liftbigweights

> it will be pretty easy to automate attribution.

Yours is a valid concern, but people can also fool attribution software easily. You could even write software that alters your paper into a few different people's writing style. That will render any attribution process useless. Just like you can disassemble code, you can obfuscate it.

Actually undefined behavior is defined. It is defined as undefined.

What happened to graphene? A couple of years ago, that's all anyone talked about? I thought graphene was going to get us back on the exponential incline that is moore's law?

I'm guessing the answer is no ( betteridge's law ) and we are going to stay in the multi-core environment for a while. 128, 256, 512, 1024, ... cores. Though I suspect that is going to run into problems very quickly.

I guess this is for the nontraditional programmers since computer science is a mathematical field and programming is simply applied mathematics in some sense. I don't see how you could get a CS degree without being competent in mathematics to some degree since CS is a mathematical field.

Why is this news? Everyone does this, including the nytimes. The nytimes marketing department offers their clients on all kinds of identifying/targeting traits for advertising.

From your fashion to your viewing habits to which news you consuming to even the types of pets you have and everything in between is used. Where you work, where you live, what kind of parenting situation you have, etc.

Isn't that the point of political and corporate advertising? Isn't this why the nytimes and cambridge analytica is in business? Is the obvious "news" now because of trump and the "right wing"?

Considering the DNC spent a lot more money than the RNC the past few elections, there are far more organizations who targeted left-wing voters than right-wing voters. But I guess the nytimes doesn't want to write an article about itself and its ad team and their clients.

> Winston Smith actually could hide for a while.

Actually, he couldn't. He thought he could hide. But we find out in the ministry of truth and room 101 that everything he did "secretly", like writing in his diary or his rendezvous with julia, were known to the authorities.

But I agree, unless we wake up, I think a mix of 1984 and Minority Report style of dystopian future awaits us.

Good god. It's a joke.

> We can't blame pewdiepie nor expect him to act mature even though he has more than 70 million subscribers.

And apparently, he can't get some people to understand sarcasm or get a sense of humor.

> But youtube needs to have some sort of policy on subscriber campaigns to avoid these type of scenarios.

It's not a "campaign". It's a joke.

You would think someone one 'hacker'news would have a sense of humor or understand it at least, even if it isn't their style.

I see the same comments every time a china topic is posted on HN. I wonder why?

> I don't think it would be far-fetched to assume that some very protected and valuable IP has leeched through our doors and into China's hands.

China has a "technology transfer policy" for foreign companies doing business in china. So if intel has a fab in china, they agreed to the technology transfer.

> In all honestly I really can't fathom how the American government let this deal occur.

Probably because it benefited US companies and the wealthy.

If china is stealing anything, it's here in the US, not from intel who agreed to trade technology for chinese market access.

The difference is that with fp ops, it's part of the design and understood that you should never directly compare the equality of fp numbers since they are estimates. You should check for equality of fp numbers by checking their difference according to your needs.

Whereas for int ops, equality works within the limits of the design.

In short equality means something different in fp by design. For int, it means what we think it means within its limits. When we overflow, then things get screwy.