skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If the Linux kernel on STM32 has something important to offer for the application, like quicker time to market, while meeting the requirements and hitting price targets, why not?

But yeah, if I needed to run Linux, I'd quickly pick something like Cortex A53, Cortex R52... etc. But hey, there might be a niche for Linux running on STM32.

Doing embedded (and drivers) at dayjob.
Ubuntu 17.04+ also comes with a night light
> Google uses Common Lisp

Which projects at Google use Common Lisp? I didn't even know it was an approved language.
But apparently you need a law with punishment swift and severe for this kind of activity.
> That last issue could be solved with a reusable library that provided basic compositor functionality for window managers. Except every member of the Wayland community has independently had that idea and written their own

Actually the opposite is true.

Recently everyone is converging on re-using the same compositor library, written by among others sway’s author: wlroots.

https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots
Considering the number of people who have bemoaned over the years how Lisp never became mainstream, I think it's fair to say that it failed compared to what its enthusiasts wanted.
Scientists in Florida have detected the largest seaweed bloom in the world
Lodev.org has some https://lodev.org/cgtutor/index.html
Humans are humans. Some industries (e.g., academia, journalism, science, etc.) have mythical branding that positions them above bein human. They are not. History is pretty clear about this.

Such a flaw in and of itself isn't a bad thing. What it is, it is. The danger comes when others put too much (blind) faith in the myth, and not enough in the lessons history has already taught.
There is sure no better way to show how you are constrained by the system than by ordering the assassination of your exiled brother with nerve gas in a foreign country !
"--my-next-gpu-wont-be-nvidia"

--ill-pass.
I have a playlist of Bryan's talks - he is from a different planet!
I was wondering the same, as someone who has eaten jackfruit but never durian.
Typically what ends up in wide use is historical in nature. C became dominant because it closely maps to the hardware that was available when personal computing went mainstream. A whole generation of programmers learned it, and that influenced language design for decades to come. When everybody is used to doing things a certain way, it can take a long time for new ideas to gain popularity. People often get set in their ways and have a hard time adapting to new ideas.

A lot of the popular languages are fungible because they come from the same family. For example, Ruby, Perl and Python are all extremely similar in nature and offer no fundamental advantages over each other. Then we have system languages like C, C++, and Rust which offer better control over resource utilization.

As a long term trend what's going to drive language popularity is how well the language is suited to tackle popular problems. Functional languages are perfect example of this, as they have been around for many years, but they simply didn't fit well with the available hardware.

Back in the 70s you had single core CPUs coupled with very limited memory. Things like GC were simply not an option and you needed languages that were good at squeezing out every bit of performance possible. Imperative languages addresses this problem extremely well.

However, today we have different kinds of problems. In many cases raw performance is not the most important goal. We want to have things like reliability, scalability, and maintainability for large code bases. We want to be able to take advantage of multicore processors and network clusters.

The imperative paradigm is a very bad fit for these problems because it makes it very difficult to localize change. On the other hand, functional paradigm is a great fit for these problem thanks to its focus on immutability and composition. Today we're seeing a resurgence of interest in functional programming, and Clojure is a perfect example of a Lisp that's quite successful.
That's not what I said. I don't think the section I quoted is meant to have a literal meaning any different from what it says, so it's well enough written as it stands. The bizarre leaps of logic are either a humorous wink to acknowledge that the author is writing ironically (which, again, is my guess) or a reflection of an impaired relationship with reality. My guess is that it's a reflection of how far you have to reach to ensure that people recognize ironic writing, the phenomenon known online as Poe's Law. I only mentioned mental illness to force the comparison for context. Really, I think the question is what relation the face-value writing in this piece has to what the author believes, which honestly I can't make head nor tail of. Are they a Perl 6 fan humorously acknowledging the difficulty of putting an optimistic spin on the status quo? Are they expressing disrespect for the criticisms by refusing to answer them straightforwardly (trolling, essentially?) Or are they trolling people who still have hope for Perl 6? I never expected to like Perl 6, but I always hoped for it to be a stimulating presence, so I guess I wonder if I'm being trolled myself as well.
Total Security 10.6.0.1115 Premium Crack and License Key Free {2019}
I agree. Sure, I can understand lists and parens and all of the operators being out of order and the stupid abbreviated syntaxes and weird names for basic operations and the infinite nesting, but why would I want to?
I'm against baking it in precisely because it's not the right thing. Network transparency in X11 led to a design that didn't scale to meet the needs of the vast majority of users:

"The X11 protocol was never meant to handle graphically (in terms of bitmaps/textures) intensive operations. Back in the day when X11 was first designed computer graphics were a lot simpler than they are today.

