My naive implementation (as shown in the linked question) in Rust was mind boggling slow. C could do around 150MiB/s, while Rust could only do 10MiB/s. A simple `objdump -d` shows Rust is generating a lot more code. I'm not sure how much of that is relevant though.
At that point my coffee time ran out. I wish I had more time to figure out why. :-(
> Btrfs has had no real work done on it since then, and anyone that is actually serious about data storage has moved to ZFS, or has left POSIX filesystems entirely.
I'm not very familiar with this space, but if this were true why would Fedora use Btrfs by default?
Also on Fedora wiki [0] -- Btrfs is a mature, well-understood, and battle-tested file system, used on both desktop/container and server/cloud use-cases -- which seems to contradict what you said.
There was a giveaway of a Tuxedo laptop[1]. Whoever wanted to participate had to comment on the video announcing the giveaway, which apparently goes against YouTube's TOS (as far as I can tell comments count affects YouTube's algorithm).
If that's it, it's a ridiculous premise. I won some music equipment from Sweetwater by liking and commenting on a video (though not sure they would be able to verify the like).
I expect things like this to continue to grow as we rely more and more on algorithms in all walks of life without thinking through true recourse options.
If true, the channel owner was trying to game the system to make their channel look like it was more popular than it really was.
An analogy would be like a TV host telling the audience to watch the show on five televisions so that they would get a higher Nielsen ratings and then get more money from advertisers. No TV network or advertiser would be happy about that.
In other words, if this is what was really happening, this channel was essentially trying to scam YouTube into thinking they were more popular than they really are for their own monetary gain.
To me it seems like this channel deserved what they got, if the allegations are true.
I even doubt that the channel was automatically removed by an algorithm. Maybe it was flagged by one for human review. Just because a company doesn’t contact you doesn’t mean a human wasn’t involved in your particular case. Furthermore, just because Sweetwater got away with it one time doesn’t mean it’s not against the TOS.
I’m just speculating, and I don’t have skin in the game.
Sweetwater is not "getting away with it." They have verified legal clearance, and the owner of linux experience does not.
Your concerns about "scamming" aren't relevant. Many of YouTube's most popular channels do this sort of contest, and there is no hard ban on this type of thing.
I don't think you deserve the downvotes, this is click-fraud and I'm not at all surprised that it got axed. I'm sure it with enough media outrage and a private mea culpa from the creator it will be reinstated but on first blush I think this was the right call.
Linux is well funded in the sense that corporations put big money looking after their own interest in the kernel. Anything outside of their respective areas of interest? Good luck.
Paragon, for better or worse, is just yet another corporation. They shouldn't really expect other corporations or volunteers to care much about their code, other than the fact that their code may break others'.
Now that they have Linus' blessing, they can just send a pull request. The work paid off in the end.
The OP said "fighting famine", not "fighting the famine". Without the definite article "the", their sentence can (and arguably should) be read as referring to famine as a class of calamities, not to a particular one.
As a further example, the job of a firefighter is to fight fires as they happen, not to help the UK forever recover from The Great Fire of London.
And? Should people hate him for what he did? What is the dispute here? Would you not feel grateful for his contributions, regardless of what end of the political spectrum you're on?
Please do not perpetuate flamewars on HN. I realize you didn't start it, but if people didn't perpetuate these things, they'd die out quickly, which is what they deserve.
Edit: I just noticed what you wrote in your profile about having an account only for Chinese topics. I appreciate the transparency, but single-purpose accounts like that are not allowed on HN, and especially not on flamewar topics. It's not in keeping with the intended spirit of this site, which is thoughtful, unpredictable conversation on a wide range of curiosity-driven topics.
You can see from the many past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... that we're aware of the pressure that HN's Chinese users (or those with a background connected to China - for example, family or work) experience on a majority-Western forum like HN, where pro-Western views inevitably dominate. We can't do anything about that, but we can, and do, insist that HN users follow the site guidelines and treat each other respectfully. When someone else is breaking the rules egregiously, please don't reward them by replying. Instead, flag the comment, and in particularly bad cases please give us a head-up at hn@ycombinator.com.
Seems to me that some people use dystopian to mean “bad and like something you would see in a dystopian novel/movie.” Which in most cases cashes out to ‘bad and high-tech’
From Cambridge dictionary: relating to a very bad or unfair society in which there is a lot of suffering, especially an imaginary society in the future, or to the description of such a society.
I fail to see how one can derive "a very bad or unfair society" and "a lot of suffering" from a QR code in night sky.
Absolutely. They take a common good that we have and use it for commercial purpose, Starlink should not be allowed to exist as a product, full stop. It pollutes the view of the sky for the entire Earth, even over countries which do not have access to the service, and for people who aren't happy to have their lives intruded by yet another American corporation.
Yes, the way these orbits work, in order to cover one area, they orbits cover the entire globe up at least to that latitude. A geostationary orbit can "fly" above one specific spot, but that's limited to being above equator and very, very far compared to these orbits (~35000 km vs ~1000 km) which makes it worse for communications.
