mitchty

> Your position is just another that has yet to catch on to the fact of asymptomatic transmission. > Just take the time to read one.

This isn't my position, its from virologists. And I'll thank you to not presume I don't already know of those sources. Those aren't relating to aerosols in the air for 3 hours.

Listen to practicing virologists on the matter not me: http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-592/

And as a note, I'm really resisting not getting pissed off at your comment which seems to presume I'm too dumb to know about asymptomatic transmission.

Perhaps you could, I don't know link to some bioarxiv sources or actual information rather than alluding to things. My comment was exclusively in regards to the virus surviving in aerosol form for 3 hours. Its a contrived environment where that can happen. Transmission in the air isn't what I am discounting. Capiche?

Actually forget about it. I'm just going to stop commenting entirely on this matter.

> I believe this 100% to be true.

Based on what evidence exactly?

> Considering that under certain conditions the virus can stay in the air for up to 3 hours, masks definitely are helpful.

Those conditions being using a Goldberg Drum designed to keep aerosols that can't stay airborne for as long as possible? If yes then yeah sure this virus can survive in the air for 3 hours, but that isn't normal reality. It can't stay aloft that long, it will hit a surface.

Goldberg Drum: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/68/1/85/188529...

You really only need the mask if you're going out and symptomatic. Even then, as noted, leave the masks for the people that are encountering sick people daily. They need them way more than you do walking around buying groceries.

There's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.

> It seems more like an indictment of the speaker than of the rest of society.

It most certainly is, I have Christian friends that have used that exact line asking me how I can have morals as an atheist without the threat of a higher diety. As if being nice for the sake of just being nice is an impossible concept. Or in this case that only money would inspire me to do work. As we know from studies, money isn't the only incentive for innovation. In fact at a certain point, ~75k it tends to become less of an incentive.

> They are not smart. Just stop telling yourself this about those people and stop respecting them. Stop it.

They can be smart, they can also lack empathy and be smart. Both can be true at the same time. Intelligence isn't an indicator of empathy.

What would be tasteful in a conference announcement about the conference? They mentioned it just fine.

It is now yep! 32GiB was the prior max.

No, from the farmers I grew up with. They hated Democrats for wanting to remove those specific subsidies because it was good for the environment. But to do it it means you have to have land be otherwise "unproductive".

So they get rather angry at being forced to farm every acre of land knowing it will spite themselves later. Its a bit more complex than anyone makes it out to be. But easier to just call farmers dumb and that they vote against their interests. Which is ultimately self defeating and ignores the realities of modern farming and the history of how we got here.

> That may be true, but Democrats will at least be more ostensibly receptive of the issue. Bernie Sanders makes it an explicit point on his campaign website. I'm guessing other candidates have as well.

As someone that grew up in a pure Red state for decades and grew up on a farm/ranch, there is zero chance of them voting Democrats for the reasons you think they should.

Want to know at least one reason why? Know those farm "subsidies" democrats love to hate? Also known as: the government pays for farmers to keep fields fallow so we don't get another dust bowl. Farmers like those subsidies, they're a good thing. City people hate them, think they're a bad thing "we spend taxes for farm states". Yes I'm overgeneralizing but i've real work to do today so I can't get super complex.

Get to know a few farmers and understand that your perspective on Democrats is highly skewed on their policies towards places with population centers. You can argue Republicans are worse in as many ways as you want, but until you understand why none of those ways matter to farmers, you'll forever lack an understanding of why things are the way they are.

> It also incorporates concepts that, while not being the most "accessible", are patterns the vast majority of users have become familiar with and can navigate without explanation.

Does that include ios/macos/windows users?

Option A is the best imo, I worked on many sql db's that the rule was to fit it into ram. Option c will bite you in the ass eventually. The kernel and your other processes need some space to malloc, and you dont want to page in/out.

Having 4/16TiB servers or "memory db servers" as I thought of them solved a lot of problems outright. Still need huge i/o but less of it depending on your workload.

> In my team, we're doing a "check-in/out" inside each meeting where we take turns by answering "With what emotion you're entering/exiting this meeting?".

That sounds horrible and almost cult like by my view. I would be looking for the proverbial door if I were in a team that wanted me to contribute this way in front of everyone.

Just talk to people, if they're quiet talk to them. Pick up on context, treat them like humans not machines that can just have their handle pulled to reveal their internal state.

Or their lawyers are extremely good at getting employment contracts drawn up. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by paranoid lawyers that got the c levels ears.

> I think you are just agreeing with what I said.

Pretty much yep! I think we both agree asking for gui support is likely to get shot down by most maintainers. And not for any reason than its a big ask.

> GUI is a huge separate feature request and not "criticism" per say.

I've seen a lot of people even on HN complain about cli only things. I'm not sure everyone would agree its a feature request.

> And yet Apple is totally fine with benefiting from the open source work of others...

And? Every other person benefits the same with the code contributed under the licenses in play. I fail to see the issue. With llvm for example they seem to be upstreaming a lot of their xcode backend stuff as they get time. So that statement of many copyleft proponents that only copyleft encourages upstreaming rings hollow to me.

Hell go talk to people from Redhat about custom gcc forks that target chips that aren't upstreamed to gcc. Just because you're using gcc and modifying it doesn't mean you'll actually be contributing the code if its all internal.

> Consider I request the curl dev to make a gui for it. would you find it unreasonable because everyone is okay with cli ?

