My experience is people are reluctant to bring a new vm into the fleet.
The jvm, gdb, linux perf stuff for posix apps, these are known quantities. But Erlang is different and weird. It gets some great features as a result of this, but it means most of the IT and Dev orgs are in very unfamiliar and uncomfortable territory.
As for Ericsson themselves, I don't know for certain, but my suspicion is it was driven by the chip/hardware side. They're buying network processors and other components from Broadcom, Qualcomm, ARM flavor whatever, etc, and with each new edition of these gcc will already be ready to go from the vendor, vs erlang may need to be updated to keep current. It probably got old trying to maintain what was almost a parallel OS.
Solar flux above the atmosphere is around 1300 watts per square meter. At the ground in say Las Vegas it's around 1000 watts. Cloud cover or similar can cut that in half or worse.
Sinking heat is an issue in space. The thermal radiator panels on the ISS are bigger than the solar panels.
I never understood why heat exchange is so hard in space. I suppose it’s hard to keep things in orbit while also keeping hot and cold sides stationary?
McCain is probably who a lot of people would name. I disagreed with him about a lot of policy specifics, but do think he was genuine in wanting to do right by voters and the nation.
Based on decades of experience with my family: it's only political correctness when other people do it. When they do it, it's just common decency, common sense, family values, etc.
And as far as the original story, individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this to people because they have a meme on their phone, doubly so one where Vance shared a version of it himself. There is straight up no justification for this.
Dark days for the values the US professes to represent.
>individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this
One of the underdiscussed aspects of an authoritarian regime is that it creates countless little tyrants that all feel empowered to exert whatever power they have in any way they see fit.
2006. O'Hare. I'm close to the front when exiting a UK > US plane. The 'agent' sees an implant (self-done years prior) in the back of my right hand. Calls it 'brutal'. I was directed to sit in a chair until way after the whole flight had disembarked. I was then questioned about my luggage, reasons for visiting.
Some years later "Pull the guy with tattoos". Full search.
Year or two after that, New York, pulled from the queue, directed to stand in a clear box. "Do not move your feet from those markings". My young daughter had to stand and watch.
Another trip. My passport photo did not fit their criteria. "Why did you shave your head?" .. "Because it was hot" .. repeat that whole interaction several times.
I am so so happy that I never have to visit the USA again and it's solely because of the 'people' assigned as 'guards'.
I had automatic weapons pointed at me and yelled at AFTER being waved through the crossing at the Ambassador bridge. 2010 era. I guess they wanted a second look.
Most border agents are brutal, regardless of the current administration. But things do seem to get worse when the Republicans/MAGA are in. I wouldn't even want to think about how they'll act if a big terrorist attack comes.
Frankly, I think this type of comment minimizes what is happening here. These anecdotes are nothing close to what is detailed in the story and they don't sound particularly tyrannical or even necessarily out of line. As an American, I have experienced similar things when traveling abroad in other western countries. What this article describes is much worse.
This is the type of comment I would expect from someone who tells women to go out in public in a potato sack to avoid unwanted attention, and if they choose not to, the harassment is their fault.
The dude lambasts the US because he has tattoos on his face and implanted metal in his body and was singled out by security. Security's job is to look for people who are out of the ordinary. Since most security people are not very bright, they're going to go after the shiny lure. But somehow, this becomes about sexualizing women? WT actual F??
People who put tattoos on their face are looking for attention. Attention is exactly what he got.
Obviously the guy has never traveled to Asia. He'd be singled out in every port and every station. Sounds like he lives a tidy life in No Europe. Where bald white guys with face tattoos and body armor are normal and only brown people are singled out in security lines...
It is "doubly so" because the border guard was wrong to judge the content as "lese majeste" on account of JD himself sharing it, and was wrong that "lese majeste" is applicable in America. The guard was wrong, and even if one doesn't agree with one of the reasons they were wrong because they don't share those values, the guard would still be wrong for the other reason. Therefore they were doubly wrong.
> Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.
No it doesn't. You're putting arbitrary limits to suit your views. You can support free speech for American citizens and also support using a foreigner's speech to determine whether or not we allow them into the country. That's just smart border policy. We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Obviously not allowing someone in over a bald JD Vance meme is stupid. But the idea that we have to allow all foreigners the same level of free speech without it affecting their chances of getting into the country is also stupid.
Absolutely not. If you find out that the person who is trying to enter the country has made creditable threats to the USA, Sure, but that's also illegal for a citizen to do. Saying that the president is a poopy-head on Facebook doesn't count, and says nothing about what said person's behavior will be like once they are in our borders.
Pretty much where I stand. Some speech is criminalized for good reason (for example, planning to commit a crime). However, barring that, no speech should penalized. In particular, speech criticizing actions of the government or a government official should be especially protected.
The bar for when speech should be criminalized/penalized by the government should be very high.
