Says the COWARD.

FOAD.

Apple moved the T2 Functionality directly Into the Apple Silicon SoCs. Even more secure.

As for Data Checksumming, Apple trusts the ECC built into their SSDs to take care of that Task.In their own words, “Our Storage doesn’t Return Bad Data.”

It’s pretty well agreed that actual Bit-Rot-Style Data Corruption in SSDs is all but unknown.They tend to work perfectly, or not at all. So, ZFS-style Data Scrubbing is nothing but a waste of Resources with APFS.

They do, however, Checksum the MetaData of Filesystem Objects.

Here’s a fairly decent explanation of Apple’s Rationale for its design decision regarding Checksumming:

https://ahl.dtrace.org/2016/06...

So much closed-minded thinking regarding Macs around here. . .

In all seriousness, though, if bankruptcy is a real possibility, the idea of a public buyout of some of these old companies isn't a terrible one. Maybe even have the government buy it and make it free for U.S. citizens, but continue to make money on the property abroad. :-)

I'm sure the shareholders will be lining up in droves to accept your offer of 1/25000 of a cent per share.

Assuming M4A ends up being a single payer system, that would, in fact, make it very possible to force providers to lower costs.

Research should be funded directly, not by paying more for unrelated prescription drugs. That's the whole point of having grant programs from agencies like NIH.

One of the biggest problems, IMO, is healthcare consolidation. When most of the hospitals in an area are owned by big chains, it really doesn't matter if they are nonprofit. Big organizations just naturally tend to bloat and waste tons of money at every level of the system, because they don't have the same incentives to keep things lean. Consolidation has generally resulted in higher prices and lower quality of care, from what I've seen.

Every other entry? Try every entry. Something like 1% of my Facebook feed is actual organic content from friends. 14% or so is from groups. The other 85% is ads. And I'm being optimistic when I say that it is only 85%. When I see about the first or second ad, I close Facebook, because it's just going to be ads all the way down after that.

I'll make an offer right now to buy it for $1,000 with the intent to release the entire catalog into the public domain (CC0) 28 years after its creation.

Nothing nefarious here, no potential for abuse, move along, move along.

I think it ended in the 90s as a method for evaluation. The best way is to look at the work your programmers have done, but not all managers can do that. A lot of Agile managers use velocity as a proxy to make up for the fact they can't look at code and understand it. So get a lot of story points.

What if...

Someone (say someone who was familiar with doxygen and GCC) developed number of comment types, where some stipulated preconditions that must be true for the function to run correctly, postconditions that must be true once the function has run, kernel facilities that the function definitely needs, and kernel facilities that the function definitely doesn't need. These would all be optional for any given function.

A static checker could then validate if the code meets the behaviour expected by the programmer. This is precisely what is done in SPARK, a fork of Ada for high-reliability code. Combined with existing static checker capabilities, this would greatly increase the number of bugs that could be caught with all kinds of tools, AI included.

It could ALSO build a full fine-grained mapping for any fine-grained mandatory access controls system. You'd also want includes that you could import for precompiled libraries. This would allow someone to verify if the code was making unanticipated/undesirable calls but would also make SELinux possible to develop for at the application level.

It would not be trivial. If it was trivial, it would have been done simply because it already IS done in other languages and that makes it "obvious" to anyone who has been programming for a while. However, it should not be massively complicated, simply because you can use AI as the static checker. Once it has a definite set of bounda that must be satisfied, it should be much more capable of knowing what paths would violate those bounds. Which means that the checker stage essentially is trivial today, leaving only the markup stage.

Oh yes, but any experienced professional will have developed (consciously or subconsciously) methods for maxxing out whatever metric is being used to evaluate them. Lines of code, whatever. If you are evaluated on LoC I recommend double-spacing.

The difference between the "hacker" (MIT definition) and the professional is revealing. Each is trying to write code that maximizes the perceived requirement. The hacker making the code elegant (in this case, brief), and the professional maximizing LoC.

The search continues for a job that AI can do that will justify the price.

It is certainly not bookkeeping, that is a job that requires high accuracy, and is mostly automatable by traditional automation techniques.

...or AI will eliminate all need for labor at all?

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

That's an irritating way to say you disagree with him. Just give your counter-argument, don't insult him.

Are you trying to make the point that AI easily gives you high quality code reviews? It's not clear what your point is or why you don't like Linus.

No, not anyone can join the CCP, it's very selective and only a small percentage of Chinese citizens have that privilege.

Without freedom of speech, it doesn't matter how good their election system is, it's not a fair system.