The point is to prevent "tearing". A lot of effort has been put into solving that problem.

If the pixels were updated in some random or semi-random pattern on the screen it would probably be unnoticeable, but I suspect that either a lot of architectural changes would be needed both in software and hardware, or you would effectively have to achieve a 480Hz full-screen refresh rate to achieve it without doing things like attaching an address to each pixel output so the rendering device didn't need to assume sequential pixels should be drawn sequentially.

I was following you on Twitter and then I jumped ship when Trump was allowed back on and moved over to Mastodon.social. I'm still trying to figure out what to do there as "my people" have not moved over there and I've been finding it hard to find like-minded people. My main approach has been looking at the global feed and trying to see if there is anything of interest. It's a SLOW process. Occasionally (once a month or so) there is a single post of interest and someone I can follow.

I've also tried searching hashtags, but most of my interests come up empty, so I haven't gotten much out of that either. The other approach has been to look at who my follows follow. I keep hoping that the Fediverse takes off and some of the bigger names come over. (Thankfully George Takei is someone who did) Still, I have to say, having Twitter off my rotation has been instructive in how it feels to remove the pressure to post from a social media platform. Which brings me to the last point... So far, the things I've posted on my on Mastodon.social have not garnered any responses. I think I just don't have any visibility. I'm a whimper in the sea of toots, so people who would find my toots interesting don't see me.

Anyway... I get you and understand your reasoning. I wish you the best and will continue to look for your toots as time allows. I miss the old days. But every social media platform I've been on since 1988 has always gone the same route: fun --> noisy --> commercial --> spammy --> leadership change to less competent leaders --> implosion --> gone. Maybe the Fediverse will move to the fun stage in the next few years.

Wait, are you GPT-3? Maybe 2?

What do you mean by "compiles cleanly to predictable ASM"? Do you mean individual lines always output the same assembly in any given context? That hasn't been true for a long time, so you can't mean that. Do you mean that if you follow the steps of the C compiler in a given OS state that you will get roughly the same (the same for all intents and purposes, but things like compile-time constants like, well, COMPILE_TIME might differ) output? Well, yeah, that's called running a program, you're just doing it in your brain.

Are you saying that every C compiler is deterministic in a (consequential) way that Rust compilers are not?

It's got to be something I haven't thought of. What am I missing?

I don't know Rust, but why would those structures be particularly challenging for bounds checking?

You carefully read it twice, and still latched on to a point that you made up.

Congratulations. You have objective proof that you're both stupid and so gullible that you can be fooled by someone as dumb as you. This will be highly valuable information in your life from now on, should you choose to accept it.

IIRC, Apple uses it to tag your photos.

We’ve spent the last five decades catching up to the safety and efficiency that the initial promises were based on. We sold those initial promises as achievable in 5-10 years and retrofittable onto existing plants, which everyone building them knew was bullshit, but they wouldn’t have been buiilt without the lies.

These days, we know how to make truly safe and efficient reactors, but a half century of lies means only experts or idiots will support them, and even then they’ve fucked up so much, legislation is utterly intertwined, which means politicians need to be convinced, and they’re rarely either experts or idiots—so basically, short of bribes, nuclear power is fucked until we get truly desperate, even though it can now be safe, profitable, and clean.

I dunno. It was probably a necessary step. I can’t remember where I saw the concept, or a googlable name for it, but the gist is, we often have to do something awful in the short run to get something good in the long. Provided the short-term necessary step dosen’t kill us, it was worth it.

Heartbeat apps that require nothing more than looking at the camera have existed for years. I’d be mildly surprised if FaceID didn’t require a heartbeat.

I haven’t read the second link, so I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I seriously doubt the investigation found that the paper instead proves the null hypothesis. It’s extremely annoying that even purported “science” writers can’t be precise with language.

Prediction: This article will be quoted, without a direct link to the original paper or investogation, asserting that “The Mediterranean diet [b]does not[/b] cause better health outcomes,” instead of “does not necessarily” or “has not been proven to”. And then the imprecise language will be further extended to call it harmful, based only on the game of telephone going on here. Feel free to link this post and call me wrong on or after 2021-06-15, I’ll find the articles.

My last official predictiction was to say that even though the Facebook IPO was widely acknowleged to be a ripoff, you would have more money five years after than you started with. I actually think it was much stronger than that, but regardless, I was right. Feel free to find my post from, I think, the day of the Facebook IPO. If my claim wasn’t at least as strong as I’ve claimed, post-inflation (I’m pretty sure I was smart enough back then to take both inflation and opportunity cost into account and think I said you’d at least double your money, but again, please prove me wrong, I’m too lazy to look the post up but refuse to refuse to accept reality), I’ll do something extremely personally embarassing with my real face on Youtube, do my best to make it funny to whoever posts a link to my incorrect post, use my real face, and link it as a reply.

I’m pretty fucking good though. Unverifiable claims:

Two weeks prior to the Google acquisiton of the (UHF?) wireless spectrum, I called that they would win, with their bid to three digits of accuracy (11.x million $ IIRC). Reasoning behind it? Slashdot, actually. Back then, there were a lot of very capable and informed people here, and having just started to become truly competent and trying to figure out how to communicate that to my peers and managers, I was really tuned in to identifying actual experts from their posts, and just let my brain pick a random number. I can’t say the reasoning was solid or anything but luck... but I think it was and was.

On seeing OS X 10.0, I called that Apple stock would skyrocket within 3 years. Reasoning? A company dropping its ego, and more than that, getting their senior devs to make an honest attempt at standing on the shoulders of giants, up-front and not post-hoc? It’s so obviously a path to success, and yet so rare, it’s practically guaranteed to succeed.

Called iPod success. Laughed at “Less Space than a Nomad”.

Called iPhone release when everyone said they’d never do it.

Successes posted as a reminder of confimation bias in case I’m wrong—I’ve only called one thing verifiably correct on Slashdot. Even if I get this one right, 2/2 in 12-ish years is not statistically-significant. Just making sure I can’t rewrite my unverifiable correct claims in case they end up wrong in hindsight.

CDATA is trivially broken out of.

Sure, but GPS wouldn't work (or rarher, would be simpler) in that case. The weirdest things in the universe are proven by your phone existing.