For private entities I'm far more tolerate of censorship especially since it cuts both ways. Allowing or banning speech can directly impact a company's bottom line and should be regulated by customers choosing to interact with or avoid platforms.
Private entities are a completely different conversation. It drives me up the wall when people talk about "free speech" when they have a comment deleted on social media. (I'm not saying you said this btw)
The first amendment of the US constitution grants freedom of speech to all persons. Courts have interpreted that first amendment applies broadly, even to non-citizens.
> We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Who is this "we" and what rules govern these "we"? What are the consequences for this "we" just up and violating the rules or throwing those rules out altogether to grift, stay in power and persecute those they hate?
Note that they said "professes to represent" (emphasis mine). What the US professes to represent and what it actually represents for various people aren't totally unrelated, but it's a relationship that's always been pretty fraught.
and further that you're intending to use it as a burn on Trump and his government?
Regardless of what you think about them and Neo-Nazis/white supremacists, I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
> I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
Unfortunately, it’s pretty clear that there are strict quotas in place and border agents are expected to refuse entry to a certain number of people every day. The quotas are set by delusional xenophobes and thus aren’t remotely realistic, but border agents must find someone to kick out, so they latch onto any excuse. It’s truly sad and pathetic and evil.
I know that the likes of fact checking and checking for hypocrisy draws eye rolls in the present environment (which in and of itself I find disappointing), but I do think an interesting variation on it would be to track what underlining principle is associated with any particular argument and to track adherence to principles over time. Of limited utility in an information ecosystem that's deeply indifferent to litigating disagreements on the basis of factual accuracy, but I feel like bsing your way out of inconsistent principles is at least harder.
Iverson's Notation as a Tool for Thought is an argument in favor of the above. I don't think it's flatly wrong, but I am skeptical of the more strong forms of it.
I think it's important to remember that APL was born of an era where having a keyboard dedicated to a single programming language was reasonable.
I think there's a lot of middle ground between the more line noise syntax of say jsoftware, or a pure lisp style prefix notation.
This is a little snippet from Stevan Apter, a k programmer that has an old school home page with a lot of array language curiosities:
If you look at the pseudo code example at the end using words vs ascii glyphs, I think that's quite readable while also concise. It uses k's bracket notation to easily specify slices of nested arrays.
Interestingly kxsoftware themselves went this route with q (Stevan's essay predates this I believe). There they kept nearly all the power of k but exposed it va a more approachable sql like syntax.
It happened with someone I know. He tried psychedelics in a weekend at the beach house scenario for the first time as a middle aged man. He liked the experience and then started reading about LSD microdosing, so he decided to try that.
Over the course of a few weeks he began to slide into what was clearly schizophrenic delusions. He became obsessed with what he presumed was a vast conspiracy to murder him and take his money, interpreting ordinary events like someone cutting him off on the highway as being part of this.
Thankfully he's got a good partner and support network, got into therapy, and now is doing fine.
I have a pretty live and let live attitude over psychedelics, but I do hate when aficionados pretend there aren't risks or downsides.
On a less dramatic scale I know people who've tried it and hated it, and that's very much a possible outcome as well. It's crappy when aficionados flip that around into somehow being a square or whatever.
It is quite irresponsible to take a psychedelic drug and then drive a car.
So called microdosing of psychedelics is generally rubbish, the way they're distributed means you have no idea whatsoever what dose you're actually taking and if you want to live with a 5-HT2a tolerance, just go on a trip dose and you're good for a few months.
Edit: And with some of these substances one should expect cardiac toxicity if dosing every day, due to serotonin receptors in the heart.
So my, admittedly distant, understanding of modern Russia is that the FSB and Oligarchs have formed a symbiotic relationship, with Putin as its fulcrum.
The FSB secure the oligarchs, and prevent them from being prosecuted for siphoning off billions from the Russian economy. These get distributed down through to FSB leadership as bribes. The whole thing stays loyal to whatever leadership coalition keeps it going. Putin has proved quite good at that.
This arrangement is also underscored by a sort of modern descendent of Chekism. There's an ideological component besides all the corrupt money making.
AFAIK the Symas version is the official now. It's part of the OpenLDAP repo but they have a read only mirror on github for people who want to use it stand alone.
OpenLDAP is very heavily used by a lot of companies, in particular mobile operators that put it under very heavy load, so I'd be reasonably confident of its reliability.
My experience is people are reluctant to bring a new vm into the fleet.
The jvm, gdb, linux perf stuff for posix apps, these are known quantities. But Erlang is different and weird. It gets some great features as a result of this, but it means most of the IT and Dev orgs are in very unfamiliar and uncomfortable territory.
As for Ericsson themselves, I don't know for certain, but my suspicion is it was driven by the chip/hardware side. They're buying network processors and other components from Broadcom, Qualcomm, ARM flavor whatever, etc, and with each new edition of these gcc will already be ready to go from the vendor, vs erlang may need to be updated to keep current. It probably got old trying to maintain what was almost a parallel OS.
reply