Basically X11 doesn't send the screen to your computer, but it sends the display-instructions so the X-server on your local computer can re-create the screen on your local system. And this needs to be done on each change/refresh of the display.
So your computer receives a stream of instructions like "draw line in this color from coordinates x,y to (xx,yy), draw rectangle W pixels wide, H pixels high with upper-left corner at (x,y), etc."
The local client isn't really aware what needs to be updated and the remote system has very little information on what the client actually needs, so basically the server must send a lot of redundant information that the client may or may not need.
This is very efficient if the display to be rendered consists of a limited number of simple graphical shapes and only a low refresh frequency (no animations and such) is needed. Which was the case back in the days when X11 was first developed.

But modern GUI's have a lot of eye-candy and much of that needs to be send from the remote system to your client in the form of bitmaps/textures/fonts which take quite a lot of bandwidth. And all sorts of eye-candy includes animated effects requiring frequent updates. And the displays keep getting bigger too, twice as wide/high is 4x the number of pixels.

Of course, over time, enhancements to the X11 protocol were made to optimize this as much as possible, but the basic underlying design is, in essence, simply not well suited to the demands of the kind of GUI's people nowadays expect.

Other protocols (like RDP and VNC) are more designed to let the remote system do all the hard work and let that system decide which updates to send to the client (as compressed bitmaps) as efficiently as possible. Often that turns out to be more efficient for modern GUI's.

Neither method is perfect and can deal with every situation equally well. There is no such thing as a single display-protocol that can do well under every conceivable use-case.
So in most cases you just try all protocols that are supported between your local client and the remote server and use the one that gives the best results. And in some cases there is no choice and you just have to make do with whatever is available.

Most protocols do allow some performance tuning, but many of these settings are server-side only and not available to the average user. (And configuring them properly is a bit of an arcane art. A lot of sys-admins won't be willing to mess with that.)

In most cases the easiest way to improve performance (sometimes quite dramatically) is by switching to a more simple desktop environment with less eye-candy and forego the use of background images."

https://superuser.com/a/1217295
I'm somewhat skeptical about the 3600G. The 2400G is already a bit bandwidth starved. Dual 64-bit DDR4 channels simply can't keep up with the CPU plus a large GPU. Adding channels isn't possible without changing sockets. There doesn't appear to be enough room on package for an HBM stack like Intel did with Hades Canyon. Running your RAM at 4400MHz with that 0.5x Infinity Fabric multiplier could probably allow a bump from 11CU to 16CU (or 20CU at lower clockspeed). A decent bump and enough to eat the entire low-end GPU market, but not incredible.

I'm left wanting a heterogeneous next-gen system using shared HBM for everything.

Intel currently sells the i7-8809G. It contains a substrate, 4GB HBM2, 24CU Vega M (14nm), and quad-core (3.7-4.7GHz, 14nm) with a TDP of 95w for an MSRP $546. If the substrate and HBM cost $100, then that's MSRP $446 for quad core plus 24CU GPU.

AMD currently sells the 2400G for $130 (launch MSRP for 3400G is $150). The 1300X (100MHz slower, but double the cache) costs $110 giving us around $20 for the 11CU GPU (the 2200G can be had for about $90 indicating the GPU price may actually be lower than that).

Let's build a next-gen APU for both desktop and gaming laptops.