That someone is perhaps a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. I think a close equivalence is an MP in the UK or a congressman / congresswoman / senate in the US.
They make proposals on various aspects of life in China. Those proposals aren't official policies.
BBC should really have done a better job here.
It is also funny to see the top thread a few minutes ago quickly developed into something like military might and "China must be stopped".
> They make proposals on various aspects of life in China. Those proposals aren't official policies.
> BBC should really have done a better job here.
The BBC has been flogging SJW agendas for a while now. Even though they're a state organ they need clicks just like anyone else -- and this gets traffic.
Mix in some good ole China xenophobia and voila, one of the most active posts on HN.
My apologies if I caused offense. In terms of focus I advocate for the power of "and" although I disagree with your characterization of the problems raised as "smaller inward-focused." The wars and droning are not small nor inward-focused. The ramming was referred to in gallows humor as I don't think the Navy is so incompetent that they would think ramming cargo vessels would be effective, just incompetent enough to be accident-prone.
The g-parent comment asserts that "China must be stopped" and I started thinking about what aspect(s) of China do they want to stop. Certainly they don't want to end the country and its inhabitants. Maybe they want to stop some behaviors that cause harm in the world? What behaviors would those be? The comment uses the past tense "stopped" instead of "stop" so the implication is that some not-China entity performs the stopping.
So what behavior to stop and what entity to do the stopping? Are the actions necessary to stop the behavior proportionate and are they likely effective? To predict this, I look to the track record of previous attempts to "stop" nations and it isn't pretty. My comment came from thinking about what has happened in the US over the course of this century as it has embarked on ever newer crusades to stop this or that.
> The g-parent comment asserts that "China must be stopped" and I started thinking about what aspect(s) of China do they want to stop. Certainly they don't want to end the country and its inhabitants. Maybe they want to stop some behaviors that cause harm in the world? What behaviors would those be? The comment uses the past tense "stopped" instead of "stop" so the implication is that some not-China entity performs the stopping.
> So what behavior to stop and what entity to do the stopping?
Honestly, it sounds like you're playing ignorant here. Those aren't hard questions to answer, though the post you're commenting on likely had some government/nation confusion. I suggest you spend some quality time with Wikipedia and a good newspaper.
> Are the actions necessary to stop the behavior proportionate and are they likely effective? To predict this, I look to the track record of previous attempts to "stop" nations and it isn't pretty. My comment came from thinking about what has happened in the US over the course of this century as it has embarked on ever newer crusades to stop this or that.
The US had at least couple of successes in the last century. Anyway, your thrust seems to be towards fatalism, which is perspective that should be rejected out of hand.
No, seriously, what ongoing action(s) of China “must be stopped” and what actions by whom are likely to succeed without causing more harm than that which would be stopped? Referring to Wikipedia without even a link to the “List of Internationally Recognized Chinese Bad Stuff” is a tacit recognition that there isn’t much that can be “stopped” short of an armed conflict nobody wants and nobody liked Trump’s attempts for economic sanction either. “Save the Spratleys” is a weaker rallying cry than “Save Tibet” and the navy is plenty engaged there already.
The win/loss/left-a-mess ratio of the US doesn’t engender positive predictions of future actions especially given how many are in endless overtime. Is it fatalistic to be realistic?
> No, seriously, what ongoing action(s) of China “must be stopped” and what actions by whom are likely to succeed without causing more harm than that which would be stopped?
I literally could give some likely possibilities of what they were specifically thinking about from memory, but it's basically a list of major news stories about the PRC from the past several years, which you're welcome to research yourself.
> The win/loss/left-a-mess ratio of the US doesn’t engender positive predictions of future actions especially given how many are in endless overtime. Is it fatalistic to be realistic?
The PRC is a genuinely difficult geopolitical problem. However, you seem to be taking Iraq and Afghanistan as your main precedents for action, when they'd be poor ones even if the US had been far more successful there.
You literally can’t give any. Handwave “must be stopped” or “aighta be a law” all you want in your fantasyland of no consequences.
I’ll take a tour of things at the top of my head:
* North Korea: we have nada, nuke horse is out of the barn
* Taiwan: prop up the post-KMT status quo and hope for the best
* Hong Kong: nada
* Nine dashed line (S China Sea): pray Navy doesn’t get shot up and apologize if they do [0]
* Tibet: lost and forgotten neverland
* India: duking it out for itself
* Uighers: an “internal matter” Holocaust, see also Christians and the occasional Jack Ma
* Global Warmer: the former industrialized nations exported their industry and pollution to places like China, what are we going to do, pay them to produce the same stuff but not pollute? Could have done the same with internal industry instead of outsourcing
* Endangered species: slightly bright spot for some well loved species like rhino and elephant, too bad about the sharks and fisheries tho
* Industrial espionage: ok, there’s room for work that might not make things worse
At that point my coffee time ran out. I wish I had more time to figure out why. :-(