7steps2much
Joined 5 years ago
Karma
316
Submissions
191
Member since
Feb 10
Recent submissions
Comment · 2 years ago
Honestly, dang is what makes this place so great! One more thumbs up from me!
Comment · 3 years ago
> if your program doesn't work on their test environment
Bold of you to assume they have one of those! Personally I assume they will break production, then call you names because of it.
Comment · 3 years ago
A capitalist will always support whatever is best for them. That means amongst other things:
- privatizing gains, socializing losses - free markets/competition while they are poor, monopolies once they are on top
As a good capitalist you would aim to dismantle the very things that enabled your rise to power.
Comment · 3 years ago
I mean ... At that point you could just include a caching/proxy layer at your router.
Comment · 3 years ago
> Our measurement based on the micro benchmarks shows that Rust is in general slower than C, but the extent of the slowdown varies across different programs. On average, Rust brings a 1.77x “performance overhead” compared to C. [1]
Of course, for the sake of completeness it should be noted that:
> With the run-time checks disabled and the restrictions loosened, Rust presents a performance indistinguishable from C. [1]
Though I believe my original statement to hold none the less, as disabling these restrictions disables (amongst other things) bound and overflow checking, which is one of if not the major selling point of rust.
As for C++ depends on the features that one uses. If one writes "just what one could do in C" then the machine code produced by the compiler will be exactly (almost) the same. This is due to the fact that many c++ features are only compiler relevant but compile to (almost) the same instructions as code.
However, I would once again raise the question I did above with rust: If we use little to no c++ features then can we distinguish that codebasse from a c codebase in any meaningful way? But assuming we write idomatic code we will have the c++ code behaving somewhat slower due to factors such as:
- automatic collections/object allocation. Datastructures growing "on demand" do in general perform slower than a comparable "none automatic" datastructure increased in larger chunks by hand (using malloc/etc. in C). While this is an implementation detail admittedly, I believe the libstdc++ does not use chunking, though I would not swear on that. - strings. While no doubt a big upgrade from \0 terminated char sequences idomatic strings in C are less efficient. Especially when it comes to concatenating or manipulation of said strings. In addition it may lead to memory fragmentation, though this should be an afterthought most of the time.
In general the performance difference of C++/C comes down to "hidden" code. While by no means large, assuming software such as the dns root servers which are running essentially 24/7 and will most likely continue doing so for quite a while even small differences in performance will add up.
Admittedly however my original statement of
> Well written C code can easily blow a C++/Rust application out of the water.
May not have been well formulated. It would have been better to split the statement and be more specific about the individual performance differences in regards to rust/c++ instead of bunching them together.
Comment · 3 years ago
> it's pretty old tech that is very inefficient.
I can guarantee you that this "old tech" was coded with more thought invested into it than at least half of these "modern libraries".
Well written C code can easily blow a C++/Rust application out of the water.
Comment · 3 years ago
> because their enforcement is seen as either unfair, or a detriment to society
I mean, I do agree with you in general, its just that I do not see this issue as a detriment to society. If someone demands massive interest rates on loans that you need to survive thats definitely unethical.
A company demanding that you do not use their laptop so that you can work on your side projects at home ... well, that doesn't quite sound as bad. There is nothing stopping you from just buying your own device.
Thats like saying "only use the company car for work stuff" ... it just doesn't seem that unfair or unethical to me to be honest.
Comment · 3 years ago
If you make that pen available to me under these conditions? Sure.
If you "just give" me something without any conditions then no, you could definitely not claim that story. But if you make that pen, your property, available to me explicitly only for work and nothing else?
It's your property, not mine. I only have whatever rights you grant me to it.
Comment · 3 years ago
If you actually care about this then you can go and write a polite but firm letter/mail to Facebook's legal department.
Contacting support/appealing is unlikely to do much since their metric is tickets closed, whereas the legal metric is "number of things prevented from blowing up"
That said, there's a chance legal won't care, but it's the best option I think.
Comment · 3 years ago
Different scale of seriousness. If the whole world goes into a recession there is a big difference between food shortages that you can buy your way out of with cash and food shortages that come as a result of societal collapse and money being worthless.
Being rich only matters as long as your investments/assets hold any value. If truly serious problems around your investments go to 0, your assets are only worth something as long as you can maintain control of them (police won't be around, nor will judges be) and even then your car will be worthless without gas.
It all depends on what meaning a person assigns to "serious" in this context. Personally as long as being rich solves my Problems I wouldn't describe any situation as serious.
Comment · 3 years ago
Assuming that you can charge whatever number you want. Realistically however you will have to negotiate with insurances and sometimes governments about the price of things. The second group is particularly tricky, since government make the rules.
Imagine you invent a way to cure cancer and it costs you 10000$ a treatment. How much do you charge the customer? Two times that? Ten? Twenty? At what point is someone going to stop in and force you to sell at a lower price? How long till public opinion turns against you? What if competition forces the price down? There are lot of variables that might lead to you ending up at 10000$ + a few percent profit margin.
Now imagine you have a medication that's 100$ a dosage. You sell it for 120$. That's 84 doses to cover the cost of a cancer treatment. Assuming the same markup on treatment that's 100 doses.
At this point it's the simple question what the company is more likely to get away with: Many small doses with a profit margin that add up? Or one large treatment with a big profit margin?
Right now reality shows that the small doses seem to work better. An example would be insulin. In the US it costs 30$ a dose upwards. Production costs are at less than 10$. [0] That's a 200% markup.
With numbers like these, why would you ever cure something?
[0]: https://marketrealist.com/healthcare/cost-to-manufacture-ins...
Comment · 3 years ago
> Curing cancer would be infinitely more profitable than yet another crypto exchange.
Treating an illness is even more profitable than curing it though
Comment · 3 years ago
(1) I wasn't aware of it, but I am not surprised that something like this was written into the standard (presumably. I doubt carriers rolled their own thing)
(2) All the ways I can think off are significantly harder than rooting, so essentially no.
(3) I don't really mind that much, I have Google services running on my phone and I am certain those can do far more than my carrier could ever dream off. I have begrudgingly accepted those, so it would be a bit hypocritical to complain about my carrier turning cell broadcast back on. Especially since "turning cell broadcast back on" is a use case that I can see the argument behind.
It you care about this then I suggest you look up the relevant standard documents, probably you will find this behavior documented there.
Comment · 4 years ago
Banks often have high fees for investing/stock related actions.
Depending on what European country you are in you could also have a look at brokers/online banks, these usually have more sane fees.
In central Europe flatex would be an example of such a broker. Though I am not sure in which countries these are available.
Comment · 4 years ago
Only if your work is so important they can't afford to let it go undone.
If a company has to cut costs they cut the positions they can do without, and in those positions consultants are cut out first.
Of course if you aren't easily replaceable or they actually need you then they won't cut you, but even then, if it really comes down to it consultants get cut before employees that are equally as important.