unmdplyr

Even the slightest attempt at guessing the host system or searching for tools present on a system will quickly convert this into a blog article earnestly begging for deep societal changes and analyses the inevitable marching of time.

As someone who's been involved in build engineering for quite a while, I'm not sure how Python is suddenly going to solve some real life build problems?

Both Meson and Bazel use Python, a heavy weight language as a configuration tool rather than actual build language. From that perspective you might think it is a replacement to CMake. But it then it quickly introduces its own quirks.

In the end, there's no single best solution to building. You do you. And some sad soul contributing to buildroot2 or OpenWRT will wrap your whatever build with a bunch of Makefiles and shell scripts.

Does no one write .html files by hand anymore? Or am I too old for that shit?

> Mind you, this simulation is conservative. It assumes that the ships have a range limited to 10 light years — about a dozen stars are within this distance of Earth — and travel at 1% the speed of light.

For comparison the fastest we have done is 200 km/sec and that's doing various gravity gymnastics by Parker Solar probe. 1% speed of light is about 3,000 km/sec.

> Being able to type out messages is hugely helpful while debugging and developing

You are only a small fractional part of the entire life of the protocol. Protocol designs largely impact hardware design and requirements. A binary protocol will safely work on a micro-controller without too much effort while a text based protocol requires some serious CPU juice, code storage space and volatile memory to get it off the ground.

Sure, text will work on most devices, but the parsers for those text based protocols become excessively complex. There is some ideas floating on in the field of "green" computing where its becoming increasingly imperative to do more processing per watt. Text parsers will certainly not fit into that bill.

> new fields myself without having to write code to do it.

Then what's the point of that new field if there's no code to handle it? That said, CBOR and TLV is similar too -- in that, you can add new fields without any code to handle it. But what good is it?

> An unexpected field value/type, and a generally malformed payload.

    Content-Length: bad-string

Your parser will break the key-value pair and hand it off to a call-back or something that makes sense of what key means, perhaps a semantic analyzer? And when it reaches that point, you have irreversibly wasted enough CPU time already only to discover that the whole message is invalid. Not that I am unaware of the difference, just that differentiating them is often pointless.

Continuing the hilarity...

> That's hard to read so lets use specialized

Is it CR? Is it LF? Is it CRLF? Did I configure my text editor to use the correct line terminator? Does my clipboard reset the CRLF to CR or LF? Oh, wait is that a space (0x20) or tab (0x09) there? Hmm.. never mind.

Also,

    From: 1234<[email protected]>;branch=abcd1234

vs

    From: 1234<[email protected];branch=abcd1234>

Which is the right way? Should my parser expect `branch` in URI or should it expect only when parsing `From` and `To` address? Should I make it part of the URI sub-parser or should I make it part of the top-level parser for endpoint addresses? This was a real inter-op problem between two big vendors.

Reminds me of the time in my university where all exams were "online". It was nearly completely client side with VBScript carrying the answers to select.

For 4 years I managed to get straight As until a leaky mouth discovered and disclosed it to the IT dept. Me and my friends were never doubted for since we were the top A students with foul mouths. The guy who reported it felt a sense of pride but whatever..

This was late 90s, early 2000s. Was fun times.

    Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. The lawsuit said that Google had 90 per cent of the market for tools US publishers use to sell online ads. It uses that power — and its role selling technology to advertisers — to channel transactions through its in-house exchange, the lawsuit alleged, meaning the company effectively engages in “insider trading”.

I think this was well known for a long time, but interesting that it has come to light only now.

I think it's possible. I know for certain there are techniques to identify "click-baity" text snippets. My partner is currently working on a data model now and she has already had some reasonable success. Imagine what a company that hires several 10s or even 100s of data scientists can achieve?

From there on, it's just a matter of highlighting these successful matches constantly in your feeds.

I wouldn't put it past that.

> When a Utah county accidentally sent out 13,000 absentee ballots without a signature line, the NewsGuard Red-rated site LawEnforcementToday.com called this a "cheat-by-mail scheme."

This isn't a Facebook problem as such. It's just sensationalistic journalism. Just that Facebook as a platform helps amplfiy it. Just my 2 cents.

This sentence is incoherent:

  “What’s different is we’re going to be pretty pragmatic about --- yes if, and if and when we should be making a step inside or making it outside and making sure that we have optionality to -- yeah build internally mix and match inside and outside or go outside in its entirety,”

Given the recent diversification of outsourcing, going back to PRC/ROC is not exactly going to help Intel in the long run I think.

The title is a bit misleading..

Could you also please show infection cases/deaths within China alone? I've noticed something weird in the data reported from inside China (at least the WHO SitRep values). It seems like they are following a quadratic trend (R^2 = 0.96), while the rest of the world is following an exponential trend. Your own graphs show exponential in the World stats.

Having bus functionality enabled in kernel is beneficial for several reasons. It strips out lots of unnecessary bells and whistles and just hold some skeleton for send/receive/advertise. Most POSIX IPCs don't have an advertisement mechanism that enables discovery without some external persuasion.

D-Bus does this but has often been criticised for being overtly complex. OpenWRT came with a simpler solution, but then quickly defined a data protocol which suffers severely in I/O - it needs JSON for everything.

BUS1 doesn't specify a protocol for actual data itself so I can send/recv C struct which my process groups know about it.

Also, leaving bus logic in kernel would mean I can write a minimalistic library wrapping the syscalls for my specialised use, yet keep the applications readily portable should plans change.