Almost 20 years ago I helped our company choose between Git and Mercurial as the replacement for Subversion. Unfortunately, I helped them make the wrong choice, Mercurial.
I say wrong because clearly Git won the war and I haven't used Mercurial since then. However, I still think I made the right choice from a technical perspective; I thought Mercurial was way more user-friendly while providing all the features and performance needed. But I guess I couldn't read the future in terms of which one would win out!
My experience profiling is that I/O wait is never the problem. However, the app may actually be spending most of it's CPU time interacting with database. In general, networks have gotten so fast relative to CPU that the CPU cost of marshalling or serializing data across a protocol ends up being the limiting factor. I got a major speedup once just by updating the JSON serialization library an app used.
It takes an incredible lack of awareness or intellectual honesty to hold Fox news to this standard, but not CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC, or, if we include print media, the NYT, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Reuters, AP, Axios, LA Times, and the Atlantic.
It sounds to me like you're just nitpicking his words. I can't find this quote anywhere, but he's probably saying Wikipedia is taking "stances", to use your word, on subjects where it should instead be trying harder to be neutral and provide multiple perspectives in a balanced manner. Sincerely trying to understand and convey the perspectives of two opposing sides looks vastly different from taking one side, amplifying their talking points, and suppressing or refuting those of the other side.
The counter-arguments to all this all tend to boil down to some form of condescending tone or moralizing:
* left-leaning is just reality-leaning. LoLoLoL right-wingers are sooo stupid!
* Wikipedia should take the left-leaning stance because it is good, moral, noble, and righteous, while the right-leaning stance is vile, evil, unconscionable, and despicable.
If either of those thoughts cross your mind, then, congratulations, you are left-biased. You should try your hand at Wikipedia article editing. I'm sure they'll love you.
You're not trying very hard to see a side that's different from yours, are you? You are responding to a comment saying "leftist != realistic", yet you seem to be pretending my intent was to say "here's proof Wikipedia is left-leaning." Neither of my links were given to "prove" bias, either, only to show that accusations of leftwing bias are accusations that Wikipedia is valuing propaganda over truth and objectivity.
Anyways, to get off-topic from my original comment, here's some evidence for you to ignore:
I think it was always a mistake to pretend hyperthreading doubles your core count. I always assumed it was just due to laziness; the operating system treats a hyperthreaded core as two "virtual cores" and schedules as two cores, so then every other piece of tooling sees double the number of actual cores. There's no good reason I know of that a CPU utilization tool shouldn't use real cores when calculating percentages. But, maybe that's hard to do given how the OS implements hyperthreading.
> Ah, so now you're just pivoting to "left-leaning means untrue/ propaganda".
No, I said far-left goes hand-in-hand with being ant-Israel. Do you know what words mean? I actually do think the far-left is wrong about just about everything, but they do often mix falsehoods with things that are true, so of course not everything they say is untrue.
> And since you just ignored BI and GSSR, I assume you don't have anything to counter that.
No, I'm just not going to take the time to address every article in particular, which you have no room to complain about, given you completely ignored every article I linked.
Looking at the BI article, for instance, they talk about "proportionality", which is a completely bogus and corrupt idea of warfare. You don't fight to respond proportionality; you fight to win and to win decisively. I have no interest in kowtowing to morally bankrupt leftwing morality.
> In the end, you're nothing but a propagandist pushing pro-Israel narratives through opinion pieces and actual propaganda sites like Daily Wire.
Every pro-Hamas rally is filled with people who hate America and the west. I know I am on the side of good and you are on the side of depraved evil, and I will fight to defend what is right.
> and publicly discussed removing all Palestinians from Gaza (ethnic cleansing)
There has to be intent to make the area homogenous. The people of Gaza voted in Hamas and have been working to destroy Israel ever since. It is well within Israel's right to remove them, and I fully support them if it comes to that.
> Look at the comments here if you doubt that people have wisened up.
I actually I saw other comments, that were not downvoted, of people explaining how HRW is biased and conflicted. And, HN has always been deeply-left leaning. I'm happy to trade away some karma to speak the truth to people like you.
And, what are the point of your links? Isarel accidentally kills civilians, which is virtually unavoidable in urban warfare. Hamas hides behind civilians in order to increase civilian casualties because they know the far left news will report on it to their favor. And, they purposely kill Israeli civilians because they are terrorists. One side is pure evil. The other is doing better than just about every nation in the world in fighting a just war.
No. I'm saying what you call "factual reporting" is inaccurate and dishonest propaganda. And the "opinion pieces" I'm sharing are all based on facts and realities.
If any source is deserving of a comparison to InfoWars here it's HRW itself. You can't unilaterally smear every right-of-center source as completely untrustworthy and expect to stay on the side of reality for long.
Bias means you're more likely to amplify facts in your favor and discount those against you. I said nothing about reality. I 100% agree that the political left is far more detached from reality than the right, especially when it comes to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
It's a good question, and, in the worst case, I would disagree with the Trump administration and lose some trust in them. There is also the possibility that missing context would provide reasonable justification for the order. For instance, I think "Russian election interference" investigations have mostly been a partisan operation with little evidence that such interference has had any meaningful impact on U.S. elections. These investigations are mostly used to make the political right side look bad by tying them to Putin. It would be reasonable for the Trump admin to defund these investigations as we have much greater problems to be worried about.
You should continue to be cautious, as the Guardian article is pretty weak. It's first point is that Russia wasn't mentioned in a talk about cyber threats, which means very little by itself. It's second and final point comes from an "anonymous source". I'll believe it when the source becomes de-anonymized. Too many deep state "anonymous tips" have turned out to be lies. It should be noted that CISA has a history of strong leftwing activism:
Trump is not far right and never has been. He's actually moderate on most issues. The current far right position is the Tucker Carlson "isolation at all costs" and "Putin maybe isn't a bad guy" garbage. Trump holds neither of those views.
I say wrong because clearly Git won the war and I haven't used Mercurial since then. However, I still think I made the right choice from a technical perspective; I thought Mercurial was way more user-friendly while providing all the features and performance needed. But I guess I couldn't read the future in terms of which one would win out!