1.  

    Author buries the lede here a bit in that the dopeness of the associated t-shirt is completely unmentioned in the title.

    https://teespring.com/shop/undefined-behavior-shirt

    1.  

      The piece links to this post, which is a fascinating deep dive into the implementation and bug fix/enhancement of a vector datatype meant to be especially performant in cases where its length is small (SmallVec), but was actually slower and unsound (remedied by the post’s author for both ills):

      http://troubles.md/posts/improving-smallvec/

      I don’t really understand the “and why you shouldn’t care” part of the title; there’s never another reference to why you shouldn’t care.

      1. 2

        This shows that if you randomly got, say, 0.2, it would get pushed to near 0.6. But if you got something close to 1, it won’t go past 1. In other words, this changes the distribution from uniform to… exponential? This is something I’m still unclear on.

        No, it follows a power law, most likely approximating a Pareto distribution. What about it makes the author think it’s exponential?

        1. 2

          Author here: brain worms? Lack of training in probability and statistics? I went through a LOT of reading new-to-me things in the course of trying to figure all this out.

          1. 1

            Oh no I totally get that. My comment seems rather judge-y, I’m sorry if I came off that way. I admittedly learned an awful lot from reading your post, and I actually read up on the distribution you presented only after reading your article.

            It appears similar to an exponential distribution on first sight from what I recall. It’s a lot harder to tell the difference when we’re restricted to such a limited section of the distribution.

            1. 2

              No worries! I had tried chasing down a Pareto-style function to make the correct distribution, but the relations among the parameters didn’t fit the constraints. But I was still unsure what to call the final, correct distribution, hence the question mark and caveat about my clarity :)

        1. 2

          I really need to follow this up with corrections (Rust’s rand crate takes more than 2x the time to generate a Gaussian value vs. a uniform float between 0 and 1, for example). But it was still fun.

          1. 4

            Not to spoil the article, but the ending quote in bold really sort of scares me. I’ve spent most of my life hearing stories about how machines will take human jobs. The reality of that has played out much less scary (so far) than they’d have had us believe 20 or 30 years ago. It’s never really occurred to me, though, that in another 20 or 30 years that my job as a programmer might be obsoleted as well. It’s like the matrix; funny ha ha, but for real.

            Thankfully I hope to be retired 30 years from now :P

            1. 4

              I think this is the natural progression of things, isn’t it? Programming isn’t immune to the effects of automation - just the opposite, in fact. It’s like boiling a frog - things are automated so often and so incrementally that programmers no longer notice when jobs that would have taken 10x longer a few years ago are basically instantaneous today.

              1. 11

                Programming will be the last thing to be automated, because it is itself automation - once you have automated programming you just have to run your automated programmer and then you’ve automated everything.

                1. 2

                  …No. The only thing that will save programming from being automated NEXT is… wait, I see what you did there. “Your keys are always found in the last place you look.” :)

                  On a serious note, regarding future job prospects, I think programming will not be the last available job. Some job that isn’t an attractive candidate for automation will be the last available job. Programming, with all its expense, is a prime target.

                  1. 4

                    Once you can automate programming you can automate everything else at approaching 0 cost, so it’s moot.

                    1. 1

                      Can you? I would imagine lots of jobs rely on intrinsically tacit, “local” intuition, and not merely knowledge and cognitive function, which is what it seems to me the only thing that “solving programming” entails automatically.

                      1. 1

                        Programming often relies on intrinsically tacit, local intuition. I mean think of the last time you received feedback from the customer about how they felt the software should work.

                        1. 1

                          Good point I didn’t think about that end of the situation

                2. 2

                  Hopefully, this allows them (and me) to do their (and my) jobs more efficiently, and focusing on other more important things. Of course, other stuff will eventually fall into obsolescence, but don’t we have graveyard keepers, working on decrepit technologies for sizeable amounts of money? COBOL experts, where art thou?

                  1. 2

                    All very true. I think the reality just sort startled me.

                  2. 5

                    This is why it’s important to move past capitalism ASAP: it’s more and more immoral to couple the ability to get a job with the ability to stay alive and retain dignity. Once all labor is automated, there shouldn’t be any jobs (coerced or obligatory labor), and we should all be rejoicing.

                    1. 0

                      Will there still be a free market? Or will what we consume be planned by the machines. At which, point, without the ability to decide what I want - or the illusion thereof - my job as a human is done too …

                      1. 5

                        woe to those who think their job as humans is to consume

                        1. 1

                          I eat, therefore I am.

                        2. 1
                          1. We all make the world;
                          2. define “free market”.
                          1. 0

                            There is a medium of exchange (please not barter) and a market for goods and services. I have goods/services to offer and I have goods/services I need. I have markets to go to sell and buy these. The market is not controlled by the commissariat which determines how much toothpaste I get and what color tube it comes in because for reasons most people can not fathom, I like to chose.

                            1. 1

                              you can chose what color tube your toothpaste comes in?

                              1. 0

                                In capitalist America, toothpaste color chooses you!

                              2. 0

                                What is available in these markets? What is not? How are its dynamics damped, to avoid balloons and crashes? How are negative externalities, like advertising or air pollution, accounted for? You throw around the “free” as though its interpretation were obvious, when the devil is in the details, and the details are everything.

                                1. 0

                                  This is strawman nonsense, and nowhere do I imply central planning. What you’re really saying is, “I want freedom of choice for consumption and production,” which doesn’t require capitalism, though you’re strongly implying you think it does.

                                  1. 0

                                    You need to elaborate your scheme then. Every time I’ve heard someone say “I hate capitalism and I have an alternative for it” what they really have is state capitalism (AKA communism in practice as opposed to the silly theory of communism written down somewhere).

                                    1. 0

                                      The universal means of production (automated labor), universally distributed.

                                      1. 0

                                        Who decides resource allocation?

                                        1. 0

                                          Who decides it now?

                                          1. 0

                                            The market

                                            1. 0

                                              How’s that workin’ out.

                                              1. 0

                                                Better than anything else people have tried.

                                                1. 0

                                                  Citation needed.

                                                  1. 0

                                                    Also, punch cards were better than anything that came before, and then we had better ideas that were enabled by advancing technology. It’s time we did the same for meeting basic human needs.

                                                    1. -1

                                                      You haven’t actually said what the replacement is for free markets and capitalism.

                                                      1. 0

                                                        Start with democratic socialism. End with technological post-scarcity.

                                                        1. 0

                                                          All countries with governments are socialist, not all are democratic, and not all have free markets. So that doesn’t add anything new.

                                                          Post-scarcity is another way of saying we have no plan on how to deal with resource contention, which is the hard problem

                              3. -1

                                it’s more and more immoral to couple the ability to get a job with the ability to stay alive and retain dignity.

                                What dignity is possible once you’re livestock to be taken care of?

                                The truth of the matter is there’s an ongoing demographic implosion. If they wait it out awhile, there won’t be that many people to have to have the universal income or whatever it is you’re arguing for.

