People will think you are exaggerating, you aren’t. They will also think I’m exaggerating that you aren’t, I’m not. Learning about capability-based microkernels and realizing this has been a solved problem for years, and is actually one of the rare easy freebie problems in computing, is a highly sobering experience!
Only thing I disagree on is that we lost that knowledge, we did not, there isn’t much to capabilities, they actually simplify OS design IMO.
> It’s rude too because is expecting me to pick up their slack.
I just had to deal with this, they never pushed back on my PR comments, just copy pasted everything I said back into Claude. Its just second hand vibe coding at that point, might as well fire the middle man…
This is awful advice… Academia, specifically STEM, is already oversaturated with people on the opposite side of the spectrum from “attention difficulties” but are otherwise only above-average people intellectually. They were able to follow the beaten path to the letter all their lives, but are not really capable of making meaningful contributions to their field. We should be filtering these people out more not less.
It is a strong example of European innovation though. It’s a multinational project. I wasn’t casting shade on ASML, I was just pointing out the wording of the article implies some sort of competition between ASML and the US that does not exist.
> The Second Amendment was written so that the US could avoid having a standing federal army and quickly gather up defense forces from States as necessary when attacked.
Too narrow. It secures an individual right, not a federal mobilization clause.
> Isn’t this the exact scenario those arguments were talking about? Have all the second amendment supporters been employed by ice/agree with what they're doing, or was it just empty talk?
Only if you think the second amendment is an on demand partisan defense force. It is not. It is a personal guarantee and a reserve of capacity, not a subscription service where “second amendment supporters” are obligated to show up on cue.
> It was never really a practical idea, more a sort of latent threat that has proven to be ineffective.
“Latent” is largely the point. Deterrence is not measured by constant use, and a right is not refuted by the fact that strangers do not take on extreme personal risk to prove it to you. The first line checks are still speech, courts, elections, oversight. This right exists for when those fail.
> Exactly what the constitution was written to prevent. I guess they did a bad job.
If power has drifted, enforce the constraints. It is the second amendment, placed immediately after speech and assembly, not the third or the tenth. Do not redefine the right into irrelevance and call that proof it failed.
Superloop is common terminology in the firmware space. They are cruder than a giant-state-machine-like case statements(but may use still them for control flow). They usually involve many non-nested if statements for handling events, and you usually check for every event one by one on every iteration of the loop. They are an abstraction and organizational nightmare once an application gets complex enough and is ideally only used in places where an RTOS won’t fit. I would not consider asynchronous frameworks like Embassy to be superloops.
I’m not sure how this counter argues my observation. You seem to be implying that the end goal would be to stop people from saying certain things you find abhorrent. Humans won’t ever stop doing that, it’s that it would sometimes be nice to know that the person presenting themselves as a disillusioned American voter is actually on the opposite side of the planet.
We need to have a serious conversation about the pros and cons of anonymity on public online forums. It’s objectively an unnatural form of communication, most of us see the harm, but we also don’t want to swing towards mass surveillance(which is a very real risk).
EDIT: By unnatural I am referring to not knowing who you are talking to, not knowing the slightest thing about them, our brains don’t process this aspect for what it is, instead we fill in this identity with our imaginations. Perhaps there was a better word for this than unnatural, but to me its especially unnatural because it doesn’t really occur in nature(at least not easily), where as communication across long distances or time happens all the time in nature. TLDR: It’s unnatural that we no longer even know if a comment was written by a human.
EDIT2: I am not strongly in favor of removing anonymity from the internet. I don’t know what the answer is.
Post title(and paper title) should be updated to include the number of undisclosed deaths(2 out of 38 deaths in the first 6 months). From what I can tell there were 43k total participants.
I would say it’s meant to be exploited in the way you are describing and really just a progressive tax mechanism, but instead of hitting zero tax at zero income, you hit zero higher and can start to pay “negative tax”.
You’ll notice that more senior engineers are often much better at giving useful review comments, and they will do it faster than you, thats just a skill that seems to come with experience reading other peoples code(or your own code you wrote two years prior). It can’t be taught, only practiced, same goes for reading other types of technical/academic works.
I kid, but seriously, good how? Because it ensures cybersecurity engineers will always have a job?
seL4 is not the final answer, but something close to it absolutely will be. Capability-based security is an irreducible concept at a mathematical level, meaning you can’t do better than it, at best you can match it, and its certainly not matched by anything else we’ve discovered in this space.
The MMU leads to horribly leaky operating system abstractions. IME it’s leaky due to the lack of separation between address space remapping(preventing fragmentation) and memory protection(security).
Perhaps unintentionally, RISC-V provides more flexibility to kernel developers by also including a physical memory protection unit that can run underneath and simultaneously with the MMU. This can make it far cheaper to switch memory protection on and off for arbitrarily sized areas of physical memory since this capability is no longer needlessly coupled to expensive memory remapping operations. Kernels can move away from the typical “process is its own virtual computer” model, and towards things closer to single address space designs or some middle ground between the two.
Only thing I disagree on is that we lost that knowledge, we did not, there isn’t much to capabilities, they actually simplify OS design IMO.