C++ is the wrong language to compare Perl to. Python is what you need to align with it. And it is so much tougher to build a good case for Perl in that light. (Not impossible, but it probably won't be very convincing. Perl is the anarchocapitalism of programming languages - you have near-absolute freedom to choose your ways, which is delightful for the top 20% users, but unfortunately most people choose the most awful and dirty ways in the face of this freedom, typically just for lack of experience.)

(I love both Perl and Python. But in the past few years, I find myself writing vastly more Python that Perl code, except the oneliners of course.)

^ this. You have (i) existing modules in your project that are not python3 compatible, (ii) existing external modules that are not python3 compatible.

The situation is a lot better now than it used to be, but for example you still cannot use the deep learning theano-based libraries. This means people still produce python2 code at this point, which means issue (i) will be going to be an issue for even longer... (Even if you are starting a project from scratch, you often want to borrow some code from a different project you have access to - which may be python2.)

(Actually dealing with unicode was always painful for me in python2 and python3 typically results in less code therefore. Depends a bit on what you do.)

Still, the transition to Python3 is much smoother than it'd be to transition to Perl6. It seems to me kind of unfortunate that they chose "Perl 6" as a name for this newfangled language that has not that much to do with the current Perl. C++ is more "backwards" compatible to C than Perl 6 is to Perl 5, it seems to me. I think the idea of transition is not on the table at all for 80% Perl developers; you just go to Perl6 if you want to pick up a new language that seems fun. Whereas regarding Python I think even most 9-to-5 code-grinding guys recognize that migration makes sense (in a few more years).

Indeed, someone meanwhile made the point about loudness wars and difference in mastering above. That makes total sense and wasn't something I knew before. I wish the article was about that. :-)

Audio is just a crazy world of snake oil and placebo.

Really, the argument that's supposed to convince us is this?

> That warm vinyl sound: "I think this is what people like about it: it pins very closely to the way that human beings hear music organically," Gonsalves said. "It's very mid-range-y and very warm," a sound that flatters the fuzzy guitars of rock 'n' roll.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. There seems to be no obvious reason why you couldn't easily hack up a digital audio filter that makes stuff "sound like a vinyl". I'd even wager that it already exists?

Especially when you skip the compression and use FLACs. (But no, I'm not that kind of person who would claim to be able to distnguish 320kbps mp3 from a FLAC.)

I don't really use side-by-side windows but I still like portrait mode - because I get to have enough room for sideways tabs!

Seriously, I don't get it why by default the browsers still ship the tab bar at the top. As soon as you have more than 6-10 tabs open, tab bar on the side becomes incredibly more convenient to work with.

Do you have any links discussing this more in depth? I took a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... and that one is pretty brief and it's not remotely clear if it succeeded at these or not.

I don't know why are people looking at it as failure. We got plenty of data, we even got the very important chemical analysis data in the last session. It would have been great if it worked further, just as it was awesome that the Mars rover worked much longer than their projected mission lifetime was. But if that did not work out, we still got a lot of value out of this, so I don't follow why should it be a failure.

Vojtech brought me to SUSE Labs where I then worked on git and glibc for several years; since I did home office, we didn't meet that often but whenever we did, even because of something banal, it was a little awe inspiring for me. SUSE Labs is packed with brilliant people, but I always got the feel he's the smartest guy around. *And* at the same time it's a place that feels as un-corporate as possible in a corporation, I'm sure mostly thanks to his managing role.

So, I'm generally a bit sceptical about revering articles. But this one is spot on. When I think about it, I guess I still consider him one of my role models. :)

P.S.: Don't you guys feel kind of bored by the systemd spam under every Linux article too?

Based on Kant's imperative, I don't want to do myself what I wouldn't want others to do. I wouldn't want others to eat me (at least if it involved killing me first), so I wouldn't eat others either.

The question is, who are the "others" - in this context, clearly those that are also capable of guiding themselves by the Kant's imperative. Is any animal intelligent enough to make a choice based on this imperative? (I.e. it would willingly choose not to eat me based on observing me not eating its kindred.) I'm no expert on animal intelligence but I really doubt so.

Let's feast!

"Clearly not concerned about the AI's performance?"

It uses Python, indeed. And for the computationally intensive tasks, it uses numpy and theano. Theano is general symbolic computation framework that will automatically accelerate your vector computations on a nearby GPU, etc.

I don't know how it compares with (likely Lua, torch-based) deepmind's implementation. But assuming that scientific python programs actually do their expensive computations in the Python VM is really rather silly.

I'm sorry, I've meant to link to http://seclists.org/oss-sec/20... (you may want to walk the thread up a bit) and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/sh...

And now it turns out that even patched bash still carries some related security bugs. (Not really a surprise since the parser is complex and bound to, seems like running it on arbitrary environment variables really isn't the best idea...)

So, if you think you are safe,

export X='() { (a)=>\'
bash -c 'brm date'
cat brm

(N.B. the backslash is not inhibiting the apostrophe in shell syntax.)

That is, by crafter environment variables you can still overwrite files and run commands that were supposed to be parameters instead. This is still very dangerous, but thankfully the attack surface is smaller than before, for example $SSH_ORIGINAL_COMMAND is frequently not an issue anymore (at least in case of gitolite I couldn't *quickly* figure out a way to exploit this), etc.

No patch for this available yet.

Today is a fun day for linux! Think about switching your /bin/sh to dash and maybe login shell of non-interactive users too!

On repo.or.cz, as login shell for all git user accounts we use a shell script that does some verifications, shows nice error messages etc. Thankfully, #!/bin/sh is at the top of the script and that's dash on the Debian server; otherwise, we would have been vulnerable. (Only getting into a chroot as non-root, but still...)