Yes, as libcurl exists and gui's can be done by someone else more knowledgeable with them. Plus gui's for what exactly? The web? macos? windows? X? playstation? even asking for a gui is a bit vague and an incomplete request I would reject outright without at least going: i want this.

I'd solve this by going, sounds good, you're the best person for it so far and now have write access to create a branch and get us there with the itch to scratch it.

> Make a GUI is just a different beast compared to CLI.

Agreed, but the effort can be disproportionate to the gains the submitter might get. And if this is something i'm doing for myself, to be blunt, I don't got time for that kind of effort. And more bluntness, nobody could make me do it, my time is my own and I have to balance that against other things. If you ask for it you better believe I'm going to say its now on you to do as I have neither the skills nor desire to invest my own time on this. I'll gladly help you out getting there but that is about as far as I'm willing to go.

I feel that is fair. Others may disagree.

I'm curious then how the email from Chris in 2005 comes from his apple.com email address?

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html

Doesn't seem to add up with your proposed timeline. Care to explain?

I'm unclear how you arrived at this being about their quality.

The statement reads simply as: apple works on many things, and doesn't want you working on things outside of apple that may compete with current r&d or future r&d.

We can disagree with them on if it seems appropriate, but it doesn't seem to be about their software quality at all.

Well it might be more than just a feature request.

Think along the lines of wireshark, you can separate out the underlying code to do the work in a library, then use that in a cli and gui. If you're working on a cli app yourself, that "feature request" might hit things you just don't have the will to do. I know me making any sort of gui is going to end up a tire fire, and the work to cleanly separate out the code from the cli to a library usable by both is also a bunch of work for what appears to be a at best nice to have "feature".

If that really were the case, why did Chris Lattner try to give clang/llvm over to the FSF and merge it into gcc? Which failed only apparently due to Stallman not noticing the emails. After which Apple started pushing clang/llvm as in a way, they were shunned by gcc.

The rest of your comment is... way too political towards gpl.

A tiger? You can't, well unless you commit to a few generations of trying to domesticate them.

Or you could get the next best thing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Coon

I call em catdogs cause they're probably the closest thing to a dog in cat form.

They're meant to replace the A-10 eventually, so yes regularly would be appropriate. At least: "its in the expected role of the airframe"

> The tool supports scanning various programming languages including C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, HTML, Python, Objective-C, Go, Rudy, Powershell and more and includes html, json and text output formats with the default being an html report similar to the one shown here.

Is Rudy meant to be Ruby?

Fun fact, my mom was the 15th child of 16. My only sister and I worked it out, our grandma was basically pregnant 12 years of her life if it would have been back to back and exactly 9 months each child.

So far nobody has been able to beat my late grandma for children count. Also soup, she made the best soup around.

Just thought I’d throw that one out there. They were spaced out a fair amount though so not like she needed to bus all 16 around at the same time. By the time 16 was not in the oven the first few were already out of the house.

I can only offer my reason: I don't know it.

Not gonna lie that is hilariously ingenious if its the case.

If someone takes unpublished work for a paper, then uses all that unpublished as of yet work and publishes it, how is that "wealth copying". Its plagiarism as well as unethical, and it is indeed taking away the productive capacity of the person doing the original work.

Support for SciHub is orthogonal to this, these academic papers don't exist yet. So not even the Arxiv would make sense, its not even a preprint, its work in progress thats being co-opted and used for gain within China.

If you could explain how this state of affairs, aka upending the academic publishing model entirely by undermining the entire idea and using unpublished research for your own gain in another country, that would be a constructive way of addressing the issue at hand. As the issue at hand isn't directly economic, but it will affect economics at some point as money is involved.

> IMO, The first step to realizing those cost benefits is recognizing that the cloud is not your datacenter and you need to architect differently.

I see you've never setup or had to deal with setting up SAP. There are a ton of legacy line of business applications which, won't be close to "cloud" any time in the near future. And are all run on if you're lucky, vm clusters, if you're unlucky on bare iron due to silly crap like per cpu licensing on where it "might" be run. Or if virtualized, a sum of all the physical hardware cpu's.

"Enterprise" software running on premises is... problematic at best. Good luck replatforming something like this. They ask for your arm, leg, first unborn child, and your great grandkids children for the opportunity to run their software.

I'm avoiding talking about the vendors that require up to or over a month to have a contractor on site helping you "integrate and install" their application on your systems. That crap is so far removed from instant and decentralized resource provisioning its like being in another universe. God help you if you need to change anything.

In common parlance nuclear tends to mean nuclear fission, not nuclear fusion.

Though the "technically correct" aspect is that they're both nuclear reactions. I'd say its important to say that they're not cutting themselves off of nuclear fusion research.

The 18% and 4/5 in 500 is just an example I pulled out of my butt. I didn’t do a scihub search to find the study but 18% is pretty weak. It’s also more for an assessment at a personal level how much risk you could expect as an individual, which most people care about. Even if that means 600k more cancer patients than before, you’d have to compare that against the null hypothesis to even see if you’re still in the territory of what random chance could arrive at.

An example I can off the top of my head remember is related to how much risk there is for women to have children post 40. It is a 100% increase in birth defects. From 0.5% to 1.0%, sounds bad right? Well its out of like 100 000 people and was based off of 1600’s era French women. Always take studies like this with a grain of salt and look at the numbers to assess personal risk.

Making lifestyle changes purely off of these studies is premature in my opinion. But you do you.