                                1. 3

                                  You’re assuming that dignity and purpose are only possible under conditions of coerced labor. Your premise is false.

                                  I’m not arguing for UBI. I’m arguing for democratic access to the means of universal production (robotic labor, molecular nanotech, etc.), removing the need for things like “income”.

                            1. 5

                              Just want to express my gratitude to the author for the series.

                              As a C++98 survivor, any C++ post made me throw up a little bit for a long time. These series convince that C++ is a lot nicer now, if we forget about all the ugliness introduced by the committee before.

                              1. 4

                                The last time I was paid to write C++ was 2011, and after that job, I vowed to never write C++ again. However, the lastest revisions have mellowed my antipathy for it, so yeah, I’m with you :)

                                1. 3

                                  He’s been responsive to me on Twitter about the series (https://twitter.com/PowerDNS_Bert). Very nice guy.

                                1. 1

                                  Am I weird that I find people charging me for pre-trained Neural Network weights a bit strange when you can find a lot of these and maybe even better models on the internet for free? https://pixlab.io/downloads

                                  1. 2

                                    I dunno, it seems like a reasonable thing to charge for. I’m glad the framework code is open source.

                                  1. 8

                                    It’s like SSH, but more secure, and with cool modern features.

                                    And less portable and will take forever to compile 😕

                                    1. 5

                                      Both arguments will probably be less and less valid with time passing though…

                                      1. 4

                                        How often do you compile vs. use?

                                        1. 3

                                          As someone involved in the packaging team on FreeBSD: I’m compiling all the time, and we have lots of users that prefer to compile ports instead of use packages for various reasons as well.

                                          1. 5

                                            I meant, after you compile, how often do you then use the resulting compiled artifact? I submit that the ratio of time spent compiling against time spent using approaches zero for most anyone, regardless of how long it takes to compile the thing being used.

                                            1. 1

                                              That depends on various factors. This is an OS with rolling-release packages. If I compile my own packages and update regularly, I will be re-compiling Oxy every time a direct dependency of Oxy gets updated in the tree.

                                              1. 4

                                                I’m familiar with FreeBSD ports :)

                                                It sounds like all you’re saying is, “All Rust programs take an unacceptably long time to compile,” which, fine, but you can see how that sounds when it’s laid out plainly.

                                                1. 5

                                                  To be fair to @feld, compile times continue to be a number one request from users, and something we’re constantly working at improving.

                                                  1. 4

                                                    It’s appreciated. My #2 complaint as someone involved in packaging echoes the problems with the Go ecosystem: the way dependencies are managed is not great. Crates are only a marginal improvement over Go’s “you need a thousand checkouts from github of these exact hashes” issue we encounter.

                                                    We want a stable ecosystem where we can package up the dependencies and lots of software can use the same dependencies with stable SEMVER release engineering. Unfortunately that’s just not the reality right now, so each software we package comes with a huge laundry list of distfiles/tarballs that need to be downloaded just to compile. As a consequence it also isn’t possible for someone to install from packages all dependencies for some software so they could do their own local development.

                                                    Note: we can’t just cheat and use git as a build dependency (or whatever other tooling that wallpapers over git). Our entire package building process has to happen in a cleanroom environment without any network access. This is intentionally done for security and reproducibility.

                                                    edit: here’s a particularly egregious example in Go. Look at how many dependencies we have to download that cannot be shared with other software. This all has to be audited and tracked by hand as well, which makes even minor updates of the software a daunting task.

                                                    https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/security/vuls/distinfo?revision=455595&view=markup

                                                    1. 3

                                                      That use-case should be well supported; it’s what Firefox and other Linux distros do. They handle it in different ways; Firefox uses vendoring, Debian/Fedora convert cargo packages to .deb/.rpm and use them like any other dependency.

                                                      Reproducibility has been a goal from day 1; that’s why lockfiles exist. Build scripts are the tricky bit, but most are good about it. I don’t know of any popular package that’s not well behaved in this regard.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        I’m fairly certain feld wants the OS packager to manage the dependencies, not just a giant multi-project tarball.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          Sure; that’s what I said Linux distros do.

                                                      2. 2

                                                        Application authors should just publish release tarballs with vendored dependencies.

                                                        Check out this port: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=194079&action=diff It looks like any normal port, just with BUILD_DEPENDS=cargo:lang/rust. One single distfile. That contains all the Rust stuff.

                                        1. 5

                                          Engineers of all stripes have an ethical responsibility to uphold, and it’s in making tough choices, like turning down customers, that you prove your worth.

                                          That being said, it makes me sad that a scandal like this one, which in my sense is plagued by political opportunism on the left, has so much traction.

                                          1. 1

                                            Yeah… Some problems are not so clear cut. There are big differences between short term and long term outcomes, also between intent and outcome, as well as adjusting plans that don’t work well currently vs having evil intent.

                                            • Would I say Trump has much empathy? … no.
                                            • Is the right wing sadistic and enjoy suffering? I would also say no.
                                            1. 2

                                              Is the right wing sadistic and enjoy suffering? I would also say no.

                                              Citation needed.

                                              1. 0

                                                That’s pretty outrageous, the hysterics that can be seen everywhere are laughable.

                                                1. 4

                                                  So people getting upset that armed cops drag off 4 month old babies from their parents in an act of open terrorism seems outrageous and hysterical to you? People being blase or amused by the same thing seems outrageous to me.

                                                  1. 0

                                                    No - The hysterics are ignoring the word of people there.

                                                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGuSdXiFtLk

                                                    This man seems genuine to me, and seems to save more children than anyone here.

                                                    1. 2

                                                      moreover, if you take your or nebkors presented opinion at face value, that agent being interviewed is a terrorist, sadistic and evil. I never said wanting children to be safe are hysterics, but calling half the population evil while ignoring the whole argument is disingenuous to me.

                                                      1. 2

                                                        There is no argument in favor of this policy other than the stated rationale of terrorism. You can either be for terrorism or against it. But being for it, you should get used to being called evil.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          I’m not for it. as far as I know trump signed an order to end it which is fine by me. I never said I wanted children separated from parents.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Yes, now they get to be imprisoned with their parents, for the crime of attempting to seek asylum, which is against the law for our government to do.

                                                        2. 2

                                                          I’m not saying all of ICE are terrorists. They do, however, all belong to the same violent and murderous gang.

                                                    2. 3

                                                      Yes, they are totally laughable if you’re a fascist or fascist sympathizer.

                                                      1. 0

                                                        it sounds like you live is an echo chamber or out of control feedback loop. Try getting information from more than one source.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          We have access to the same information, and have come to different conclusions due to our conflicting values. If you’re ashamed of the label that fits your opinions, perhaps you should consider changing your opinions or values to be less shameful. But I assure you, the problem is not my sources of information. I suspect it’s not yours, either.

