Simplest answer is that there's no representative test case in the test suite yet.
Unfortunately the problem of compiler testing is a very challenging one IMO. You can't test it exhaustively, or perhaps if you did write such a suite it would take longer to execute than is feasible.
> we all are just lucky enough that most messed up optimizations will break _something somewhere_ early enough to not get merged
Your compiler is only as good as the set of code people routinely use it on. Rust has exploded in popularity but it's still much less popular than C, C++.
You know that feeling when you work on a feature for weeks or months and then something comes along and the feature is no longer needed or the project is cancelled?
It's a pretty frustrating experience -- was it all for naught? Maybe it's useful to vent about it a bit.
Look at the cryptocurrency and Bitcoin economies for an example. Instead of being a democratic mining economy where spare cycles are used, only companies which invest capital to find semiconductors from the latest process node combined with facilities and inexpensive electricity benefit from mining.
Only the next Standard Oil / Amazon / Google will benefit from the people-free economy.
Some of us in Texas are all too familiar with the problem of balancing load with generation, the risk of a cascade failure causing a slow restart.
During winter storm Uri, they did a duty cycle where we only had power available for ~6-12 hours at a time on the days it was available. This was apparently to avoid that very problem.
So far as I know, the obvious mitigations like winterizing NG generation and/or peering with neighbor grids have not been performed.
This is a false equivalence. "What constitutes appropriate humor" versus "Government silences dissent." Just because the Diabetes conference cited their code of conduct doesn't mean that's actually what this is about.
This is what people seem to get mixed up about the First Amendment to the US Constitution. These scientists were removed from the conference because they were highlighting the scientific role to push back against government censorship. Not because it wasn't germane to the conference, but in furtherance of the censorship itself. The US Government participated here indirectly via its chilling on scientific discourse.
Comments in this thread suggesting that "this is just some private actors" are mistaken. This is absolutely the consequence of the Trump HHS policymakers decisions.
It's not like the article is indirectly related to the subject of the conference. It is critical of the government, but not in the "human rights abuses of this administration threaten us all" way (though even that seems reasonable to discuss).
Is it your position that if an article is critical of a world government it must not be discussed at a scientific conference? Or even "you should expect to get ejected from a conference if you criticize the host government"? Because believe it or not, that's not been a problem in the USA prior to Trump. And it runs contrary to how science should work.
One of science's most critical roles is to inform policymakers. And if they can't do that job effectively then it's right and just to point out the problems preventing it. Scientific conferences that fear critiques of the government chill new scientific publications.
It's not like they were handing out "Trump sleeps during press events" posters. You should read the article they distributed, it's very relevant to the conference attendees.
The crazy thing is that the oil companies confessed to a misinformation campaign and at least publicly talked about change/reform (of course, they're still oil exploration/refinement companies so not abandoning that). But they did discuss responsible use of fossil fuels in transition towards renewables.
But Trump was fooled and is more committed than ever to the since-abandoned misinformation campaign. It took on a bigger life than Exxon ever could've imagined.
The snowflakiest of them all - they can't handle unbiased readings from instruments that survey our planet.
Of course he should be punished but the best lesson here is for bettors. Those who wager on "prediction markets": you are betting against people who have access to more information or can influence the outcome of the wager. Don't waste your money.
This is a legitimate, understandable way to discuss a mixture of abstract and specific things. This is a novel we are referring to, here. The intended audience is very, very broad.
> FUZIX is a fusion of various elements from the assorted UZI forks and branches beaten together into some kind of semi-coherent platform and then extended from V7 to somewhere in the SYS3 to SYS5.x world with bits of POSIX thrown in for good measure. Various learnings and tricks from ELKS and from OMU also got blended in
The fact that it's written in python is often brought up in order to explain its name. But really, it's much less interesting than the fact that it has a tracing JIT. If it were called PyJIT I'd bet it would be clearer and more obvious that it's fast. And people would prob get less hung up on the distinction between python/rpython.
It makes a lot of sense to me that PV and wind power could have subtle undesirable effects that we don't know about until it scales up.
Taking gigawatts of energy out of the planet ecology and redirecting it to something else seems like it could have drawbacks. Of course, on net it seems likely to still be a significant improvement over burning hydrocarbons.