HBM3 spec was finalized almost 3 years ago. Estimates for Vega put 2 HBM2 chips (8GB) at around $150 with a substrate adding another $25. We'll actually work within the constraints of HBM 2 at the moment. Just realize you should get 2x the RAM for around the same price (die shrinks and advances in 2.5D chip construction) along with lower voltages, higher speeds per pin, and potentially fewer stacks needed. We'll use HBM because it has enough bandwidth and uses simpler memory controllers while also cutting latency in HALF vs DDR [latency source](http://www.pdsw.org/pdsw-discs17/slides/stocksdale-pdsw-disc...).

We'll need 16GB of HBM2 at a cost of $300 (remember, that should become 32GB of HBM3 or lower costs closer to $150 for 16GB). If we cost $20 for 11CU, we'll assume $100 for 40CU (adding around a 25% markup for the larger chip though 36CU and 24CU lasered versions could greatly reduce that). That puts us up to $400. A 3600 6-core CPU is selling at $200. We'll add another $50 to the MSRP just because for a final price of $650.

That is $100 more than the MSRP for the i7-8809G, but has a TON of advantages. It has 2 more CPU cores and almost 2x the GPU power (with access to more RAM if it needs). There's no need to spend another $100-200 for additional DDR4 plus the CPU performance will be better due to reduced latency. The lack of RAM on the motherboard and getting rid of all those traces should reduce motherboard cost and size. Finally, at 7nm, this should all fit inside a 95w TDP suitable for both desktops and gaming laptops (which usually have 35-45w CPUs plus 50w+ GPUs).
Write("filename", position, data) inputs 3 arguments and outputs probably only 1, a file. So is not a function that you can convolute, you cannot pass the output of Write() as the input to another Write(). So instead, f: SetFirstWordOfFileToZeros(file)=>file, would be a better example if we want file functions. Then SetFirstWordOfFileToZeros(SetFirstWordOfFileToZeros(file))=SetFirstWordOfFileToZeros(file).
I mean, of course the browser knows its own version, this is totally not dependent on user data. And you already give away your OS when you download it, right? Of course it knows what OS it's executing on.

I honestly think that can still be truthfully called "No data or telemetry."

> "You don't have to worry about any tracking or usage information about what you do inside YOUR browser"

That still holds up, if all it sends is info the browser already knows about itself.
Helium is a special case: when it leaks into the atmosphere, it eventually escapes into space. So the humans really do consume helium, just as the humans consume fossil fuels. By contrast, all the lithium, phosphorus, carbon, aluminum, iron, hafnium, zirconium, and erbium ever mined on Earth is still on Earth, except for the extremely small amounts sent to Venus, Mars, the Moon, and interstellar space on spacecraft, or transmuted to other elements in nuclear reactors. It is not consumed, just moved around a bit. Where is it?

Well, it varies by element.

While some of the phosphorus makes up human bones, most of it is dissolved in the ocean as phosphate, enormously less concentrated than the original deposits of apatite and other minerals it was mined from. At some point the humans might run out of easily accessible apatite deposits, since phosphorus only makes up 0.1% of the Earth's crust. If we consider only the top 2 km of the continental crust (29% of the surface) to be "easily accessible", that's only 3.0 × 10⁸ km³ of rock, or about 7.1 × 10¹⁷ tonnes, of which about 7.1 × 10¹⁴ is phosphorus. Since phosphorus is currently being mined at 153 million tonnes per year, the humans are currently on track to deplete most of it in only 4.6 billion years, considerably earlier than the Earth is on track to be destroyed by the sun.

As for the carbon, it's mined for its chemical potential energy, which is lost when it is burned; but the carbon remains on Earth. 870 billion tonnes of it is in the atmosphere, of which about a third is due to the humans setting rocks on fire; a comparable amount has been added to terrestrial biomass and carbon in the oceans. The part in the atmosphere is relatively easy to recover; existing processes have comparable cost to the cost of digging up rocks. This is not being done at scale because it is "unprofitable".

More than half of the aluminum that has been mined on Earth is still in use. The other half is mostly in landfills, where it is less concentrated than the bauxite ores that are commercially mined, but less oxidized.

Most of the iron that has been mined is in landfills, but not only ores but also slag heaps near foundries are a more concentrated form of iron.