                                                          1. -1

                                                            You are a like a sick caricature, You behave exactly how fox news and the right want their opposition to behave, total lunacy is easy to beat in elections.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              Citation needed.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                Ok, let me apologize.

                                                                My ideal situation is everyone is allowed in, and there would a sentiment of charitable nature in the population fostered outside of government mandate to care for those who are in bad situations.

                                                                What would your ideal situation be?

                                                                1. 2

                                                                  The barest start is to acknowledge the current atrocities being directly executed by the police and immigration systems, and working to stop them. Things like people being cruelly detained, isolated, abandoned in a heartless bureaucracy, children separated, deporting to known unsafe zones, etc. Next up is recognizing and taking responsibility for our actions (“our” being the United States, apologies for US-centricity) in Latin America over the course of the last 150 years, along with recent drug policy, climate change, etc. that have created this refugee crisis.

                                                                  Then we can get into abolishing prisons, disarming all cops, restoring the top marginal tax rate to 90%, providing healthcare and education and food, etc. and really start getting it correct.

                                                                  So yeah, because the right wing believes in property over persons, in denying moral responsibilities, in short-sighted selfishness and avarice, they are by definition heartless and sadistic. They are in charge, and their actions speak for themselves.

                                              1. 4

                                                There’s lots of great stuff on this site; https://gpfault.net/posts/generating-trees.txt.html linked from the OP is super interesting and the embedded interactive demos are fun.

                                                1. 1

                                                  Thanks :-)

                                                1. 10

                                                  Good on you. It’s worth mentioning here that Microsoft is going in the other direction. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/19/microsoft-defends-ties-with-ice-amid-separation-outcry/amp/

                                                  1. 3

                                                    In response to questions we want to be clear: Microsoft is not working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection on any projects related to separating children from their families at the border, and contrary to some speculation, we are not aware of Azure or Azure services being used for this purpose. As a company, Microsoft is dismayed by the forcible separation of children from their families at the border.

                                                    Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems they are going in the exact same direction…

                                                    1. 6

                                                      It’s a very confusing article; my best guess is that they are working with ICE, but not on “projects related to separating children from their families at the border”.

                                                      1. 11

                                                        And just because Microsoft isn’t directly helping, they are still helping. That nuance is discussed in OP’s article - any support to an morally corrupt institution is unacceptable, even if it is indirect support.

                                                        1. 7

                                                          But that perspective is very un-nuanced. Is everything ICE does wrong? It’s a large organization. What if the software the company that @danielcompton denied service to is actually just trying to track down violent offenders that made it across the border? Or drug trafficking?

                                                          To go even further, by your statement, Americans should stop paying their taxes. Are you advocating that?

                                                          1. 18

                                                            ICE is a special case, and deserves to be disbanded. It’s a fairly new agency, and its primary mission is to be a Gestapo. So yes, very explicitly, everything ICE does is wrong.

                                                            1. 3

                                                              On what ground and with which argument can you prove your statement? I mean, there is probably an issue with how it’s run, but the whole concept of ICE doesn’t sound that wrong to me.

                                                              1. 14

                                                                From https://splinternews.com/tear-it-all-down-1826939873 :

                                                                The thing that is so striking about all three items is not merely the horror they symbolize. It is how easy it was to get all of these people to play their fascistic roles. The Trump administration’s family separation rule has not even been official policy for two months, and yet look at where we are already. The Border Patrol agent is totally unperturbed by the wrenching scenes playing out around him. The officers have sprung to action with a useful lie to ward off desperate parents. Nielsen, whom the New Yorker described in March as “more of an opportunist than an ideologue” and who has been looking to get back into Donald Trump’s good graces, is playing her part—the white supremacist bureaucrat more concerned with office politics than basic morality—with seeming relish. They were all ready.

                                                                I’m going to just delegate all arguments to that link, basically, with a comment that of it’s not exceedingly obvious, then I probably can’t say anything that would persuade you. Also, this is all extremely off-topic for this forum, but, whatevs.

                                                            2. 11

                                                              There’s always a nuance, sure. Every police force ever subverted for political purposes was still continuing to fight petty crime, prevent murders and help old ladies cross the street. This always presented the regimes a great way to divert criticism, paint critics as crime sympathisers and provide moral leeway to people working there and with them.

                                                              America though, with all its lip service to small government and self reliance was the last place I expected that to see happening. Little did I know!

                                                              1. 6

                                                                Is everything ICE does wrong? It’s a large organization.

                                                                Just like people, organizations should be praised for their best behaviors and held responsible for their worst behaviors. Also, some organizations wield an incredible amount of power over people and can easily hide wrongdoing and therefore should be held responsible to the strictest standard.

                                                                1. 9

                                                                  Its worth pointing out that ICE didn’t exist 20 years ago. Neither, for that matter did the DHS (I was 22 when that monster was born). “Violent offenders” who “cross the border” will be tracked down by the same people who track down citizen “violent offenders” ie the cops (what does “violent offender” even mean? How do we who these people are? how will we know if they’re sneaking in?) Drug trafficking isn’t part of ICEs institutional prerogative in any large, real sense, so its not for them to worry about? Plenty of americans, for decades, have advocated tax resistance precisely as a means to combat things like this. We can debate its utility but it is absolutely a tactic that has seen use since as far as I know at least the Vietnam war. Not sure how much nuance is necessary when discussing things like this. Doesn’t mean its open season to start dropping outrageous nonsense, but institutions which support/facilitate this in any way should be grounds for at the very least boycotts.

                                                                  1. 5

                                                                    Why is it worth pointing out it didn’t exist 20 years ago? Smart phones didn’t either. Everything starts at some time.

                                                                    To separate out arguments, this particular subthread is in response to MSFT helping ICE, but the comment I responded to was referring to the original post, which only refers to “border security”. My comment was really about the broader aspect but I phrased it poorly. In particular, I think the comment I replied to which states that you should not support anything like this indirectly basically means you can’t do anything.

                                                                    1. 5

                                                                      Its worth pointing out when it was founded for a lot of reasons; what were the conditions that led to its creation? Were they good? Reasonable? Who created it? What was the mission originally? The date is important because all of these questions become easily accessible to anyone with a web browser and an internet connection, unlike, say, the formation of the FBI or the origins of Jim Crow which while definitely researchable on the net are more domains of historical research. Smart phones and ethnic cleansing however, not so much in the same category.

                                                                      1. 4

                                                                        If you believe the circumstances around the formation of ICE are worth considering, I don’t think pointing out the age of the institution is a great way to make that point. It sounds more like you’re saying “new things are inherently bad” rather than “20 years ago was a time with a lot of politically questionable activity” (or something along those lines).

                                                                        1. 9

                                                                          dude, read it however you want, but pointing out that ICE is less than 20 years old, when securing a border is a foundational issue, seems like a perfect way to intimate that this is an agency uninterested in actual security and was formed expressly to fulfill a hyper partisan, actually racist agenda. Like, did we not have border security or immigration services or customs enforcement prior to 2002/3? Why then? What was it? Also, given that it was formed so recently, it can be unformed, it can be dismantled that much easier.

