benbataille

Taxes are already included. Prices are never given without taxes in Europe except in B2B where your customers don't pay VAT anyway.

It's because I'm not really precise (but neither is Lennart). Technically, libdbus is a part of dbus. It allows two applications to communicate with each other using the dbus serialisation and abstracts the transport layer. You can use it over a Unix socket and then it's just a serialisation format like any application using IPC would need. Then, using dbus is no more stupid than anything else. Actually, it's pretty clever as there already is quite a lot of tools understanding this format.

However, libdus is not what people usually talk about when they talk of dbus. The core part of dbus and what could bother server administrator is the message bus daemon which allows any applications to expose their functionalities and talk to any others. Now, systemd can use the message bus to allow applications to ask for service activation. But, it's not required and you can run the init system without it.

That's again a myth. There is no dbus dependency. You can use dbus to do activation but you don't have to. Now, there is a dependency on libdbus which just means systemd is using the dbus serialisation format for its ipc (which, I repeat, don't have to happen over dbus).

No, prices are not stupid. You didn't think through the whole problem.

The issue of cost and incentive with this kind of revolutionary innovation is real. The problem is simple. When you innovate, you bear alone the fixed cost of development while your competitors can copy and bear only the marginal cost. That's the reason the patent system exists and normally that's fine.

But, for a revolutionary invention, patents might not be feasible. Imagine you find a cure to cancer. Do you really think every governments and public opinion are going to let you be the sole producer for 30 years while people are dying ? Impossible. This creates a disincentive to push money towards a cure for private investor. Now, the idea behind a price is that if you find the cure, the price is going to cover your fixed cost (ideally more) thus investing is competitive again. Technically, as it fosters competition and you will only reimburse the finder, it supposed to generate more research than just spending the price money. Putting money aside for this kind of price was one of the main goal of the Bill and Monica Gates Foundation when it was founded (I think, they went back a bit because people wrongly assume its wasted money).

1 Bitcoin today and 1 Bitcoin in six months is not the same at all because you lose all the value you could have add from this Bitcoin during the six months so you have to discount it. That's called present value of money and that's one of the way companies manage their investments.

Theoretically, you have to use the real rate of return of your money and discount it on the time period. Of course, estimating the real rate of return is an art in itself. Considering value of bitcoin has been shown to be highly volatile, doing any semi-long term investment with it is basically gambling.

Most people are completely unaware of what CS researchers are doing in France because they don't work on things which the public finds ultra-sexy. Most of what they do and are good at has direct industrial application.

They made some pretty interesting things in type theory, language design (OCaml), proof (Coq), static analysis and certification (B-method, Frama-C, CompCert).

All of these is useful if you want to do safe embedded softwares for your planes, flight control softwares, automatic metros or nuclear reactor monitoring systems (which they do) but it isn't really easy to explain to the general public.

There is also a supposedly quite strong numerical modelling group working on nuclear deterrence but most of this stuff is classified. Let's also not forget that France still is a major arm dealer so you have some R&D done by private defence companies. Nothing comparable to the USA but you still apparently have some development in targeting, surveillance and interception (well, France has a world covering array network, I hope they at least try to use it).

Now, there is nothing particularly exceptional here. The situation is mostly the same in all publicly founded laboratories around the world. What France doesn't have very much is people doing frivolous stuff like email sorting or social network aka start-ups but that's another problem.

> It's a top-5 program internationally, so I take it to be quite good.

Most of the international rankings are heavily biased in favour of English speaking countries and particularly the USA (especially ARWU). It's mostly fine in sciences where all the important publications are in English. It's clearly dubious in the humanities. Beware this kind of claim.

Does someone have read the original article ? I am curious about how the reader evaluation of potential risk was assessed. Was there a control group which didn't see any comment to compare variance amongst this group to the other groups variances ? How was the sampling done ? Were people with knowledge of science equitably balanced amongst groups ? How many of them was there ? At which level is the variance difference amongst groups significant ? 2000 subjects can lead to average results depending of the sampling.

The jsonline article does quite a lousy job with details.

I think you should probably read the links you post. They are close to claim exactly the contrary of what you say. As the Wikipedia article rightfully points, the difference is far less obvious than you make it seem.

The definition of an interpreter is generally broader than a main loop running instructions one at a time. For example, everyone seem to agree that Python is an interpreted language while python interpreter transforms the source code into an IR before passing that to its main loop. Truth is the line between what is a VM, an interpreter and a compiler is rather fuzzy.

The implementation of a process virtual machine clearly is an interpreter of a bitcode. Now, it's not entirely absurde to consider the couple JIT and VM taken together as an interpreter. Actually, this is clearly encompassed by the third point of the definition of an interpreter provided by Wikipedia : "explicitly execute stored precompiled code[1] made by a compiler which is part of the interpreter system".

To come back to the article discussion, I agree with the previous poster than the expression "source code VM" is kind of meaningless. Actually, the paragraph following is even plain wrong. The Dart VM executes bitcode not source file and Dart is JITed.

In the same way, I find it quite surprising that forty years after Hindley paper, people still confuse type annotated and statically typed but well, c'est la vie.

It's because of the way the premises are written in regard to the type environment in the rules and how things are unified. It's directly linked to free and bound type variables and yes, it's complicated to understand.

If you look at the [Abs] rule, you will see in the premise "x : tau". Here, by definition, tau is non qualified. It represents a unique type. It's necessary monomorphic. Concretely, it means x will be bound to a type variable in the type environment and this type variable will uniquely be unified.

On the other hand, the premise for [Let] is e0 : sigma, x : sigma. Contrary to tau, sigma is qualified (polymorphic). So, it can be unified to a different type variable in different expressions.

I completely understand why it fails you. The way qualifier affects the unification process is quite complicated. I finally understood it only after having to write my own rules when I was implementing a type checker for my master thesis.

If you don't mind the formalism, read carefully the Wikipedia article paying particular attention to how tau and sigma are defined and to the paragraph about free and bound type variables. If you want something more practical, look at the Peyton Jones book I gave a link to in this thread. Part 9.5 is the important part but it's difficult to get without having read the whole chapter (eventually chapter 8 too). It 's still complex but far less abrupt than the Wikipedia article.