Yeah, there are many reasons that people like driving for Uber and/or Lyft, and it's very closed-minded to say that the market can't exist if it doesn't fully and completely replace a "real job" for all of its drivers, up to and including full-time employment with attached benefit packages.
I've had friends who've done it just because they enjoy meeting people who are coming into town and hearing their stories, telling them about the area, etc. Many of the rides I've taken, upon talking to the driver, they'll say they do it because it gets them out of the house and they can work whenever they want. Very few of the people were trying to use it to replace a conventional employment situation.
We should all be grateful that the state is rescuing all of these people from the exploitative habits of these unprofitable companies, I guess.
Most ISPs don't require this -- you can use your own equipment if you wish. Most customers take them up on the rentals, though, either because they don't know any better or because it's easier than buying and maintaining their own equipment.
Yeah, it's hard to imagine why it would make business sense not to push app installs as hard as possible. Take a look at logcat once in a while and notice how often apps you haven't used in weeks are still phoning home sending who-knows-what, not to mention occasional attempts at "re-engagement" from push notifications and much more.
It's no good for consumers, but I don't think many investors would be happy to hear that a company is just leaving those data and opportunities on the table.
Most people understand that fine. It's about freedom of speech as a social principle and value, not strictly a matter of law.
It's granted that people are within their rights to throw out speech they dislike and that there's a world of difference between severing a voluntary business relationship and the deployment of state force, but the implications of an anxious, PR-sensitive set of internet infrastructure providers is certainly fair game for discussion.
If we get into the habit of shutting down every site that attracts a spate of negative attention, it still has the aggregate effect of chilling free discourse. If a shooter came onto HN and posted a manifesto here, would it withstand the mainstream media onslaught?
Right, Leventhal mentions that such an eventuality was one in a group of several considerations, but clearly does not think it was the primary factor.
From the paragraph following your quote:
> Finally and perhaps most significantly, personal egos and NIH (not invented here) syndrome certainly played a part. [...] [C]ertain leads and managers preferred to build their own rather adopting external technology—even technology that was best of breed. They pitched their own project, an Apple project, that would bring modern filesystem technologies to Mac OS X.
and
> Licensing FUD was thrown into the mix; even today folks at Apple see the ZFS license as nefarious and toxic in some way whereas the DTrace license works just fine for them. Note that both use the same license with the same grants and same restrictions.
Leventhal's chronology continues to suggest that ZFS on OS X re-emerged even after this licensing argument had been advanced, and that the project was finally killed by Larry Ellison himself, in the interest of keeping his personal friendship with Steve Jobs unaffected by business considerations.
While it is of course possible that Apple is willing to accept any "murkiness" around the license as it pertains to DTrace but not willing to do so as it pertains to ZFS, it just doesn't seem like your original statement that "they had to drop the whole thing because of the murky licensing on ZFS" represents the situation clearly (at least not if we accept the version of events as told by Adam Leventhal; personally, I have no direct knowledge).
Adam Leventhal doesn't seem to put much stock in the licensing theory, considering OS X's inclusion of DTrace, which was released under the same license. His discussion of the saga of ZFS on OS X is here: http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2016/06/15/apple_and_zfs/ . Very interesting stuff.
The problem is not the salaries or the perks that drives the unprofitability, it's simply the investment model. If you're backed by venture capital, you're goal is to get to an exit 500x larger than the investment ($2M round; VCs don't invest unless they think they may make $1B+). That requires people to focus on growth and world-eating more than any respectable-in-the-moment profitability numbers.
Yep, this is getting blown way out of proportion by all of these tiny scripts that just sit around connecting to themselves. Even pgbench is theoretical and intended for tuning; you're not going to hit your max tps in your Real Code that is doing Real Work.
In the real world, where code is doing real things besides just entering/exiting itself all day, I think it's going to be a stretch to see even a 5% performance impact, let alone 10%.
> They run Intel CPUs made within the last ten years so would be subject to this issue.
Do we know that? There is a lot of speculation but the embargo is not lifted yet afaik. There are obviously elements of this that are remaining intentionally obscured pending embargo expiry (redacted comments), so it could be that a smaller contingent of chips are affected and no one is bothering to correct the damage/limit the patch only to applicable components so that the cat doesn't get out of the bag too soon (side benefit: so that an extensive emergency fix like this can be widely tested before it's applied to a relatively limited set of hardware).
Seems just as valid as any other speculation to me.
> They really dislike insider trading, it's one of the few things where even rich people can get imprisoned -- and the typical jail sentence has been steadily climbing up for decades now.
Insider trading, like many white-collar crimes, exists primarily for its value as a weapon. There is nothing actually illegal about the act of selling a stock; it's all about casting aspirations as to intent and who-knew-what-when.
In other situations, intent is usually an aggravating factor, enhancement, or affirmative defense. It is not the thing that qualifies an otherwise 100% legitimate act as a bad thing.
My anecdotal, unsubstantiated perspective is that insider trading is unlikely to be an issue for anyone who hasn't made enemies, and that it may suddenly become an issue for anyone naive enough to make enemies recklessly. cf. Martin Shkreli, who couldn't be linked to a specific "bad trade" so was brought on generic "securities fraud" instead.
Not playing ball with the people wielding these powers seems to be the dangerous thing.
Phoronix strikes again! I admire Michael's consistency and dedication and their benchmarks have certainly gotten better over the years as PTS has matured, but everything on Phoronix still needs to be taken with a generous helping of salt. New readers generally learn this after a few months; it applies not only to their benchmarks, but also their "news".