                                                                          1. 1

                                                                            I don’t understand your strong reaction here. I was pointing out that if your goal was to communicate something, just saying it’s around 20 years old didn’t seem to communicate what you wanted to me. Feel free to use that feedback or not use it.

                                                                  2. 2

                                                                    In addition, I bet the ICE is using Microsoft Windows and probably Office too.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      That’s a great point, and no I don’t advocate for all Americans to stop paying taxes.

                                                                    2. 0

                                                                      any support to an morally corrupt institution is unacceptable, even if it is indirect support

                                                                      A very interesting position. It just requires you to stop using any currency. ;-)

                                                                      1. 3

                                                                        No, it requires you to acknowledge that using any currency is unacceptable.

                                                                        Of course not using any currency is also unacceptable. When faced with two unacceptable options, one has to choose one. Using the excuse “If I follow my ethics I can never do anything” is just a lazy way to never think about ethics. In reality everything has to be carefully considered and weighed on a case by case basis.

                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          Of course not using any currency is also unacceptable.

                                                                          Why? Currency is just a tool.

                                                                          Using the excuse “If I follow my ethics I can never do anything” is just a lazy way to never think about ethics.

                                                                          I completely agree.
                                                                          Indeed I think that we can always be ethical, but we should look beyond the current “public enemy”, be it Cambridge Analytica or ICE. These are just symptoms. We need to cure the disease.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                Unfortunately, while the headline is clever, it’s not true.

                                                                Palantir’s worst is done with code written in house, with the same open source codebase we all start with. So long as there are people willing to work there, bad things are going to be written into code and deployed.

                                                                1. 15

                                                                  One note, the specific company wasn’t Palantir, but was in a similar space.

                                                                  I agree that not serving this company has a very small effect on them, but it was better than the alternative. Additionally, if enough companies refuse to work with companies like Palantir, it would begin to hinder their efforts.

                                                                  1. 8

                                                                    not serving this company has a very small effect on them

                                                                    It has a big effect, instead. On the system. On their employees. On your employes and your customers…

                                                                    Capitalism fosters a funny belief through its propaganda (aka marketing): that humans’ goals are always individualistic and social improvements always come from collective fights. This contraddiction (deeply internalized as many other disfunctional ones) fool many people: why be righteous (whatever it means to me) if it doesn’t change anything to me?

                                                                    It’s just a deception, designed to marginalize behaviours that could challenge consumerism.

                                                                    But if you cannot say “No”, you are a slave. You proved to be not.

                                                                    And freedom is always revolutionary, even without a network effect.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      Sounds like it was https://www.wired.com/story/palmer-luckey-anduril-border-wall/ ? Palantir at least has some positive clients, like the SEC and CDC.

                                                                    2. 4

                                                                      But….that wasn’t his moral question? He was being offered a chance to be a vendor of services to a palantir-like surveillance outfit engaged in ethnic cleansing, not offered a job with a workstation. So yeah, the headline was absolutely true. It is up to individuals to refuse, and by publicly refusing to engage, not necessarily internally, they will inspire others to not profit by these horrors.

                                                                      1. 0

                                                                        It wasn’t. But the quip implies that we can act like a village, when the sad truth is that the low barrier to entry in software development means we can’t really act like a village, and stop people with our skillset from putting vile stuff into code.

                                                                        1. 3

                                                                          yeah, not really understanding this from the original post. and for the record the low barrier to entry is absolutely not what is allowing people to put vile stuff in code. extremely talented, well educated, highly intelligent people do horrifying stuff every single day.

                                                                          1. 1

                                                                            This is the best attitude one can desire from slaves. Don’t question the masters. It’s pointless.

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              We can act like a village, we just can’t act like the entire population. Choosing not to work at completely unethical places when we can afford it does at the very least increase the cost and decrease the quality of the evil labor. Things could even reach a point where the only people willing to work there are saboteurs.

                                                                        1. 2

                                                                          Looks pretty awesome. Glad you wrote this up since I’ve never heard of a lactation room before this post. Sounds like a good idea. The other thing that was interesting was dedicated rooms to take phone calls. I can’t remember last time I saw one of them either. People out here in Mid-South just move to some spot where people know not to bother them like an office, conference room, bathroom stall, stairwell, outside, etc. A dedicated room, esp with some soundproofing, would be better but I guess it wasn’t priority for most businesses out here. Were there any selling points past privacy or legal compliance for that idea in case I can use them out here?

                                                                          1. 3

                                                                            I’ve always seen them titled “mother’s room”s at my workplaces. They’re a newer thing but seem to be on the rise in popularity.

                                                                            1. 3

                                                                              The sound proofed phone room is for interviews and phone screens.

                                                                            1. 3

                                                                              This is really cool stuff (turning your phone into a software defined radio)! Source code for the framework from the thesis for doing this is here:

                                                                              https://github.com/seemoo-lab/nexmon

                                                                              1. 5

                                                                                What a letdown to read all the detail only to read that they won’t post details on the very thing the article is about. (sighs) Probably should’ve been a one, paragraph post saying they had a new hash table, what its performance was, that they’re too burned out to describe it, and keep eye out for after the talk.

                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                  The code is posted at the end, and the previous fastest hash post, linked at the beginning, is extremely informative as well.

                                                                                  https://github.com/skarupke/flat_hash_map

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    I somehow missed it. My mistake. Thanks for the link.

                                                                                1. 11

                                                                                  overreaching Code of Conducts.

                                                                                  The author realizes that you don’t have to follow the code of conduct to use the software? Also 80% of the items on the freebsd code of conduct are illegal. the four that stick out to me that aren’t are these.

                                                                                  Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.

                                                                                  Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment.

                                                                                  Deliberate misgendering.

                                                                                  Deliberate use of “dead” or rejected names.

                                                                                  Author basically feels that if the developers can’t get intimately involved with another developer’s personal life without consent then the author does not want to use the software. Frankly it seems like you could just create a code of conduct with the line “Thinking code of conducts are bad” and you’d filter out everyone who apparently wants to get in your grill.

                                                                                  The other rules are okayish but would rule out basically everything if applied strictly.

                                                                                  1. 11

                                                                                    Also 80% of the items on the freebsd code of conduct are illegal.

                                                                                    Code’s of conduct don’t have anything to do with law, though. An organization can block your participation in it for any reason they see fit. There are restrictions for businesses and employers, but they don’t apply to open source projects.

                                                                                    1. 17

                                                                                      Right and if you don’t agree with those reasons you don’t have to contribute or you can create your own organization. I was saying 80% of them are illegal to do as an individual. Sexual harassment? Stalking? Threatening? A lot of the CoC is basically just “We won’t enable your criminal behavior and allow you to use the organization as a way to find targets”. The 4 here are basically, “Don’t purposely be an asshole to other members, here are four ways of being an asshole that are explicitly not allowed.”. If you think Open Source means “I get to be a dick to other people and get away with it because it’s not a job” then you’re honestly doing more harm than good and should do something else with your life.