Rarer metals like gold, hafnium, zirconium, and erbium are mostly in landfills. They mostly do not readily form soluble ions to leach into the ocean or groundwater, and they mostly only find their way into the air when incinerated. Their concentrations in landfills are dramatically higher than the concentrations in the ores they are mined from, and this is becoming a "profitable" way for the humans to spend their lives before being killed by the hazards of the landfills. Presumably automation will speed up this process.
This is pretty cool, but I'm not sure how much better this approach would be compared to language server based completion (something like RLS).
Yes, but you're talking about KCL. I'm talking about the police.

KCL shared the names with police of students who had already been involved in a protest that had resulted in damage and for which they were considering disciplinary action. The police, in response, asked for more information about those students.

Exactly what should the police have done differently in your opinion?
Based on looking up durian in Wikipedia, and having seen large jackfruits in India, I can say that jackfruit can grow much larger.
A lot of what you're saying seems due to a particular Wayland compositor, not to Wayland.
About the only thing I dont like about sDNS is the loss of transparency from black box devices that perform DNS lookups while ignoring your DHCP DNS assignments.
Shameless plug for: `ssh brow.sh -t https://maps.google.com`
It's some AMD Radeon with 8G so reasonably beefy. Not sure about the driver, I choose AMD for Linux graphics to not have to think about that I suppose, Nvidia used to be (still is?) a headache on Linux.
> This means you can call it multiple times without any issues.

Unless you have processes that depend on modification time.

> ln -sfn

If you don’t mind the possibility of ownership changing, this is OK.
Oh definitely! It is not that I do not enjoy spending time and playing with them, it is the contrary to be honest.
There are tons of places in the US that are blanketed with LTE. I don't see "new businesses" emerging. Taking credit cards? Electronically managing inventory, payroll, and scheduling? You don't need much more than dial-up to do 99% of those things. In fact many large Brick and Mortar chains are still on AS/400 and do fine.
The project started as a 64-bit version for Windows (was supposed to be faster). Then, when Firefox changed the add-on framework, it became the "Firefox" version you can use to keep all your old add-ons working. They are merging all relevant security issues quickly, as well as bug fixes.
Have you tried building from source and editing this code to not invoke?
I am the author of the blog post. It will take Disney time to ramp to 15M subs by the end of 2020. Since they won't have that, I don't think, by January 2020, their monthly spend would not be $4M a month right off the bat, hence why it's not $4M x 12 months. So you have to take into account the scaling to 15M subs, which is what the $4M a month number is based off of.
Bvckup 2 operates at the file system level. It has no API-level integration with cloud storage providers.

It can be used to backup onto any virtual drives emulated by the cloud client software, which is, obviously, not the same thing, but a workaround.

Direct cloud storage integration is on the dev plan, and it's possible it'll be a separate (sister) product.
I seek to be enlightened, not to flame: what exactly is so wrong with X that it can be retrofit to work better? Wayland is taking a while, which is expected sure, but for now, X works fine although with issues.
Yes icon is very interesting.

It has builtin backtracing, which can be quite useful for text parsing.

I also like TXR, which also has builtin backtracing.
X11 is a pile of hacks. Have you ever tried to read the source code? When the X11 devs design a new system and stop maintaining X11, it's likely that X11 is not in a good shape.

>This isn't a good thing to me, especially considering NVIDIA hardware doesn't seem to be well supported. Someone come along and correct me, please.

It's the other way around: NVIDIA doesn't support GBM, the standard for buffer allocation.
What does 'deleted' even mean? Deleting an email from all sources is non-trivial.
The idea would be like trying to save dog breeds putting a collection of dogs from all breeds (shih tzus, mastiffs, chihuahuas and great danes) in the same room and competing for the same food
> Every GPU vendor but Nvidia supports these APIs.

> About a year ago Nvidia announced “Wayland support” for their proprietary driver. This included KMS and DRM support (years late, I might add), but not GBM support. They shipped something called EGLStreams instead, a concept that had been discussed and shot down by the Linux graphics development community before.

That’s pretty damning for Nvidia. I can see why the developer is so upset. Must be tough working on OSS in that type of hardware environment.