The most obvious issue with this benchmark is that Phoronix is testing the latest rcs, with all of their changes, against the last stable version [EDIT: I misread or this changed overnight, see below] that doesn't have PTI integrated, instead of just isolating the PTI patchset. The right way to do this would be to use the same kernel version and either cherry-pick the specific patches or trust that the `nopti` boot parameter sufficiently disables the feature. That alone makes the test worthless.
There is no way this causes a universal 30% perf deduction, especially not for workloads that are IO-bound (i.e., most real-world workloads). This is a significant hit for Intel, but it's not going to reduce global compute capacity by 30% overnight.
EDIT: Looking at the Phoronix page, the benchmark actually appears to use 4.15-rc5 as "pre" and 4.15-some-unspecified-git-pull-from-Dec-31-that-isn't-called-rc6 as "post". I thought I had read 4.14.8 there last night, but may not have. Regardless, the point stands -- these are different versions of the kernel and the tests do not reflect the impact of the PTI patchset.
V8 是革命性的，因为它将 JavaScript 从最慢的语言之一变成了几乎最快的动态语言（与 Lua 争夺桂冠）。存在这样的需求，即浏览器可以成为 3D 游戏等更密集的客户端应用程序的平台。尽管如此，如果 Google 的宣传机器没有启动，V8 的声明将会被归入与其他 JS VM 发布之后的同一个小组。
While it may be true that JavaScript has had a large installed base for many years, that installed environment was only capable of operating within the context of a single page load, as long as the browser was open and active, and really was only useful for manipulating the DOM (and JavaScript was a sorry platform even within that ultra-narrow scope).
Node.js changed things by making the platform available on the backend, allowing programs to live longer, but the notion that JS was "important" as a general development solution is incorrect. It certainly was not the "native" or obvious solution for anything beyond manipulating page UI, and this remains the case for the overwhelming majority of the "billions" of devices with JS execution environments. It is still harder to configure Node.js for use on a server than something like PHP.
When I say an "important development platform", I mean that from the perspective of practical use of the technologist, in the sense that the platform is can be expected to host projects that are recognized as clear leaders within a generally applicable space, strongly motivating adoption of the underlying development platform if not already adopted.
This summarizes everything about the JavaScript ecosystem, so it shouldn't really surprise React users that there is no logic behind the community's behavior.
People have finally succeeded in making JavaScript an important development platform by sheer force of will, insisting that JavaScript must become important in order to justify their adoption of the fad. Before this critical mass was attained, there was no real reason to use JS whenever the option was available, and virtually everyone who adopted Node.js and friends was doing it "just to [do] it", in service to the fad kicked off by Google's promotion of Chrome/V8.
Consider that prior to V8, JavaScript was so disliked that the only way to get someone to read a book about it was to name it "JavaScript: The Good Parts". The coder would be surprised to hear that anyone thought JavaScript had any good parts, and would want to figure out what they were, so that his/her days spent in client-side hell would go just a little smoother.
Then Google released Chrome with V8, some people thought this meant JavaScript was cool now, and it's snowballed from there.
Yeah, a lot of these things that get wrapped up as super-futuristic innovations that use the hottest buzzwords are really just ways to apply old techniques more efficiently.
Since phones provide a platform for a robust software camera, instead of requiring the user to manually snap 9 shots for HDR, the phone just does it for you in rapid succession. Some DSLRs will do this automatically too with 3 shots, but they are much worse at providing a space for robust software assistance.
It sounds like obstruction removal is the same kind of thing, where the phone actually captures a snippet of video and automatically differences that for you, instead of having the photographer take multiple photos and difference them manually in Photoshop (as has been done for a long time, e.g. [0]).
And since Google automatically uploads all of your content, they can analyze it on their servers and return an asynchronous result. They do this for auto-generated animations, panoramas, and movies; it doesn't all have to be performed on the local device and they can take their time.
This is not to poo-poo such developments; I think it's awesome that I can use Cardboard Camera and get a stereoscopic 3D image of my surroundings. Even special-built 360 cameras like the Theta S struggle with stereoscopy. I would love to see Canon or other camera makers innovate by providing a DSLR platform that makes it easy to load new software macros that enable cooler shooting and processing modes (with the caveat that the DSLR must never allow these to slow the device's operation in no-macro mode).
The best we can do now is a full-custom firmware like Magic Lantern [1], which is cool and all, but when I tried it on my 6D, the camera response time was much slower and the sound recording didn't work on the build I installed, resulting in a couple of home videos without audio. I took ML off and haven't been inclined to try again.
IMO, most companies can't engage in anti-competitive behavior independently. You need a special status as a monopoly or a part of a cartel. For normal companies, normal behavior is "anti-competitive" because the point of business is to beat your competitors.
If we assign MS the role of a "typical business" instead of a monopoly (they have may been a monopoly 20 years ago, but it's hard to make that case now), Microsoft is under no ethical obligation a) to provide a client for other operating systems; or b) to ensure that performance parity exists between every client on every platform.
While it may not be super polite to release clients for other platforms and then subtly cripple them in order to drive users back to Windows, there's nothing below-the-belt about it IMO.
I've had friends who've done it just because they enjoy meeting people who are coming into town and hearing their stories, telling them about the area, etc. Many of the rides I've taken, upon talking to the driver, they'll say they do it because it gets them out of the house and they can work whenever they want. Very few of the people were trying to use it to replace a conventional employment situation.
We should all be grateful that the state is rescuing all of these people from the exploitative habits of these unprofitable companies, I guess.