IBM i is on a POWER CPU today, but can still run System/38 binaries from the 70s, thanks to install-time compilation to whatever CPU the system is running this decade.

Funny, I was just thinking the opposite: Compiler-driven parallelism loses against CPU-driven parallelism because the CPU has live profiling. With a JIT the compiler can have it too.

The debugging problem on the machine-code level becomes less of an issue when most people write higher-level code too.

You mean it was biinned.

A US server may have content that is illegal in Germany, a Japanese server may have content that is illegal in the US, and an LGBTQ-friendly server may not allow subscribers from a server full of "gendercritical" people. You can pick where you feel at home, don't get ick thrown in our face, and don't get accused of ick for things that seem harmless to you.

It frustrates me that they use the relation "on top" backwards, but otherwise it's a good read.

Radicle provides a network overlay and gossip protocol, on top of which they run the git smart protocol (they describe it the other way around, which makes no sense).

Work for Red Hat? You own your free software contributions, even those made at work. Work for Google? They own even the small lump of green putty you found in your armpit one midsummer morning.

Many companies will apparently put in grab-all clauses but back down (but Google won't) if you call them on it.

So it might be more like "we are the ones that remain", but yeah, either variant is a spin on the old weak anthropic principle, which is never quite satisfying.

Unless you're the one who did the work, I'd rather trust the release notes than your unsourced assertion.

That said, just because a bug was fixed in an important function shouldn't be an indictment against the language. Racket is stable and productive, and formal modeling can reveal all kinds of corner cases which may not have been exposed in typical use, and may not have security implications. Maybe it was edge-case performance, maybe garbage collection, the release notes simply don't say.

I'd rather use a language whose authors improve their tools to discover and fix issues than one where this doesn't happen.

It's primarily microblogging-oriented, but you can subscribe to any RSS feed too. And users (including RSS feeds) can be grouped, so you could have one group "tech feeds", one group "cat accounts" etc.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18003343

That's funny, I see the same legislation as the death of all unauthorized RSS aggregation. The "link tax" provision isn't about links, it's about excerpts of content.

@dang Congratulations, you just invented OStatus. :-)

OStatus is a combination of Atom+ActivityStreams+Salmon+WebFinger+WebSub for exactly this purpose. It was created in 2009 and was even partially used by Google Buzz. I could post something on identi.ca and see it pop up in my timeline on Google Buzz. But as you indicate regarding RSS, Google didn't know how to monetize it, and they soon killed Google Buzz in favor of the closed Google+, years before they killed Google Reader.

When Mastodon arrived in 2016 it used OStatus as its primary protocol until the new ActivityPub was recommended by the W3C as a replacement. OStatus is still supported by Mastodon as a secondary protocol, and part of the Fediverse still runs on pure OStatus.

Diaspora was inspired by OStatus, but removes the WebSub part in favor of going full Salmon, and does a few of the details differently.

I don't know if somebody is going to say that this is edgy triple-layer sarcasm, but its pretty clear to me that at least some readers of the site will take this as an endorsement of potentially lethal violence against political opponents.

If you throw rocks at political opponents, you don't think they're just misguided and their policies unfortunate, you hate their guts.

EDIT: The paragraph is explicitly about breaking windows, and say to be careful not to risk hitting people. So it's not about violence against individual people, but it's still violence, and illegal. And you don't break people's windows if you merely disagree with them.