inkyoto

> I really like the linux solution here. My windows have no titlebar/borders at all. To move a window hold the window key and drag the window from anywhere, to resize hold the window key and right-click drag.

Speaking of which. It is not a Linux solution but stock X11 twm window manager features dating back into 1988, i.e.:

  NoTitle

  BorderWidth 0

  Button1 = m4 : window : f.move

  Button3 = m4 : window : f.resize

– replicates the described behaviour with the pin-point precision[0].

[0] m4 stands for the Mod4 modifier, now commonly assigned to the Super/Windows key. The equivalent 1988 configuration would have used m (Meta), since the original binding syntax supported Shift, Control and Meta only.

Ah concur, so long as the Scoattish pronunciation's brought in line wi' a proper Manc twang:

«Ah pit the roobbish oot in the mornin’, then catch the booss wi’ a goon tucked doon ma kecks» («I take the rubbish out in the morning before taking the bus with a gun in my pants»).

I am struggling to understand which specific problems that pertain to the use of mlock(2) you are alluding to.

Java is an example of the most widely deployed garbage-collected language in production around the world, deployment number and scale-wise. Most of the world's missing critical systems today run on Java. Java can run as a process or in a container. Containerised Java deployments do not require unique operational SRE arrangements, nor do they require any unique/dedicated permissions to run in a container.

Upon start-up, the JVM checks whether the system has sufficient memory to satisfy the max heap size constraint, and it will duly fail to start up if not. Afterwards, the JVM will allocate the required amount of memory, and it will mlock it. Multi-terabyte[0] RAM JVM deployments[1] do exist and exhibit exactly the same behaviour. Java has had such behaviour since its inception.

The prevailing number of Java deployments run on systems with swap enabled, and, from the operational standpoint, it is pure insanity to run mission critical (banking, payments, government etc) apps without a swap. Swapless JVM deployments are virtually unknown or are operational negligence.

The principal exceptions for running a JVM on a system without a swap are hard real-time scenarios and embedded systems. That is it.

What makes Go different or unique that it can't use mlock and that it would require special permissions or unique/distinct SRE/operational arrangements? It is eluding me.

[0] The Azul JVM supports up to 20 Tb of RAM which it will mlock.

[1] See the published Azul/Forrester evidence for reference. It is an interesting read regardless of the mlock debate.

For the very same reason why the wisest of the ancient and medieval rulers were patrons of science, even if the value of scientific discoveries was not immediately apparent at the time.

It is called enlightenment and the discovery of knowledge. Otherwise, we would still have been running around with pitchforks and flaming torches, waging crusades in the name of one deity or another.

Besides, humans spend $50 billion or – equally arguably much more – killing or trying to kill each other. If that gets spent on new discoveries and knowledge, it becomes apparent that the $50 billion investment into science is a substantially better value proposition.

Since categories have been invoked, we are discussing semantics.

«As a whole» leaves unclear whether your example means the kind itself, its members generally or every member without exception as they are three distinct interpretations. This is what I have remarked on.

«Cats meow» attributes characteristic behaviour to cats generally.

«Dinosaurs are extinct» attributes a property to a kind, making it a better example supporting kind reference.

The latter also establishes that English bare plurals can denote kinds. Their grammatical form does not guarantee that interpretation: «cats entered the dumpster» concerns individual cats on a particular occasion.

> “Cats meow” is “about” the whole of what makes up the category as opposed to parts of it.

No. That is, at best, a highly informal proposition and, at worst, a frivolous disposition masquerading as a definition of «category».

Bare plurals can have generic or kind-related interpretations (the one you refer to as «category»); they do not entail reference to every individual member of the class: a mute cat can't meow, and a rotten apple is unlikely to be liked.

The Obama analogy illustrates reference vs mention, but that distinction is orthogonal to the actual semantic disagreement.

I can't answer the why question, but out of all Germanic languages, only Faroese has retained the plural indefinite article, although its use is restricted to nouns that 1) only occur in the plural and 2) indicate «a pair/set of», e.g.:

  einar buksur (feminine plural) – a pair of pants

  einir skógvar (masculine plural) – a pair of shoes

Other than that, Germanic languages typically do not have a plural form of the indefinite article.

«cats» in «cats meow» and «apples» in «I like apples» are not categories, they are bare plural noun phrases with generic reference. They refer generically to members of the relevant class, rather than naming the class itself.

Both are count nouns, and, in English, a plural count noun takes the null article when it is used with generic or non-specific indefinite reference rather than to denote a contextually identifiable set.

However, in

  Cat is divided into numerous breeds.

  Cat excludes animals such as dogs and foxes.

  Apple excludes such fruits as pears and peaches.

  Apple contains numerous cultivated varieties.

«cat» and «apple» are categories.

That is a relatively recent change.

In the 80-90's, the most popular destination for Australians was the UK: Nick Cave, Kylie Minogue, Lisa Gerrard (of Dead Can Dance fame) and many others moved up there.

It is a conspiracy – one of the many for which history has been inconsiderate enough to preserve evidence of.

For rural areas, lower frequencies are better because they mean longer distances ↝ fewer cell towers but also less density.

Conversely, higher frequencies mean more density, shorter distances and more cell towers. The ROI in the rural scenario in this case is lower.

There are historical and cultural reasons for that.

Even though hiragana can be traced back to the 5th century, the educated and elites continued to use kanji exclusively until the 20th century, whereas hiragana was relegated to unofficial writing and it first became popular amongst women, hence gaining the condescending status of «female writing». Drawing parallels with hangul (as some have noticed) is not entirely correct as hangul entered the official use in the 15th century and has been in the extensive use for writing since then, even though the use of hanja has ceased only relatively recently. Hiragana entered the stage approximately four centuries later.

Katakana, on the other hand, was developed by Buddhist monks in the 9th century to translate texts from India and later to represent borrowed words. The Empire of Japan used kanji and katakana in official documents.

Then there is a distinction between the syllabary and vocabulary.

Chinese vocabulary and pronunciation has entered Japanese in three distinct waves: go-on, kan-on and tō-on. The Tang dynasty kan-on wave was particularly and enormously important as it has supplied Japanese with a major new pronunciation system, vocabulary, administrative culture and literary.

The earlier go-on wave is associated with Buddhist terminology that prefers the go-on readings, and the tō-on wave readings occur particularly in vocabulary brought through medieval and early-modern contact with China.

Therefore, the same character can therefore contain several historical layers, for example: 明 has go-on myō, kan-on mei and tō-on min as in:

  明王 /myōō/ historical layer: go-on, meaning: a Buddhist «Wisdom King» (such as 不動明王 Fudō Myōō)

  明王 /meiō/ historical layer: kan-on, meaning «a wise, enlightened or excellent ruler».

Even the pronunciation alone partly tells the reader which historical layer is being invoked.

明朝 is even more interesting as the reading of /myōchō/, being an older myō reading, indicates «tomorrow morning» whereas the /minchō/ reading, being a tō-on, indicates «the Ming dynasty» or related to the Ming dynasty.

Neither hiragana nor katakana can preserve such details, and, depending on whom one asks, it may or may not acceptable to a Japanese national. Perhaps the younger generation cares less but it is not all that clear cut.