test_epsilon
They are by definition.
They are used to make packages with differently named binaries able to implement standard shell commands.
There is no need to match binary names. It doesn't really help with anything.
But seriously (and I can't see linkedin), it sounds like the qualification is most relevant in response to the comment the OP made.
And it's entirely possible to use different software names for projects that implement a compatible API or service, the claim that it's for compatibility is pretty bogus. It's not "standard", especially not for an adversarial fork. And that's not why the alternatives system exists, the alternatives system exists so differently named packages can implement a particular service (i.e., exactly the opposite, for the equivalent in shell commands). So that's underhanded.
However creating a fork with the same acronym and name for the daemon or binaries or whatever seems pretty under-handed.
Was a release announcement for the original software moderated, on a list where release announcements had been posted without moderation before the fork? Was the author banned from lists?
Very few any countries are.
That wasn't the important part of the response to your post though, the important part is that it wasn't stolen or conquered.
You're okay if the government privatizes certain "problematic" services it provides and allows the now private organization to violate peoples' rights?
You are firmly an N=1 case here. I'm not going to argue the merits of your teaching ideas any more because it's clear you believe in them, but if you don't realize your ideas are pretty extreme and fringe, then you should.
The apologetics for corporate-government fascism digust me. No, it's not okay for the ruling class to contract out their oppression to corporations any more than it is for them to use the government for that purpose.
Which means all their other cries of human rights about other issues are empty crocodile tears. Even when it may happen that the side they take is a good one from a human rights perspective, that's obviously purely by coincidence that it happens to align with their agenda.
Horrifying.
And by over complicating it, I'm talking about this exponential backoff algorithm. You can read the news if you want, don't feel bad about it. Nothing bad is going to happen and you won't miss out on much if you don't though. And I promise you you would spend more time scouring the news for 9/11 type events than you would spend stuck in airports due to said events because you didn't read the news.
I disagree.
> You teach complex concepts which require kids to sort truth from fiction. You don't teach one. You teach many.
And there are many. Take away nazism, flat eartherism, and CRT, and there are still many. Many more interesting useful and fruitful things to teach at that age.
For sure teach them to beware of said charlatans and snake oil peddlers, but there's really no need to spend any amount of time on the bullcrap they believe. There are countless unscientific cult beliefs like this, you're going to pollute your child's mind with all of them when they are like 8-10 years old??
> You're generalizing an awful lot from n=1.
I'm not, I'm talking about the basic human nature behind it (and resulting in not only CPSU but CPC, and WPK, CPK, etc.) But I'm not here to litigate the merits of socialism so much as to say it's unproven and unscientific at best. Looks like snake oil no matter how you look at it -- promises to be all things to all people, and has no proven results behind it and arguably many spectacular failures.
> I teach my kid those alternative theories too. I do a sincere job of it too. He doesn't believe me, in part due to other adults in his life.
That doesn't mean it's good for your kid though. An if it is, you're the one generalizing an awful lot from n=1.
Check your government website if you want to know what the regulations are today, or check your airport and airline sites before you leave for the airport if you're worried about delays. You don't need "news" for this.
I don't think you need to over complicate it. There's nothing wrong with checking the news daily if that's what you like, or following some particular stories or events important to you even more regularly. A compulsion to keep checking, spending hours a day on it, or some fear that you need to check or you'll miss out is where it could negatively affect your life.
I would suggest not continuing to fall for it. It's not that war and intervention can't ever do "some" good. It's that the people behind wars and interventions are never interested in actually helping people. It's purely for money and power.
I agree. That said,
> First, ECC doesn't protect the full data chain, you can have a bitflip in a hardware flip flop (or latch open a gate that drains a line, etc...) before the value reaches the memory. Logic is known to glitch too.
Of course. DRAM ECC protects against errors in the DRAM cells. That doesn't mean other components don't have other strategies for reducing errors which can form a complete chain.
Latches and arrays and register files often have parity (where data can be reconstructed) or ECC bits, or use low level circuits that themselves are hard or redundant enough to achieve a particular target UBER for the full system.
> Second: ECC is mostly designed to protect long term storage in DRAM. Recognize that a cert like this is a very short-term value, it's computed and then transmitted. The failure happened fast, before copies of the correct value were made. That again argues to a failure location other than a DRAM cell.
Not necessarily. Cells that are sitting idle other than refresh have certain error profiles, but ones under constant access. Particularly "idle" cells that are in fact being disturbed by adjacent accesses certainly have a non-zero error profile and need ECC too.