                                                                                      1. 6

                                                                                        Oh sorry, I misunderstood what you mean by illegal. I thought you were saying much of the CoC was illegal.

                                                                                        1. 14

                                                                                          The 4 here are basically, “Don’t purposely be an asshole to other members, here are four ways of being an asshole that are explicitly not allowed.”.

                                                                                          That kind of playing with definitions is one of reasons I fight broad Codes of Conduct. It’s not how they play out. Instead, those promoting or enforcing will be specific groups of people having specific, political views on everything from words to identity to societal structures, expecting the entire world to comply with those views, and punishing anyone in their immediate setting who doesn’t using whatever methods are available. Those methods range from shaming to exclusion to removing their ability to pay bills.

                                                                                          To me, that sounds like being assholes that shove their politics down others’ throats telling them to get lost if they don’t like it. Even more so when I see plenty of people be civil without going that far in mischaracterizing or banning other groups’ means of expressing themselves. Then, a person supporting such politics shows up saying it’s just about not being an asshole. People reading that get a different impression than “no political disagreement or differences are allowed in this list of categories whose reach increases whenever we say.” I don’t expect more honesty from most promoters about the goals since subterfuge and “end justifies the means” is the norm in that group.

                                                                                          1. 12

                                                                                            What about it shoves politics? I would think all the points I mentioned are basically apolitical. There’s no rule against “political disagreement” within the CoC. You can be super hard line conservative and still follow these rules. I’m specifically talking about the FreeBSD CoC.

                                                                                            1. 7

                                                                                              It’s not really based on “politics”, but on basic respect. If you’re a conservative who is respectful of people’s preferred names and doesn’t shit all over people because of their lifestyles, you won’t have a problem. If you’re a liberal or Leftist who is super racist, anti-Semitic (hello, tankies) or constantly judges poor people overly harshly (of which there are many), you will have one.

                                                                                              That said, if you feel that trans people asserting that we should be called by the names we choose for ourselves is somehow a political act, then yes, the purpose of the CoC is to “shove politics down your throat”.

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                if you feel that trans people asserting that we should be called by the names we choose for ourselves is somehow a political act

                                                                                                Isn’t it? I have no problem with calling you as you like, really.

                                                                                                And I’d like it would be the common ground of our international culture.

                                                                                                But it is Politics. I’d argue that it’s the best expression of politics at all, as it establish a kind environment where we can confront on.

                                                                                                On the other hand, “keep the discourse on topic or you will be banned” should be a pretty good CoC, everywhere.

                                                                                                Now, if we can go off-topic, and you tell on a public space (say IRC or a mailing list) you do something I consider bad, you are engadging a discourse. You can’t say “I like eating people, cannibalism improve my health” and than invoke the CoC if anyone object.

                                                                                                People should understanding that speaking in public implies a will to listen.
                                                                                                More exactly, speaking implies a will to challenge own opinions, putting them at stake in the conversation.

                                                                                                If you don’t want to listen any objection, if you don’t want to change your mind, why speak in the first place?
                                                                                                Are you doing propaganda? Marketing? If so, you are the problem, not who engage with you.

                                                                                                Also, if we can go off-topic, and you tell you like to hurt your children, I’ll comment on that, whatever the CoC. After the denounce obviously, with all the reference I can get to find you (including your email, ip, os, whatever I can get through my technical knowledge and tools).

                                                                                                So in general, the CoC is a political tool. It could be used for good or evil.

                                                                                                But it doesn’t fix the lack of a democratic culture of dialoge in a community.

                                                                                              2. 1

                                                                                                Without a CoC you are at the mercy of the hidden political views of the project owners. Their decisions to ban start looking arbitrary. Either way, you deal with political views. Wouldn’t you prefer to know what they are before engaging? Worst would be spending a lot of your time on a project only to find out you get banned because you said something that was in disagreement with the owners of the project.

                                                                                          2. 14

                                                                                            They are too broad (e.g. large swaths of the population would violate it by with their daily interactions), which puts selective enforcement at charge. If its selective enforcement, then its just an power instrument with the rule makers at the power end, even if the contents of the CoC are all well-meaned and good in their intentions.

                                                                                            Its not directly about the contents of the CoC, its about taking peoples moral autonomy.

                                                                                            1. 12

                                                                                              I think it’s reasonable to treat open source work within an organization with the same level of respect and dignity that you would expect from a job. You could get fired at a job for nearly every one of these. Using dead names even, if an employee asks you to stop and you don’t and they file a complaint against HR, HR might decide that you’re creating a hostile work environment for basically no reason. Most people don’t get fired for misconduct, so I’m going to actually say that you can’t possibly be right about that claim.

                                                                                              Keep in mind that the responses are

                                                                                              A private reprimand from the working group to the individual(s) involved.

                                                                                              A public reprimand.

                                                                                              An imposed vacation from FreeBSD Project controlled spaces (e.g. asking someone to “take a week off” from a mailing list or IRC).

                                                                                              A permanent or temporary ban from some or all FreeBSD Project controlled spaces (events, meetings, mailing lists, IRC, etc.)

                                                                                              A request for a public or private apology.

                                                                                              A request to engage in mediation and/or an accountability plan.

                                                                                              These aren’t that extreme. Sure you can be banned but that can happen in any OSS project where they can say “We won’t accept pull requests from dirt bags like you.”. In this case the things you can do wrong are at least actually laid out so that you know what behaviors to avoid and which ones to follow.

                                                                                              1. 16

                                                                                                Still, the CoC assumes moral authority over me, which is an no-go for freedom lovers and hackers like me. That people like you don’t exercise their own moral autonomy and fail to understand that others do (with different results) is the reason why CoC create unnecessary controversy and drama.

                                                                                                And yes, the FreeBSD CoC makes me feel violated in my moral autonomy, and yes, the FreeBSD CoC embodies political views i do not share.

                                                                                                1. 9

                                                                                                  A CoC has no moral authority and frankly morality isn’t even a real thing. It’s merely a set of rules that people who work together have agreed to follow while working together. You don’t have to work with them and you don’t have to use their software, but since you wanted to be on record disagreeing, I wanted to be on record agreeing with CoC and why I feel the way I do.

                                                                                                  1. 4

                                                                                                    Again, this is a strong pro-CoC statement. If they are successful in excluding people like you, they are working as intended.

                                                                                                    1. 10

                                                                                                      I was hoping to keep things civil. Perhaps there’s a more generous way you could phrase this?

                                                                                                      1. 5

                                                                                                        Not really, given that the author has emphatically stated their disagreement with either the values motivating the rules, or the rules themselves. Regardless, such a person is a real risk to the health of the community, and it’s nice that there’s such an effective repellent.

