1. 3

    The problem is, that we have to treat work as an environment where we do not feel like we are surrounded by predators. Sure, you can steal somebodies purse and car keys or even lunch to prove a point, but honestly, I do not see where that leads to. Yes there are bad guys and all that, but things have to stay in balance. Are we all supposed to have firearms on ourselves just in case? That is what this seems to lead to. Be afraid of everybody and trust nobody. What kind of a world is that?

    Also, laptop locks are funny these days where everybody has a Mac and no way to lock them…

    1. 7

      Be afraid of everybody and trust nobody. What kind of a world is that?

      Capitalism?

      1. 2

        “An armed society is a polite society.” -Robert Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

        The point of the talk is that security starts at the physical world, and that everyone is afraid of “evil hackers” or Russia/China, when they should be concerned about who’s in their facilities.

        An unrecognized face should definitely be questioned, which is why at high security facilities (i.e. an airport), keys and cards are required to get into say, the data room, with an escort. Obviously, visitor badges should be required, and an escort is a good option, also, in order to keep out the bad guys at the physical layer (obviously, this doesn’t include security at every other layer, such as a legacy telephone system voicemail running on NT 4.0 that can be NetMeetinged into and compromised very simply, or someone having a 0-day for a service ran on-site and exposed to the public).

        1. 3

          “An armed society is a polite society.” -Robert Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

          By that definition the US is the politest place in the world. It clearly is not.

          1. 1

            It may not be, but then again, not everybody in the U.S. owns a firearm.

            1. 10

              The US does own many more firearms than other notoriously more-polite societies (Japan, say) though.

              The obvious conclusion here is that there’s no real reason to think that the fun Sci-Fi Writer had any real insight into or facts to support his take on the topics of armed civilians, trust, and what makes for a livable society – at the end of the day it’s just a pithy turn of phrase.

              1. 4

                Im a pro-gun person from a former, murder capital in the South: Memphis, TN. Most of us would laugh at the quote given the number of assholes and thugs we’ve run into in our lives.

                We do think a high amount of firearms, esp concealed, reduces number or success of physical attacks since many attackers are basically wimps or arent in top shape mentally. Many of us think of it as check against government worst-case scenarios. For many others, it’s a tradition, recreational activity, family bonding, protecting cattle/crops, and/or self reliance for food sources. A few deer can feed a poor family quite a while for the price of some bullets. Grocery stores nowhere near that cheap.

                It doesn’t make the area more polite, though. Some situations are even scarier when they might have concealed weapons. Hell, some calm people become assholes when they have power of life and death at their fingertip.

                1. 4

                  An armed society is a society that thinks problems should be solved with arms.

                  1. 1

                    An armed society is one that thinks a corrupt government might be a problem that takes guns to solve. That problem and solution is how America itself was created.

                    Then, they created a Constitution. It said most problems are to be solved by individual citizens within the country’s laws, legislative bodies, executive branch/agencies, and court system. And in pro-gun America, that most problems are resolved using those instead of the guns totally disproves your point in general case. Cops and gun owners rarely shoot people out here. Mostly gangsters doing that.

        1. 5

          I’ve been working on a follow-up to a discussion I had on how GNU’s implementation of yes had a higher throughput than any other implementation from their use of buffering two pages of "yes\n". (Reddit post on r/unix, lobsters)

          I’m interested now in benching the speed of a virtual terminal, hopefully it’ll be ready by the end of this week!

          1. 10

            I’ve only read Masters of Doom this year, I haven’t been reading much this year. I think someone else recommended this book here on lobsters, and I would very strongly recommend it, it goes behind the scenes of Doom’s development and id Software’s internal structure and how it influenced the games id developed.

            It’s about 350 pages, I think I finished it in about a week.

            1. 6

              Finally getting around to finishing Masters of Doom. Excellent story about Doom, id Software, some of the engine technology, and the culture surrounding all of it.

              1. 1

                What do you think of it? It’s been on my reading list for years.

                1. 3

                  I loved it. Very engaging story and well-written. I don’t think anyone interested in the subject matter would be disappointed with the book.

              1. 17

                This is so cool! I really like the structure of this post: recognizing something one person has done well (and therefore other people have failed) and then explaining it

                1. 10

                  “done well”

                  https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/usr.bin/yes/yes.c https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/src/yes.c

                  optimizing to the extreme for fun is kind of interesting, but to do it at the expense of clarity with nothing really to gain seems like a loss.

                  1. 9

                    I really don’t like GNU’s implementation, NetBSD and COHERENT seem to have the most readable yes out of all the yesses I looked over (BusyBox had the worst). It may be possible to apply this to other utilities like dd and cat, which I plan to look into soon (unless someone else beats me!).

                    1. 4

                      Who on Earth thinks that BusyBox thing is a good idea? I’d hate to see anything even remotely complicated from whomever wrote that.

                      1. 5

                        It’s super compact both in code size and resource consumption (one stack variable!!), and it’s still relatively easy to understand. I’d say it’s doing its job marvellously.

                        1. 3

                          Havent had time to look at the code, but alpine linux uses it by default. And it’s targeted mostly to embeded linux, so I’m guessing ultra optimization is more important to them than readability in this case.

                          1. 1

                            Yeah, that isn’t cool. I thought they were just trying to avoid reusing a variable, then I realised they were reusing a variable, and/or moving on to argv[1] :(

                        2. 8

                          with nothing really to gain

                          One poster on Hacker News suggested this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14543640

                          1. 4

                            Classic HN. Always reject the mundane explanation that the program is fast because somebody wanted it to go fast in favor of a narrative involving an epic struggle against corporate overlords.

                            1. 5

                              Check the thread again, GNU explicitly asks people to do this: https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Reading-Non_002dFree-Code

                              1. 1

                                So why did they wait so long to make this change?

                                1. 5

                                  I’m rejecting your characterization of that HN comment, because this is a common method for GNU programs. I am not rejecting your assessment of why it changed though.

                          2. 5

                            This wasn’t done “with nothing really to gain” (although the gain might be subjective). It was performed as a reaction to a filed bug: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20029

                            1. 2

                              Interesting, I wonder what the backstory to that is. The example is oddly specific enough (involving a pipeline of yes, echo, a shell range expansion, head, and md5sum), that it look like an unexpected slowdown someone actually ran into in practice, vs. just a bored person benchmarking yes.

                            2. 1

                              If “yes” was written once, decades ago, and someone spent all of one entire week validating, I’m ok with getting a 10x performance increase on every *nix system in existence ongoing.

                              I love it when pipelines/shell scripts can scale vertically for a long time before having to rewrite in some native language.