amtamt

India's central and Delhi's state government clamping down on protests on unprecedented scale.

Ah... now I know that Microsoft is running full weather simulations on each user desktop... pretty neat.

Was /s missed or this is AI generated counterpoint?

If bug free binary search implementation can take 16 years, I am ready to buy generics implementation could take 20 years.

> In his landmark book The Art of Computer Programming, legendary computer scientist Donald Knuth noted that although the first binary search algorithm was published by John Mauchly in 1946, the first bug-free version was not published until 1962—taking a staggering 16 years to get right.

One really does that on phones?

potential global fallout s/if/when/ the boom turns to bust

INR 1/ GB... approximated to dollar.

Of course it is political agenda driven, but at least from surface it does not have _fear mongering_ vibe, comparing for example with Sweden which did not conclude citizenship applications and applied back dated refusal. Also politician openly attribting all immigrants as source of increasing crime and lowering education levels.

10m is larger than current resident counts, so people moving in can decide now if they want to move with uncertainty. It is not what everyone would like, but it is more understandable that recent Swedish changes, for example.

This seems a much more rational approach than pure political agenda driven fear mongering campaigns against immigrants.

If redis is a database, then by

> doesn’t pose any constraints on the type of data.

logic, raw disk is also a database. One just need to add block level replication to other nodes to build a replicated/ HA database.

We may not agree, but anything not providing transactions across logically related multiple data read/ update operations is not a database.

> multiple instances to provide the same data

is easy and done by a bunch of software out there, but

> multiple instances to provide the same data on non-shared memory computers, with consistency

is a really hard problem, and no one has been able to solve it yet without introducing other problems to be considered (giving up on fast performance being one of the most visible one) by architects/ developers.

Point is... with AOF and RDB enabled, and wait command used in sane manner, one can get reasonable consistency with a significant speed tradeoff and increase in application complexity. So if consistent cache is needed, one can have that with some compromises, but then probably one could use a database straight away.

No two processes can guarantee data consistency unless using shared memory with some kind of locking on update. And given two servers don't share memory, two processes running on these servers can not guarantee consistency either.

To put the simple terms... App writes to node-A, node-A (/process on node-A) crashes before change is synced from node-A to node-B, data is lost.

This is true for redis and true for postgresql/ mysql or any similar database. Difference between redis and a "database" is that database protects against this problem by writing change to durable storage before telling app that write is successful. Redis

So if one wants to have a consistent session storage, one should use a proper database or use AOF redis persistense with single node (https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a24ab818e2881918db959cec8d8cc2d)

> Redis is a real database

No, redis is a memory cache, with some ACID like features bolt on.

Even real databases have hard time maintaining consistency across nodes. CAP is a real constraint.

Genuinely interested why we need HA in redis, just not read round robin from multiple non-HA instances? Redis (and memcache) are memory caches and should be treated like that, not like highly consistent distributed session store.

And now a dozen times in Iran?

https://www.xmox.nl/ is pretty good single binary mail solution for personal email hosting, it not too many features of modern webmails are needed.

I hope so too, however cheap is relative. One's ordinary morning coffee is a full day wage for someone else. If we could have decent models fitting laptops of most students, that would be point where we could possibly treat AI as we treat calculator or computer today.

Just to put things in context, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8444gex65o shares income for a good number of people now a days. (note that many of those workers are taking care of a family of 2+ members, most of the time)

> Rather than banning the use of AI and trying to catch students who are cheating, why aren't they creating schoolwork that requires AI?

That is way to high recurring cost that many won't be able to afford. One could get a second hand calculator or even computer, and then additional resources needed was one's willingness. With mandating AI usage, we'd only increase the gap of haves and have-nots. I personally do not like the idea.

Well actually you ate poisoned food made by someone else, which had a similar looking name (typo squatting). Who is responsible here? One who wrote code?

Overall this feels a good thing for public, even if the author is money oriented, because this will hopefully make even more details public.

I personally have no qualms about one criminal extorted by another, specially if their fued is making world better for everyone.

"disclosing them to relevant authorities" would not bring the message to those affected by such carelessness. I would think "Disclosing them to the public" brings more awareness in the public, and though might be illegal, serves better for public good. Legal is not always just or moral.

Since 2020, based on hostname, routing is possible to different ssh backends

https://www.haproxy.com/blog/route-ssh-connections-with-hapr...

from the blog

> Did you know that you can proxy SSH connections through HAProxy and route based on hostname?

Even two wrong, but countering, inputs can sometimes provide right answer, so the rational above has some merit.

But if I interpret the question with line of thinking "should I anticipate right/ full answers despite incorrect/ incomplete inputs?" I think Baggage was pointing out the problem in the logic why such questions should arise.

I would expect the question to be phrased "under what circumstances the machine with provide wrong outputs?", and would have hoped for Babbage (or may be anyone) explaining many ways how things could go wrong.

> On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

I guess many of us quality for british parliament.

Then we are back to... if this is a complete re-write, why not a new name for new code?

I guess it's futile to argue in this circular logic when full picture is not considered and argument are being put forward only for the sake of winning argument. Have a good $time_of_day.

One would say

this guy's forked MIT'd version 0 will be as real and valid as version 6 of original chardet.

instead of

> Your fork of version 6 is just as real and valid as the MIT'd version 7!

Supporting for a decade is not a basis for unilateral takeover. In last 3 months there seem to be at least 3 other active contributors, any many dozens in past, who share the copyright on parts (ownership)

> nobody is entitled to this guy's pip account or GitHub account just because he rewrote the library

this guy's also not entitled to takeover what is communal, exactly in the same manner.

Someone answered it long ago in quite some details. Feel free to have a look: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11455485

Just one question, why maintainer is hell bent on using existing name and removing LGPL and not create an entirely new project by new name and new license (after all this is completely new code... right)?

First reason would be use the "name recall", and second guess would be to do another rug-pull to re-licence under some other conditions.

> It's owned by the maintainer

This is completely in-correct. GPL and variants (FOSS, not OSS) were meant to make software free of "any ownership".