                                                                                                        1. 18

                                                                                                          I’m honest about not being a feminist. I consider the concept of gender harmful (from an philosophical standpoint), but people like you seem seem convinced that not sharing your point on that makes me an bad person.

                                                                                                          But thanks for determining i’m a hazard to community, it surely helped me to recognize the superiority of your standpoint.

                                                                                                          1. 7

                                                                                                            By “considering the concept of gender harmful” you are willfully ignorant to the way that society works and by effect you are a part of the problem creating inequality and fostering an environment where harassment and hate crimes can thrive.

                                                                                                            You don’t get to invent your own reality and pretend this one doesn’t exist.

                                                                                                            1. 16

                                                                                                              Yeah also you can consider gender harmful without refusing to respect how other people would like to be referred to. For example I will now out of respect for your disdain for the concept of gender refer to you strictly in non-gendered nouns. Notice how I disagreed with your viewpoint but didn’t invalidate your identity.

                                                                                                            2. 1

                                                                                                              I don’t care about your honesty. I don’t care to have you recognize the superiority of my viewpoint; I know nothing I can say will sway you. I care to prevent you from contaminating the spaces I care about.

                                                                                                              1. 22

                                                                                                                You’ve and @liwakura have both explained well how you differ fundamentally, and I appreciate that. This comment is pulling that discussion into a dark place, please don’t continue on this theme casting someone as an unredeemable danger who must be eradicated. Lobsters is not good at being “Tinder, but for finding a nemesis”.

                                                                                                              2. 2

                                                                                                                You don’t fight the concept of gender by standing on the sidelines watching those that do have the concept of gender dominate half the population. Just because you believe there isn’t gender, doesn’t mean people who consider themselves women aren’t getting the short end of the stick in our society.

                                                                                                              3. 3

                                                                                                                thanks, that’s much clearer. :)

                                                                                                        2. 6

                                                                                                          You could get fired at a job for nearly every one of these.

                                                                                                          Depends on the job. Many employers won’t punish people who have political differences. Especially in Mid-South where we’re quite a diverse bunch of liberals, conservatives, white, black, latino, etc. The rule is that we either avoid those topics entirely to keep things civil or you better be able to take the kind of discussion you were dishing out. Essentially, we recognize those claiming disagreement is “offensive” to just be silencing their opposition. They’re trying to attack and control the other person. People still try that but don’t get far.

                                                                                                          So, in such a truly, inclusive environment, people will be saying things that bother others since there’s conflict on a deep level. My relatives and I have worked in many such places. They’ll have heated arguments sometimes. It almost always ends up “agree to disagree” with them making up for it being nice to each other later. Sometimes people figure out who each other are underneath, permanently dislike each other, work together just enough to get the job done, and avoid one another otherwise.

                                                                                                          People almost never quit over this sort of thing. It’s also not what most gripe about. Those griping or quitting over assholes bring up people who folks in every group agree are assholes. We wouldn’t need a CoC to deal with them. Just decent managers or owners that respond to employee complaints. If managers or owners aren’t decent, then no policies or CoC’s are going to make the work environment better.

                                                                                                          1. 13

                                                                                                            I really don’t understand how you got this from the CoC mentioned. There is no rule in the CoC that you must conform politically. I would be very shocked to hear that the entire FreeBSD team is not conservative. The rule is merely that you treat other people with dignity. I live in the south and every single one of my workplaces would fit this CoC save for maybe the rules around transgendered folks. Frankly even when I was a deeply religious and hardline conservative I would have no trouble following these rules. I never treated anyone less than human because they had different views than me. Furthermore that “rule” you gave is a kind of CoC and CoC’s matter once the size of the organization grows. Its very easy to fall into a tyranny of structurelessness as an organization gets larger. This is because nobody can agree on what is right or wrong or what the response should be to a problem. By having a CoC you can agree as an org what actions are against the group and what a good response looks like. If you don’t have any response strategy mob mentality kicks in and things can escalate to threats and violence. After all if someone is a huge asshole and nobody is doing anything about it it would seem natural to find a way to make them stop.

                                                                                                            Frankly there’s nothing in this CoC that has any bias against conservatives whatsoever. Nothing in the CoC says you have to be a liberal, and it specifically protects people from false claims. Your micro-CoC actually fails to protect individuals from false claims.

                                                                                                            Publication of non-harassing private communication without consent.

                                                                                                            Publication of non-harassing private communication with consent but in a way that intentionally misrepresents the communication (e.g., removes context that changes the meaning).

                                                                                                            Knowingly making harmful false claims about a person.

                                                                                                            1. 11

                                                                                                              Depends on the job. Many employers won’t punish people who have political differences.

                                                                                                              This is such a disingenuous frame shift of the issue that it invalidates everything else about your argument. Being respectful is not political. Enforcing consent in interactions is not political. Being gay or tolerant of same is not political. Asserting that any effort to shift culture away from the status quo is an out-of-bounds “political” act is a cowardly way to attempt to silence those that you disagree with. You are personally guilty, to an incredibly advanced degree, of every evil thing you claim to be against.

                                                                                                              “Politics” is the process by which humans come to consensus for shared interests. Shitting on the less powerful and providing moral or intellectual cover for those that seek to do the same is not politics; it’s craven thuggery disguised as keeping things peaceful.

                                                                                                              1. 0

                                                                                                                Politics is whatever action affects the polis, and by extension any group of humans.

                                                                                                                Thus being respectful is political.
                                                                                                                Enforcing consent in interactions is political.
                                                                                                                Being tolerant of anything is political.

                                                                                                                In Italy we have the same kind of differences that @nickpsecurity describes, and we are used to joke about our differences a lot. And we debate harshly about many things, but usually these debates grow our relations.

                                                                                                                As an example, I had a girlfriend that was a deeply religious Catholic when I was atheist (and rather angry at Church). And we talked a lot about religion and politics back then, without that affecting negatively the relation.

                                                                                                                One of the best engineer I worked with voted for the worst political party we had in Italy for decades. I had the opposite view. We debated a lot. We debated so much about politics that when we had to design a framework together to under a huge pressure, we keep debating with the same style. And after 10 years in production, the framework still rocks the customers are satisfied and we can’t find anything remotely on par with it around.
                                                                                                                Why? Because we were used to listen deeply and respectfully the other’s opinion.

                                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                                  I grant that being tolerant is political, and so it follows that everything is political. Which means that my point is still relevant: it’s disingenuous to dismiss concerns about behavior as “political”, as though that made it irrelevant.

                                                                                                                  In Italy, you are allowed to have those debates because the stakes are much lower: you’re less likely to die from poverty, your livelihood is less contingent upon social approval, etc.