My completely anecdotal guess would be this error is at least an order of magnitude more likely to have occurred in non-ECC memory (if that's what was being used) rather than any other path to the CPU or cache or logic on the CPU itself.
I don't agree any of those things should be taught in 3rd-5th grade because I think it is much more important to exercise the fundamentals of critical and creative thinking, logic, imagination, etc. at those ages.
I also have a big problem at any level of schooling with these unscientific and unproven "theories" (if you can even call them that) being taught by people who have entirely bought into the cult thinking and have no ability to critically reason about them let alone the desire to.
Would lessons about socialism and collectivism teach why the system can generally only sustain itself at a state level by devolving into a single party police state dictatorship in which the people most certainly do not own the means of production? Doubtful.
Would the teaching of CRT expose it for the unproven religious-like propaganda that it is? Or would it teach the horrific hurtful and racist pseudoscientific lies about toxic whiteness or children bearing some responsibility for things done by other people due to their race? Probably the latter, right?
It's like inviting a white supremacist to teach children lessons about nazism. Or a creationist to teach biology. Or a flat earther to each geology. Not a helpful lens at all.
Now, "AI" has its uses of course, and this jibberish generator probably has uses too. The generator itself is not impressive at all to me though. Someone finding a useful application for such a thing would be impressive, but not this text.
And I disagree, it does fit the pattern which is what my whole rant was about. You seem to have a romanticized idea of what "real" engineers do as well. A _lot_ of it involves software, a lot of it is prototyping and finding bugs and hacking around them and refining.
If you don't like the digital electrical engineering because it's too close to software for you, try mechanical engineering in automobiles. If you've spent much time around cars, you'll know that they have a lot of quirks like this where it's obvious a problem has been found and fixed. For example an engine of a particular vintage might be known to be prone to head cracking, then a few years later they might come out with another engine with a lot of the same part numbers but revised head design or material.
The engineers who designed it were not gazing at idealized otto cycle equations or out polling the public about its welfare, and the company behind it was doing its level best to play down the problem and coming up with ways their dealers could try to nurse cars through their warranty periods.
Recently I've noticed the theme is to post purile edicts proclaiming that CRT is "just acknowledging that racism exists and is bad" (and therefore if you question it or this post, then you're a racist). But no, that's a lie. That's not what CRT is, it absolutely should be critically examined and questioned.
Physical engineering projects are not mathematically proven either. They are verified against some accepted set of tests using models that use various empirically measured properties for materials and the world around the project as proxies for how this will do, and include various factors like 1-in-N year events and some acceptable error margin or chance of failure.
In something like microprocessor design, the physical design and manufacturing of course can be wildly variable and difficult to characterize (as Intel has recently been finding out -- even on a very nicely running process line, variations can result in many devices not working at all, and those that do can have variations of tens of percent in major performance metrics (frequency, power consumption).
Go up a level to digital logic design. Like software there are formal methods for proving logic, but they are absolutely not used to "prove" the entire digital logic part of a CPU. That is much more like software than you might think, thousands of bugs get found and fixed. Many bugs (from performance to correctness) can even get found and after a chip has come back from the factory. They go through intensive verification cycles, and even then it's not at all uncommon for bugs to escape. Many "errata" are just noted and you live with them, some necessitate varying degrees of crippling performance or features (spectre, meltdown, transactional memory, etc). And some actually require new revisions of the product when the errors can't be corrected in firmware.
The only real difference between software and logic design is the cost of "recompiling" means they spend vast efforts with many angles and layers of ways to modify the behavior of a device after it is manufactured. This isn't something you can see, but there are thousands and thousands of dials and switches that can be set to change behaviour, from very low level (oops this bit of logic has a clock-gating bug, we need to flip the switch to disable clock gating for this particular group of gates it will cost 0.01mW of dynamic power), through logical behavior of various algorithms and structures in the chip, right up to higher level big hammers like microcode and micro traps (oops we didn't implement this instruction correctly, switch it to trap to microcode and we'll write a handler for it at a cost of 1% performance).
Is electrical engineering, microprocessor design, circuit design considered to be "not engineering"? Not by many.
Engineering is about applying structured methods to create something that solves problem. Software in some areas is ahead of the game here, using advanced version control tools and methodologies, continuous integration, although digital logic design has been starting to cotton on.