over the place.
Additionally, you realise that Java compilers have got smarter over the years too, right? HotSpot can stack allocate objects in a bunch of different circumstances, when analysis reveals that it'd be safe.
Think passive near-field 3D-sensors, not holiday snapshots. User position, gestures, navigation, that sort of thing. Kinect-like functions everywhere. Fire phone, but with actual uses.
You could do a lot of subtle UI improvements if you can localize the users in space around the device for instance; you could figure out who is speaking and if they're turned toward the device. No more "Yo, googly Siri-man, what's mein wiener kapiche?"-keywords, as the device can figure out if you're addressing it or not.
Basic Income is welfare, not something that sounds like it. The difference between it and normal welfare is, everyone gets a basic income whether they want it or not. It's meant to be enough to live off.
The idea of a BI is a very old one. It has nothing to do with cryptocurrency, and I'm not sure what relevance cryptocurrency has (and I say that as a Bitcoin developer, so I'm a fan of CC in general). In theory a society rich enough to afford it would have moved to the oft-fictionalised post work utopia that you sometimes see in things like Star Trek. Because everyone gets it whether they want it or not, unconditionally, the basic income would be supposedly stigma free. Thus if you want to pursue things that are not very profitable but are beneficial to society nonetheless (production of art, charity, etc) then you could do that and not have to worry about being seen as a welfare sponger.
I love the concept in theory, but a society rich enough to afford one is pretty unimaginable in today's world. Western societies are clearly incapable of even providing the current levels of welfare let alone a vastly larger level. I see a BI as a useful goal to inspire people about the future rather than something practical for today.
That was true 10 years ago. These days browsers make them un-ignorable and in some cases like with HSTS unbypassable.
They aren't allowed to impersonate another company, I suspect that's rather the point. Look at the screenshot: the HTTPS indicator was crossed out. I guess you have to click through a big fat warning to get there
In all of my years of being a network engineer, I've never heard of managing bandwidth that way and can't think of why someone would mange bandwidth that way.
Me neither but we have no idea what kind of filtering system you can install onto a plane.
My guess is that they can't filter by DNS lookup for some reason (people's devices have cached answers?) but they can do SSL rewriting, and for big sites like anything Google runs IP address blocking isn't useful because all their sites share IPs. They know browsers and apps won't accept their fake certs, it's just a way to create an unbypassable error.
You're not thinking like someone who has to deal with the general public.
People who read slashdot can easily rattle off some semi-accurate estimates for how much bandwidth a particular online activity consumes. Load BBC News? Less than 1mb (I hope). Listen to a streamed MP3 of a pop hit? Probably 3-4mb. Watch a 40 second video? Maybe 5-8 megabytes. Windows update? Errrmm
None of this means anything to your average flyer. They don't think in units of bits. Telling them they have 300 megabytes of transfer quota is just meaningless nerd speak to them. What they understand is watching youtube, browsing the web, downloading TV episodes, etc. This is the fundamental problem all brokers of bandwidth have: their customers don't really understand what they're buying.
So now we come to the question of why GoGo is serving bogus SSL certs. The most obvious reason I can think of is that doing so breaks both websites and apps in such a way that they will stop immediately, rather than switching to alternative hostnames or IP addresses or constantly hammering away and retrying stuff. If you're trying to selectively kill off YouTube and other video sites so you can tell people "Sure, browse the web and play with your phone, have fun" in a massively bandwidth starved environment, causing unbypassable errors for specific websites is probably not the worst way to do it. People will be happier this way than thinking they're gonna surf for an hour before going to sleep, and then getting a quota exceeded error after five minutes because they accidentally clicked on a YouTube vid.
I don't think people wielding guns in Gaza has much to do with them being Muslim.
Obviously a ban is not the same thing as a well enforced ban.
Note that the most recent comparable incident in the UK involved two Muslim men hacking a soldier to death with a machete. But there was only one death. It's much easier to kill people, much faster, with guns than with machetes. The UK has been very serious about gun control though, so the lack of guns in the last attack wasn't a huge surprise.
It is just the nature of a combined software / hardware solution that hardware teams tend to win. They have tangible manufacturing, costs and physical limitations that managers understand. While software has very different kinds of limitations -- often human limitations -- that managers don't understand.
Basically so, yes. Although - and I say this as a software person - there's good reason for that to be the case. Hardware incurs per-unit costs, so any design change that makes it cheaper to build will be paid back million-fold. If that increases the cost/time of developing the software you have to show that increase is higher than all the money you save in manufacturing. Unless the hardware changes are truly extreme, that is unlikely to be the case with a volume consumer product. Software has no unit margin cost, so the same logic doesn't apply in reverse.
The Rashomon reference was not an idle one, by the way. No matter how honest and well-intentioned, you're unlikely to have an unbiased or particularly correct view of what happened if you were involved directly in something. It's great to hear the point of view - but that's what it is, a point of view. Other teams and people at other levels certainly have others, and it'd be foolhardy to try to understand what happened based on ony one or two of them.
I'll take a wild stab in the dark here and guess that you possibly were in the software team? I wonder what a hw team members version of this would read like. Or that of a manager overseeing both teams.
Rashomon is a really good movie, apropos nothing in particulal.
<<<<< EVACUATION ROUTE <<<<<