                                                                                                                  In the United States, it’s not like that. If you lose your job, you could die. If you are systematically excluded from high-paying industries, like digital technology, your quality of life massively suffers in comparison to those who are welcomed by that industry. All policies must be considered in the context of an entrenched and reactionary old guard that dominates all other effects. Any overt attempt to improve the lives of the marginalized is treated as a threat to the old order, and rightfully so. The stakes are literally life and death.

                                                                                                                  Mr. P. Security doesn’t work in the the industry, and largely speaks from a position of willful ignorance about these issues.

                                                                                                                  1. 0

                                                                                                                    In Italy, you are allowed to have those debates because the stakes are much lower

                                                                                                                    I do not know United States enough for a comparison, but sadly we have poverty here too. Our livelihood is not based on social approval, but it’s often strongly based on social relationships.

                                                                                                                    We just know we are all on the same boat.

                                                                                                                    So I don’t know if we are free to talk because we have lower stakes, or we have lower stakes because we are free to talk.

                                                                                                                    In any case, an international project should not be ruled according to the issues of a single country.

                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                      In any case, an international project should not be ruled according to the issues of a single country.

                                                                                                                      I don’t understand what this is in reference to, or what it could possibly mean in terms of what kind of governance structure or details. I was pointing out that there are cultural differences that make it easier or harder for people who are forced together to have disagreements about their values, or be able to set aside those differences in order to do something together.

                                                                                                              2. 10

                                                                                                                The CoC is about civility, not politics. And I can’t believe you don’t know that. So what is your purpose? Are you standing up for the right to humiliate people or be rude to them? That’s a principle for you?

                                                                                                                1. 0

                                                                                                                  Just decent managers or owners that respond to employee complaints…

                                                                                                                  Poor employees, at the mercy of their benevolent dictators.

                                                                                                              3. 3

                                                                                                                Wait, you believe without a CoC, owners of a project have less power? An owner of a project already has views of what kind of behavior they think is good and what they think is bad. If they don’t write it down in CoC, you are still at their mercy, but now you have to guess what the hell they are thinking.

                                                                                                                I’m not sure how a CoC increases any power they already have. You still don’t have moral agency because we live in a society where there are owners and non-owners. There is still a power differential. If you want democratic rule, then you need to fight against ownership by paper.

                                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                                  Even without a CoC the project owners selectively enforce hidden rules. I’m not sure how making the rules hidden is better than making them explicit.

                                                                                                              1. -10

                                                                                                                I know you get a lot of pat-on-the-backs when you implement stuff for the disabled. But I just feel like it’s rarely worth it unless you are at a large scale where the disabled population will offset the man-hours. Not to mention that different segments of the disabled have different requirements and the same special interface will not couple with all of them.

                                                                                                                So to me, I can’t help but think that whenever some megacorps implement these solutions, it’s more likely virtue-signalling rather than altruism or legit economic advantage.

                                                                                                                The problem of course, is that if we could solve this problem economically, then we would have solved it forever, but if it is virtue-signalling, then the incentive isn’t really to provide solutions, but to provide the appearance of caring, and so the mismatch will eventually result in the problem not really being solved long-term.

                                                                                                                1. 10

                                                                                                                  I don’t understand this comment at all. If it’s not profitable, why do you think companies are “virtue signaling” and not caring? ISTM you’re reading an awful lot into their behavior, under the odd belief that doing something good has to be for egotistical reasons, and not because you want to help someone out.

                                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                                    To expand on what I believe @LibertarianLlama is saying is, it’s possible this comes out of their marketing budget as a kind of loss. The upside of this would be that the PR leads to other sells, not necessarily of this product, but others.

                                                                                                                    In the end it doesn’t really matter. It’s a local choice of the company, not trying to solve a problem globally in an economically sustainable way.

                                                                                                                    It should also be remembered that helping people can be egotistical, in which case it’s a win-win! I find it personally strange when people sometimes boycott beneficial things because they’re suspicious of the underlying motives, when the motives clearly aren’t arming belligerents in a foreign war, or something else clearly evil.

                                                                                                                    1. -2

                                                                                                                      why do you think companies are “virtue signaling”

                                                                                                                      because they think creating an image will give them financial rewards.

                                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                                        I’m truly sorry you’ve never had the opportunity to work somewhere that prioritizes results over optics.

                                                                                                                    2. 9

                                                                                                                      Did you read the article? The controller is heavily customizable (it’s a platform, really), precisely to accommodate as many people’s needs as possible.

                                                                                                                      1. 8

                                                                                                                        I think you’ve put your finger on a significant contradiction in libertarianism. You want to judge the worth of the enterprise by economic returns: success is denominated in dollars and the market is the only neutral or efficient judge of value.

                                                                                                                        However, the other name for “to provide the appearance of caring” is marketing, and of course good marketing enormously multiplies the returns of a product, the world being annoyingly reticent to beat a path to the door of entrepreneurial mousetrap makers. Even in the very unlikely event that sales of this controller wouldn’t cover the costs to design and manufacture it (given that video gaming is measured in the tens of billions for the U.S. and this product looks overwhelmingly superior to competitors for the mostly-untapped wallets of tens or hundreds of millions of humans with motor control injuries), Microsoft could get a positive return on investment just from the increase in warm, fuzzy feelings from the majority of the market with no need for this product if they go on to buy ever-so-slightly-more copies of OneDrive or Office. The existence of marketing and cross-promotion means that the value of these products can’t be judged solely by the invisible hand of the market discovering prices for goods and driving firms out of business. You make this point in reverse; the long-term existence of marketing points it being economically valuable. There are externalities not on the books of a single product, just like how, in reverse, the market overvalues a polluter because the externality of cleaning up toxic waste or reversing climate change isn’t charged to the company and so can’t be reflected in the stock price.

                                                                                                                        But whether or not the economics work, perhaps in this instance we can settle for helping make an entire art form accessible because it’s a small act of basic human decency and we’re not unthinking monsters.

                                                                                                                        1. 4

                                                                                                                          I’ll probably get downvoted, but here goes…

                                                                                                                          I think you’ve put your finger on a significant contradiction in libertarianism. You want to judge the worth of the enterprise by economic returns: success is denominated in dollars and the market is the only neutral or efficient judge of value.

                                                                                                                          However, the other name for “to provide the appearance of caring” is marketing […]

                                                                                                                          Libertarianism is actually about the freedom to property and its action, where the individual is his or her own property. Economics is more a description of the market that emerges from action and property. Be it a free market or not, depending on the freedom to the underlying rights.

                                                                                                                          So when you point out a contradiction, there really is no contradiction. It barely exists on the same plane of reality. Anyone in business, who wants to stay there, knows about marketing, cross-promotion and all that. It’s a business strategy.

                                                                                                                          PS.

                                                                                                                          Libertarianism is not a game of winners and losers where money is how we keep score.

                                                                                                                          But in a hypothetical world where it were, Microsoft would likely end up winning with this device. As would the customer demographic.

                                                                                                                        2. 13

                                                                                                                          I think you’re right, but I SO don’t care!

