chowells

I like it. I can't see how to do better while remaining compatible with Python idioms.

Agh. Crossed wires with PS2 as in the playstation 2. Its controllers used polling. I did this to myself...

There are limits. USB keyboards are just always going to be slower than PS/2 keyboards. You can close the gap, but USB is just fundamentally adding wrapping layers that introduce latency over the direct polling PS/2 used. And there's a lot of this at the hardware level, where standardized connections with complex protocols replace weird custom connectors. USB is most definitely easier to plug something in to than PS/2 ports, where you had different ports for mouse and keyboard and they weren't interchangeable. (Ok, some very late motherboards supported using either in a single port, but it wasn't the way most PCs worked.)

You can do a lot at the high levels, but everything needs to be reworked from the hardware level up to match the latency of older systems.

You understand the Luddites were 100% correct, right? "Luddite" is a compliment, not an insult. The Luddite position was "mechanization of labor will concentrate money and power in the hands of capital holders to the detriment of everyone else". If that's not what you thought it was, that's because you have been lied to by people who have been attempting to manipulate you. Apparently successfully.

If you can't understand what the machine has done, math is not being done. Math is not pushing symbols around to find sequences that follow all the rules. Math is the process of understanding how those sequences of symbols map to meanings. If you can't follow the proof but have validated it's correct, all you know is that it's a proof of something. Is it a proof of what's claimed in the adjacent plaintext? Who knows!

Math is about clear communication between people first and foremost. That's why Shinichi Mochizuki's claimed proof of the ABC conjecture isn't accepted - he's unable to communicate it to enough mathematicians to get a consensus on its validity. LLMs generating Lean proofs are basically following that same schema. Sure, something has been proven. But what? Where's the clear communication explaining it to the satisfaction of other mathematicians?

A lot of the Cascade range is basalt, and you don't need to cut down very far to expose it. A result is that most waterways in Oregon have revealed a lot of basalt around them, at least in the mountains.

Fortunately, we now have 50 years of evidence of the negative effects of this philosophy on the ecosystem. Being strict in both results in net positive effects for the entire ecosystem. Trying to be lenient in what you accept results in HTML5, where the exact parse tree for every possible input sequence is specified in order to enforce compatibility. It's no longer lenient, because that doesn't work.

Tied test scores to what outcomes? Bush the second tried tying test results to one kind of outcomes (school funding), and the result was schools getting worse.

You're right. I didn't enumerate every way UB can make a program go wrong. I'm sure I don't even know every way that can happen. But "UB doesn't happen at run time" is an assumption that lots of "optimizations" are based on.

That sounds like 1.5 decades to me...

Not only that, the code was wrong. The specification is quite clear that correct programs don't cause UB to be executed at run time. If your wrong code now produces wrong results, that's because it's wrong. That your compiler allowed you to get away with it for decades is a compiler bug, not a feature.

Do I fully believe all of the above? Not exactly. But compiler authors do. Does it make a really good argument to never use C or C++? Yes. If only we had 50 years of optimization work in any language with better semantics.

People still believe this? Google pays their ISP. I pay my ISP. Google does not pay my ISP. Why is my ISP's response to the amount of traffic I use demanding to bill someone other than me?

To be clear, Google was doing this out of self-interest. Paying user ISPs for access to those users is not a cost they want to pay. But it's the same as any other protection racket. A local shopkeeper has personal reasons to not want to pay off the mob, but that doesn't mean their position is wrong.

It's not difficult to communicate the difference between losing all future rights and settling a dispute over an incident that has already happened. I don't know why you'd act like it's a huge challenge to understand the difference.

But yeah; don't join the military.