I'll say it wasn't. You're right about the issues; however, the root cause comes from a culture that views any form of problem as a personal fault. These guys were just the end result of a long list of fails. When you treat any form of failure as personal, there is perverse incentive to ignore or hide faults until all of it lines up, ie the Swiss-cheese model. The people running Chernobyl shouldn't have been in that position in the first place: untrained, ill-informed, and under-the-gun to perform.

I don't think I can go with that one. C was created in the same period as people were trying to find a way to create a common platform, but C was more about trying to solve the problem of having a higher-level language that wasn't available for the low-end hardware (ie PDP-11, etc) of the time. Richie wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel.

He would have been happy to use other languages, but they were either design for large platforms which needed more resources (Fortran) or looking to be locked behind companies (IBM's PL/I). Richie considered BCPL, which at the time had a design that made it pretty easy to port if your computer was word-based (same size of bit-width for all numbers regardless of purpose). But, mini-frames were moving towards byte-based data and word or multi-word-based addressing. Plus, mini-frames had poorer hardware to make it cheaper, so typing on them meant more physical work.

A lot of UNIX design came from trying to use less: less memory, less paper, less typing. Richie tried to simplify BCPL to be less wordy by making B, but ultimately decided to jump to the next thing by making a language that would require as few keystroke as possible. That's why C is so symbolic: what is the least amount of typing to perform the concept? That made it pretty easy to translate to a fixed set assembly instructions; however, it hasn't had a symbiotic relationship with assembly.

If anything, it is the reverse. Just look at the compiler for all of the memory addressing it has to know. Look at any reasonably complex program of all of the compiler directives to see all the platform exceptions. C++ really took failure modes to the next level. My favorites is "a = b/*c;" Is that "a equals b divided by value pointed at by c" or "a equals b" with a comment? I left C++ a long time ago because I could take code that would compile on two different platforms and result in totally different behavior.

I think all of this drama has to do with the simple fact of there a bunch of people content to live in a one-langauge dominated environment and the head of Linux doesn't want to decide if that is or isn't the mandate; however, by not taking sides, he has effectively taken the one-language mandate. Rust needs to reimplement Linux.

I think what you're missing is: VGA was designed in the era when this was A Thing™. Monochrome/NTSC/CGA/EGA/VGA displays are all about "bit banging," sending signals at the right time. If you can send 1's and 0's faster than the analog reception can update, you can "fake" voltage potentials. I say "fake" because that was actually a way to do it before digital-to-analog converters were easy to implement. Today, we can easily produce chips custom for the purpose; however, "in the beginning" it was really just all about timing.

The witchcraft for me was the fact that while older cards used bit-banging to get signals out the door, it was generally designed with a specific purpose (thus specific timings). If you can get access to the underlying timing control, it [opens a whole new world that will surprise people today](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xJZ9I4iqg8).

As I recall, Transmeta's CPU could accept x86 instructions because the software translator, called Code Morphing Software (like Rosetta), would decompose the x86 instruction into a set of steps over a very-long-instruction-word. VLIW's design is such that all of the instructions went into separate, parallel pipelines. Each pipeline had specific set of abilities. Think, the first three pipelines might be able to do integer arithmetic, but 3 and 4 can do floats. Also, the CPU implemented a commit/rollback concept which allowed it cause "faults," like branch miss-predictions, interrupts, and instruction faults. This allowed the Transmeta CPU to emulate the x86 beyond just JIT compilations. In theory, it could emulate any other CPU. They tried going after Intel (and failed); but, I think they would have been better off trying go after any one trying to jump start a new architecture.

Part of the reason why CPUs aren't good at GPU activities is because the instructions are expected to have pretty small, definite set of inputs and outputs (registers), use a reasonable number of CPU cycles, and must devote logic to ensure a fault can be unwound (CPU doesn't crash). FPGs are cool because you can essentially have wholly independent units with their own internal state. The little units can be wired any way desired. The problem with FPGs is all that interconnect means a lot of capacitance in the lines, so much slower clock speeds.

So, maybe they are trying to strike a balance. They have targeted instructions are more FPG-like, like "perform algorithm." The instruction receives a set of flags that defines which algorithms to use and in what order (use vector as 8-bit integers, mask with 0x80, compute 16bit checksum) and a vector register. You can loading vectors and running them then finally "read perform algorithm result" with flag "get compute 16bit checksum." FPG-like and registers aren't "polluted" with intermediate state.

We have no information about why they are there, so you conclude it must be political retribution and they must be protected. THIS is why Trump won. So many people have zero critical thinking skills. When you see something that for which you have no information, you can say "I wonder what is going on." Then, you stop. Things that could be:

* Using collected data to facility spear phishing campaigns. * Running a child pornography/sex trafficking ring. * Participating in dogfighting. * Been a back channel for selling trade secrets. * Had some people killed. * Routing all the information collected to foreign groups, like Russia. * or.. has the other half of messages to someone under investigation whose phone locked.