                                                                                                                          As a partially blind person, there is SO much of the gaming world that’s closed off to me. That’s OK. I still sleep just fine at night knowing I will never be a Call of Duty GOD :)

                                                                                                                          However, when game developers and console makers bother to make adaptations available to allow me and others with disabilities to enjoy the beautiful mix of art and science that is most modern video games, I really appreciate it.

                                                                                                                          So, virtue signaling or not, this is a laudable move on Microsoft’s part, and I for one think we should all recognize that.

                                                                                                                          Almost makes me want to own an Xbox again. Only problem is that I haven’t had time to play a game on any platform in ~6 months :)

                                                                                                                          -Chris (Aside from iPad gaming in waiting rooms sometimes)

                                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                                            Even if I disagree with you, I don’t understand why you are being downvoted for this argumenter opinion of your. Anyway… thank you for expressing yourself on the topic.

                                                                                                                            To me it’s mostly about having a customizable solution for gaming controls, that can be used for players with disabilities. If you look at Nintendo, they recently launched this thing with customizable objects in paper to enhance the gaming experience, this is just how the Microsoft gaming team is implementing it! Bold move from them!

                                                                                                                            1. 9

                                                                                                                              Even if I disagree with you, I don’t understand why you are being downvoted for this argumenter opinion of your. Anyway… thank you for expressing yourself

                                                                                                                              Because it’s incorrect, and baseless bloviating in order to shit on the idea of not needlessly excluding the marginalized.

                                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                                            By the way, the tech in those cameras continued to advance, and you don’t have to buy a Kinect in order to get one.

                                                                                                                            https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/realsense-overview.html

                                                                                                                            1. 19

                                                                                                                              My one beef with these kinds of articles is that they phrase things so that it sounds like Google has a grand plan to destroy open standards, but it may actually be that there are many local decisions that ended up doing it. The CEO of Google probably didn’t reach down one day and say, “Let’s get rid of XMPP”. I think it’s more likely that the hangouts group decided to stop maintaining it so they could compete with other chat products that weren’t restricted by XMPP. This isn’t to say that a trend of this kind of behavior from Google isn’t something to talk about, but probably it’s either something fundamental about how to make money from open standards, or else something about Google’s incentive structure. If you asked Sundar Pichai to stop doing this, he would probably say, “I don’t know what you’re talking about, but we have never made “destroying open standards” part of our long-term strategy.”

                                                                                                                              1. 37

                                                                                                                                Their intentions are irrelevant; only their actions and the consequences of them matter.

                                                                                                                                1. 17

                                                                                                                                  If the sole intention of the article is to encourage other folks to avoid this pitfall, sure! If we want to also convince Google to stop doing it, then the practical mechanics of how these things actually happen are of vital importance. It’s probably the rank and file that want to do something innovative in order to hit quarterly goals, and are sacrificing open standards at the altar–getting those kinds of people to understand the role that they are personally playing is important in that context.

                                                                                                                                  1. 6

                                                                                                                                    You’re right that it’s important that the labor understand what the consequences of their efforts actually are; I think that’s what I’m saying, too.

                                                                                                                                    It’s also important that other people who are impacted by these actions by powerful actors like Google or Apple or Microsoft, but who don’t work there, understand who is responsible for these social negatives.

                                                                                                                                    It’s further important, for everyone to understand, that the directly responsible parties for that social cost are the corporations themselves, whose individual human members’ culpability for those costs is proportional to those members’ remuneration. Pressure should be applied as closely and directly to the top of that hierarchy as possible in order to convince them to stop it, in whatever way you can do best. The OP article is addressing the top of that hierarchy in Google’s (Alphabet’s?) particular instance, since they’re a very powerful actor in the space of the Internet and software in general.

                                                                                                                                    1. 6

                                                                                                                                      Additionally, though it may be helpful for third parties to critique actors like Google by having concrete suggestions or perfect empathy for the foot-soldiers caught up in the inhumane machine that Google in some ways is, it’s not the obligation of the victims to make things easy for the powerful. It’s the moral obligation of the powerful to be mindful and careful with how they act, so that they don’t inadvertently cause human suffering.

                                                                                                                                      Before any ancap libertarian douchetards weigh in with “corporations aren’t moral entities”, they absolutely act within the human sphere, which makes them moral agents. Choosing to be blind to their moral obligations makes them monsters, not blameless. Defending their privilege to privatize profit and socialize cost is unethical and traitorous to the human race.

                                                                                                                                  2. 7

                                                                                                                                    I think it’s more likely that the hangouts group decided to stop maintaining it so they could compete with other chat products that weren’t restricted by XMPP.

                                                                                                                                    That’s reasonable –by all accounts, xmpp is terrible – but the replacement could have been open sourced. This detail makes it clear that closing off the chat application was intentional. When GChat’s userbase was small, it made sense to piggy back off of the larger XMPP community. When GChat became the dominant chat client, it no longer needed the network effect that a federated protocol provided, and it moved to a proprietary protocol.

                                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                                      By whose accounts?

                                                                                                                                      The vast majority of “commercial” chat networks are xmpp under the hood, with federation disabled.

                                                                                                                                      Being technically poor isn’t why they turned off federation, it’s because federated chat gives zero vendor lock-in.

                                                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                                                        I believe you and @orib are in agreement when s/he says:

                                                                                                                                        This detail makes it clear that closing off the chat application was intentional

                                                                                                                                    2. 9

                                                                                                                                      On the other hand, the CEO of Google could decree that using open standards is important.

                                                                                                                                      I agree that this is closer to a natural disaster than a serial killer but an apathetic company doesn’t mean the outcome is better than an actively antagonistic company.

                                                                                                                                      1. 9

                                                                                                                                        I thought this article was fairly agnostic about how conscious Google’s embrace, extend, extinguish pattern is. This seems like the right approach, as we don’t have any way of knowing.

                                                                                                                                        We know from court proceedings that Microsoft executives used the term “embrace, extend, extinguish” (and no doubt they justified this to themselves as necessary and for the greater good). We don’t have the same window into Google executives’ communications, but it seems foolhardy to think that some of them wouldn’t recognize the similarities between Microsoft’s “embrace, extend, extinguish,” and Google’s current approach. Sunar Pichai could be lying to himself, or he could just be lying to us. Either way the particular psychology of Google executives doesn’t seem important when the effects are predictable.

                                                                                                                                      1. 4

                                                                                                                                        In their tests, shouldn’t the input be some kind of RAW file instead of a jpeg?

                                                                                                                                        Otherwise, how do we know the compression gains don’t come from the artifacts?

                                                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                                                          It probably does. But, regular lossless compression tools, like gzip, don’t compress compressed images, like jpegs, very well. This tool is explicitly for losslessly compressing lossily-compressed images, and doing it very quickly.

                                                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                                                            I tried to discuss this with the developer. I’m not sure what the takeaway is.

                                                                                                                                            https://github.com/catid/Zpng/issues/3