kerneis
Technical Position Paper on Confidential Computing
Beyond the golden age: reflecting on 12 years at Google
You can read the paper they published: "events can make sense" https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/usenix07/tech/krohn.htm...
I met some ex-OkCupid engineers at a later company who said the framework was smart but a pain to maintain in then long run.
Trivia time: Laeticia (née Laetitia) was married to Johnny, the famous French rock singer; Estelle was married to David, son of Johnny. Note that Johnny is dead now, Laeticia has been remaried twice but kept Johnny's last name, Estelle is divorced, and David is not the son of Laeticia as Johnny got married several times (David's mother is the French actress Sylvie Vartan).
> But as joatmon-snoo correctly said, the more important point is demonstrating how bad backend churn is with this algorithm.
Yes, again the overall point came across clearly, but faced with specific examples I like to dive into the details to check my understanding of how things work. Otherwise, it's easy to overlook key but subtle details.
For instance, in table 3, it looks like they excluded backend tasks {0,1} (for frontend tasks {0, 1}) then {2,3} (for frontend tasks {2,3}) in the N=10 case, but backend tasks {1,2} then {3,4} in the N=11. Why the discrepancy? I get that it helps them make the point about task 3 changing subset, but it's inconsistent with excluding left-overs in a round-robin fashion presented in the previous paragraph.
Another sentence that I couldn't make sense of is: "If these [tasks 2 and 4] carry over to the subset of the next frontend task, you might get the shuffled backend tasks [7, 2, 0, 8, 9, 1, 4, 5, 3, 6], but you can't assign backend task 2 to the same frontend task. " The "same frontend task" as what? Obviously note the one task 2 was already assigned to (the most intuitive reading to me), since precisely task 2 was not assigned and is a left-over. But then again, what does this mean?
Service Unavailable
The sysadmin has decided the site isn't going to run today. If you care, you should shut down your stuff, too.
It doesn't provide more detail; is this related to the recent Supreme Court decision?Service Unavailable: The sysadmin has decided the site isn't going to run today
They explain why they do so, and the article is extremely valuable as a first step and tutorial to get started in Zircon kernel hacking. They also find some actual issues, including one CVE. But I disagree the article shows how "unsecure Fuchsia is as a result of being unfinished".
A Kernel Hacker Meets Fuchsia OS
Lightbulbs Were So Startup
It would be awesome to have a similar style available there. I wonder how much work it would entail.
They are one of the main tools used internally at Google to ensure engineers who have to use C++ stay on top of language evolution and avoid common pitfalls.
See also how people had to get a "certificate of civism" lest them be considered suspect by default: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_civism