fis

This sounds a lot like the Telescreen from 1984.

zstd had a data corruption bug until quite recently. Eventually it may supplant gzip as the de facto standard, but it's too soon to declare it better in every objective way. Give it time.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35446847

Cleaning and organizing the house. Decluttering, identifying the right place for all our stuff, keeping it here. Scrubbing, wiping surfaces. Washing, folding, putting away laundry. Sweeping and vacuuming floors. Cleaning and organizing the yard. Pulling weeds, avoiding them in the first place. Pruning and maintaining plants. Planning, building, and maintaining landscape elements. Collecting and disposing yard waste. Cleaning gutters. Cooking. Cleaning the dishes. Deciding what to cook for dinner given what's in the fridge and pantry. Meal planning

The article poses the question but doesn't try to answer it. There are some plausible sounding answers here in the comments. Mostly that it is cheaper to do it that way. But wouldn't that be true elsewhere too?

How is it possible for the tax liability to exceed the profit? The article mentions wash sales, but it doesn't explain what sequence of such trades can cause this situation.

The parent mentioned "This data is being collected anyway via endpoint technologies like Samsung's Automated Content Recognition (ACR)". If that's true then the encryption isn't really helping.

Yes this is how I use it and I love it. I think some IDEs havee similar capability but for vim users cscope is an great way to understand large code bases by quickly jumping through callchains. There's a 'Using Cscope with Vim' tutorial on the page that covers it.

I like this one http://terminus-font.sourceforge.net/

This article isn't about Amdahl's law, it's about queueing theory. Little's law would be more applicable.

The name is a little close to this existing LevelDB fork, maybe consider a different name? https://github.com/utsaslab/pebblesdb

Link to the book itself seems to be missing.

As I recall the solution then was "buy Spinnaker". :) . Join us at HPE storage, we'll do it right this time!

I also did not follow what is special about 2^n/phi. I found this more concise justification: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=431065

"Knuth's finding was that the dispersion of indexes for a sequence of consecutive keys is maximized when M is chosen this way, thus a multiplicative hash table with a dense set of keys will have the fewest possible collisions when M approx= 2^N * R."

Although, if the keys are dense, then we could just use the low bits directly. I guess the unstated assumption is that in the real world, we'll have a mix of keys that are sequential and keys that are strided in such a way that using low bits directly would cause a lot of collisions. So we need a multiplicative hash to take care of the latter and we should use 2^n/phi to take care of the former.

Austin, you've done a lot of great work on this. What is the hash function you'd use today for small (<=32byte) keys?

Godforsaken Sea - Lundy

ITT people who don't think those tools are obscure