But, given I have zero evidence to support any of this, let's stick with "let's see what they say."

  * Third-person singular indefinite ("he or she") can be replaced with third-person plural ("they").  Of course, a lot of changes around recognizing gender.
  * Final punctuation within the quote at the end of sentence (Did you just say "what?") can be placed after the final quote if the quote is for a literal string (ie, The password is "123456".)
  * Companies switched from being singular plurals ("Google is deprecating another product.") to plural singulars ("Google are deprecating another product.")
  * Moving away from verbed nouns ("Google it") to multipart verbs ("search it up").
  * Double infinitives ("to try to eat") getting changed to an infinitive and conjunction ("to try and eat").

10C is cool

20C is nice

30C is warm

40C is hot

I thought the same thing when using PAR files. They're still useful today if you save things on media that can be damaged (CD, DVD, Blue-Ray) or across multiple multiple media.

Eventually, I decided to dig into the math behind it. It is a surprisingly simple principle:

Given polynomial of a degree X and an array of data points of size X, there is one and only one solution to the polynomial's coefficients such that it will pass through those data points.

So, stripe the data into bands of arrays, compute the polynomial, and compute additional data points of the curve, and save it with the original data. If you have at least the array's size of data points ( original array and/or parity values) and know the place in the list for each data point (thus which data is missing), there is one and only one solution to the polynomial equation. Once you solve the polynomial again, you can compute any point, including the missing ones. Again, because there is one and only one solution for the curve.

The devil is the math necessary solve the polynomials, which is why it is so computationally intensive.

She uses astrology not in any predictive manor but as a qualitative evaluation. All of the signs have descriptions and ways to think about the character. For instance, Cancers tend to keep people out because the only thing that protects them from their soft, emotional insides is their shell. This makes them also tend to avoid direct conflict, which makes them move in sideways directions. However, if they interact, they don't have much more than claws, so they may pinch without knowing it. They also tend to find their place to bury and if kept happy will tend to stay where they are. If not, they tend to move on without creating a huge issue out it.

I'm not going to suggest in any shape or form that A) all people born Cancers behave this way or B) planets have anything to do with causing this. What I am saying is: if you see someone acting with these traits, you can decide that maybe the reason why is because they're concerned about being hurt. I've learned to have a bit less judgement and a bit more grace in people now. Maybe people just have a difference view of priorities and not all motivations are spoken:

  * Aries - Brash, bold, and like taking the lead in situations.  Also tend to be naïve and more morally black-and-white.
  * Taurus - Stubborn but reliable. Tend to value only what they find for themselves, ie "you can't lead a horse to water..".
  * Gemini - Appear as twins, because something is definitely _the best way_ until the next thing is _best way_.  They're not flighty, just not that concerned with opportunity costs.
  * Cancer - Emotional and nurturing, doesn't want to be crushed.  Tend stay where they are unless moved by discomfort, but won't tell you.
  * Leo - Confident, charismatic, and is concerned about accomplishments and family.  Very loud more than anything else and can be pacified by stroking their mane.
  * Virgo - Detail-oriented and practical. Often perfectionists because they are comfortable with repeated process.  Get uncomfortable unknowns, which makes them not want to complete projects.
  * Libra - Diplomatic and charming, value balance and harmony, but judge everything even if inappropriate.
  * Scorpio - Intense, passionate, but reserved.  Often so reserved that people wonder if they are going to get stabbed when all the Scorpio is doing is being quiet on their rock in the sun and ignoring everyone.

This is now stuff I think about before assigning malice to someone's actions or just brushing someone off who isn't thinking like me.

> Pacific Legal Foundation is primarily funded by donations from individuals, foundations, associations, and small businesses. Except for court-awarded attorney fees for case victories, the organization receives no government funding. The foundation is generally described as supporting libertarian or conservative causes. [1]

It strikes me that they are guns for hire for anyone who thinks the Government is overreaching. I would think a true libertarian would be supportive with having non-competes removed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Legal_Foundation

  * Updates are not vetted or sanity checked.
  * Updates are not slow-rolled to production.
  * Updates are not signed to prevent corruption or alteration.
  * Updater does not sanitize or validate inputs.
  * Updater does not have a reversion process to previously known good position on faulty boot.
  * Updater should mark itself as Unnecessary For Boot on faulty boot at some point.

Just how little it took swap a few words or add in some unrelated context easily turn some phrase or punchline into something truly racist, misogynistic, etc. It gave me a better appreciate of being careful about what I say and we took the bot down.