This is how I read it as well. Though, pure rendering and lerping should not eat up much CPU especially on consoles. Unless they've got a really inefficient rendering pipeline. I'm curious exactly how much extra AI this would allow them to run.

Stories are all about exploring the unknown without actually having to experience it. I'd even say violence is a common thread in stories for a similar reason as evil science/tech -- people are certainly hostile toward it.

I disagree.

So many movies and TV shows have inept, complacent, or downright evil scientists creating technologies that either lose control or are specifically for enacting violence. Or they mishandle something and a plague starts. Or a technology-driven society encroaching on one who's in touch with nature or a hundred years in the past.

And it's usually either a dumb "everyman" who stumbles into the situation and rises to the occasion -- maybe a military guy with a heart of gold -- and saves the day without much science or wit. Heck, look at Bruce Banner -- a brilliant scientist who needs to turn into a dumb tank to fight evil.

The scientists who do good in these stories are rarely portrayed as healthy people. They may be brilliant, but they're also asocial goofballs and usually side characters.

I think he's right on the money. People are hostile to technology and science. A fear of the unknown, a fear of someone being smarter than them, a fear of something clashing with their beliefs, or telling them they need to change their ways.

This trend in media, entertainment, and politics is obvious. There are plenty of counter-examples but on a whole, I think it's very easy to see if you're looking. It must reflect society to a not-insignificant degree, or people wouldn't latch on to it.

This. I have a Stack Overflow tab open up as a pinned tab.

Apology accepted.

So when I mentioned zero-cost error handling, I was referring to an exception handling model that keeps all exception handling code -- your entire catch block -- entirely out of your hot path. It can be put in entirely separate cache lines. Basically ensuring that your non-exceptional code is all as close together and fast as possible.

You can't do this in C. Please prove me wrong! I enjoy learning.

The Windows kernel APIs are all C, there is no C++ in it. You can use a subset of C++ that doesn't require runtime support, but it is unsupported.

Linus hates C++ for a lot more reasons than ABI, and the majority of them are completely uninformed and show a lack of C++ experience.

All the understandability and maintainability worries people have about C++ in the kernel would be easily controlled by standard patch review. Don't like giant template metaprograms? Don't accept the pull request. That easy. Perhaps one of the valid reasons to keep C++ out of the kernel right now is purely that Linus would be unable to review such patches with authority.

Even simple things like classes, RAII, basic templates, and exceptions would do wonders for development.

My workplace gets regular audits from our clients, usually every 3-24 months depending on how big/paranoid the client is. JP Morgan Chase is one of them.

We could tell the audit this summer was a bit different. It took about twice as long and went into much more detail than usual specifically regarding our tech side. After the audit, we got an unexpected list of demands related to stopping leaks.

Now, we don't handle sensitive financial information for them, so it's possible they were just trying to cover all their bases and we got stuck with security theater. Irritatingly, everyone in IT immediately recognized that the demands wouldn't actually prevent leaks. When you have a company full of employees who regularly use FTP, email, and even dropbox to send files to clients, you're simply not going to be able to prevent it.

After months of back and forth trying to kill some of the more ridiculous demands -- like blocking access to Gmail, which we use for company email -- they simply wouldn't budge. We've been wondering why they're standing so firm about it, and now it all makes sense.

he trouble with CloudFlare is, if you want to stay anonymous on the internet using Tor, you're SOL, as they serve you captchas every 3 pages when they see a connection coming from a Tor exit node.

This feature can be easily turned off in their settings. It is part of their security features.

I'd love to see more people using Tor, but the experience has to change a lot before we can do that.

Being anonymous and secure on Tor is not easy. It's a major inconvenience to disabling browser features like Javascript, and it requires firm behavioral changes from the user.

Putting a mainstream user into the same environment is simply not going to work.

They tried, but were having trouble finding a 458 that could transform into a 360 and back in the blink of an eye.

(The dash they flash to while accelerating was a Ferrari 360, not the 458 he was driving)

A thousand times this. It's been shown that ~192K VBR from a modern encoder is transparent to our ears, so these 256K or higher bitrates are the worst of both worlds: it's not lossless AND it's a waste of bandwidth.

I've seen kids wearing Minecraft backpacks and shirts, said something like "hey cool! what're you building right now?" only to discover that while they've heard of the game they haven't actually played it.

I suspect these paraphernalia stand to make a lot more money than the game does.

As far as coming out with sequels, I'm not sure how well that would work anyway. Minecraft prides itself on being extremely basic, letting the player provide the creativity. What could a sequel possibly provide that didn't do away with that premise?

Anyway. Worth 2.5 billion? Highly doubtful, especially looking at the lackluster response to anything non-Minecraft they've brought out.

Bitcoin itself doesn't have any known security flaws. One usability issue is that you can't instantly guarantee a transfer of coins -- nobody is going to be buying coffee with it directly.

It's not so much about problems with Bitcoin, but with Bitcoin "banks" that turned out to be incredibly insecure. The banks were created to exchange paper money for Bitcoins, and to facilitate instant transfers. They just happen to be incredibly bad at it, and because there is no regulation like an actual bank, are pretty much free to be as bad as they want.

Paypal is actually a good fit, as Bitcoin is essentially a decentralized Paypal. Paypal is also pretty well known for the same evils as they aren't regulated like an actual bank either, but they've got a lot of infrastructure and experience that could make them a far better Bitcoin bank than what's available right now.