Looks like AMD is the way to go for desktop Linux boxes going forward. Although it looks like both Dell XPS [1] and System76 [2] is still using NVIDIA. Purism Librem uses the Intel i7’s embedded GPU [3]. I’m curious what the ideal Linux laptop is these days…

[1] https://www.dell.com/en-ca/work/shop/cty/pdp/spd/xps-15-9570...

[2] https://system76.com/cart/configure/oryp5

[3] https://shop.puri.sm/shop/librem-15/
Imho XWayland is "too good". There's little incentive for software like Chrome to port over to Wayland if it runs on it seamlessly via a compatibility layer.
Same experience here. I wrote some C# Windows apps a few years ago, I jumped to write a REST API and the experience was painful: the documentation is confusing, the REST API projects are even more confusing, I got what I wanted but it felt like a big accomplishment to go through the complexities. By comparison I wrote that API in PHP in a couple of hours - it had more code, but my team mates were able to understand easily how it worked. I am not saying PHP is better, I am saying it is much easier to use and there are probably more examples out there of simplicity.
High band internet just isn't very practical as a replacement for wired internet in most of the country, but everyone wants ignore our broadband infrastructure issues because 5g will save us.
You're free to disagree of course, but you should at least consider that you may be wrong. Perhaps we are machines running OSes allocating time (on wetware, not hardware). Or at least, maybe that's a useful way to think about how we spend our time.
If that check were not there, would intel for display + nvidia for compute work? Better chance than now.
The problem is that the likeliness of the uninformed person to believe something they've heard has depressingly little to do with how likely that thing is to be true. A critical examination of the facts is something humans will avoid until it is absolutely unavoidable; we have an array of other heuristics we'll gladly jump to over expending costly mental effort evaluating something for truth.
Ok... so why wasn't Lisp chosen over Javascript for the web, why wasn't Lisp chosen as the language for Android, iOS, or Windows?
Seems like all the pedants came out for this article. In good-faith I understand the principles OP is suggesting and have first-hand experience of their usefulness. But it's easier to nit-pick I guess.
> The over-decade-long transition to Perl 6

Is it really a transition, though? Perl6 looks to me more like an unrelated language bootstrapping from the Perl5 ecosystem. It's certainly more different from Perl5 than something like Ruby.

The biggest mistake with Perl6 was probably to have "Perl" as part of its name. "Rakudo" might have proven more popular from the start. At least it would have gotten rid of all the pointless and altogether predictable discussions.
Languages are overrated.I was born in a country with population of only 3M people,so I had no choice but to learn English.Later on in life I also learned Russian,because I ended up living with Russians for more than a year.Yes, it's great to go out there and be able to talk to people but that's about where it ends. That's why, unless one has some useful skills(IT, engineering, plumbing,etc.), knowing languages won't take you very far.In my previous company most people spoke at least 4 languages.And what? Everybody was on crappy salaries,even though most were very well educated but very few could do anything outside linguistics sector.In business, languages help, however I'm yet to see any jobs that'd pay more just because one can speak German and Italian...
Ok, but spend a little time on the Chinese internet. Sure, they use "some" obligatory English, but the dependency is likely not what many imagine it to be.
Exactly. And for much smaller organizations and individuals, it is much harder to organize an alternative effort to this set of projects backed up by a big corporation (Red Hat).

There are exceptions. Drew Devault and the rest of the Sway team did write wlroots, an alternative compositor for Wayland, so Wayland is less of a monoculture.

But it is true that it requires a lot of manpower, money, and will to develop an alternative to e.g. Wayland. However, I see the current situation more as the glass being half full. Imagine that we did not have Red Hat, and others pulling the weight of Wayland (and other technologies, such as Flatpak), the Linux desktop ecosystem would in many ways be hopelessly behind macOS, iOS, and Windows.

I think this is a better outcome than being stuck with 80ies/90ies graphics technology forever, even if it is not perfect.
Thank you for this. We used rosshow in our robotics lab at university.
Lisp failed? There are multiple articles about it on the front page of HN.