Wasn’t OpenOffice better than Libre Office, or is my memory playing tricks on me? Or maybe I was just more content with those kinds of GUIs when OpenOffice use to be popular.
From what I remember OpenOffice was great, but over time feature development and stability started to get worse. LibreOffice became the response to OpenOffice
LibreOffice was forked from OpenOffice around when Oracle acquired Sun. Shortly after, Oracle dumped OpenOffice onto the Apache Foundation, where it’s still being updated.
LibreOffice is considered by most to be better maintained and more actively developed, though.
As a Ruby community and as the Ruby language, we try to satisfy both needs at the simultaneously: we’re going to have the type information file separate from the Ruby program — the Ruby program itself doesn’t contain any static type information. Instead, a separate type information file, we call it “Ruby signature file”, contains the type information about the library, Gems and your programs.
We’re going to provide a tool, called the “type profiler”, which can collect the type information about your software. After collecting the type information for the library and your software, the type profiler has all the information it needs about all of the classes and methods, so it can then detect type contradictions — type conflicts. You can even refine the type information in your signature file by hand to afford better type checking.
I don’t mind taking surveys, as it is helpful for the broader community.
In this case I am not sure what is the data being used for which makes me not want to fill out the survey. For all I know this could be some sort of psyops operation under the guise of University of Florida grad students to build profiles off of lobste.rs users for some nefarious reason(not likely I know).
Who is your advisor, what is the topic of your research? What will you do with the data once the research project is over, will it be deleted? Will the paper be published so that we can read it?
How hard is it to put a timestamp/date on an article?
The author seems to have no issue with using a date to describe an iPad they’re talking about, why not extend the courtesy of dating the article as well?
Sorry for the rant, undated articles is one of my pet peeves.
I can understand how any of these things happen, but I do not understand why a development team would re-use configuration settings and give it a completely new meaning. That just sounds like asking for trouble. I really wonder what led to that decision.
Most likely some company policy on facilitating code reuse, or maybe adding a new flag would’ve been too much work?
Either way, this is a process failure on every level. It’s a fascinating read. I was talking to a friend about it earlier today and when I checked here I just saw it was posted 3 years ago, so a lot of new people could see it.
We do have a few remote-only folks, a remote friendly atmosphere, and try our best to maintain a good culture of communication (remote teams and employees keeping us honest).
On-site is preferred (Eugene/Denver), but for the right candidate remote may be an option.
The thesis of the article seems to be “policy can’t fix this, technology can”. Coincidentally(heh) the author is a cofounder of a cryptocurrency called “Consent Token” that allows you to use the blockchain to sell private information.
I hate it when people say “look at what this person built!” or “look at what this person supports!” as though it’s proof the person’s opinion is compromised. It’s totally expected that someone who holds this opinion would follow through on it by building something around it. If you’d like to suggest they’re just saying what’s convenient for their position, you can use as much popular psychology as much as you want; as is common with pop-psych, you’ll find false-positives everywhere.
the guy is free to build whatever he wants on the grounds of whatever he choses to believe. the issue with this piece is that it’s presented as some form of journalism, without any disclosure, when it’s not. that’s the same as having a pro-fracking article in a national newspaper, criticising anti-fracking laws, written by a guy who owns a drilling company. can you not see the conflict of interest? his opinion is compromised, it’s biased! worst than that, is that this dude throws around statements w/o much backup:
I would be happy if the GDPR would at least slow down data processing without my knowledge and by parties with whom I have no relationship, but I see no sign of this happening.
i’ve seen loads of web pages now asking you to consent to things such as trackers. doesn’t that slow down data processing? does it not actually stop it?
the GDPR has not meaningfully changed the privacy status quo
how come? what would a meaningful change be in this author’s opinion be then?
There are dozens of situations when it’s actually socially undesirable to keep it private, (…)
what’s the issue here? this is just rambling at this point. does gdpr keep you from sharing your data in any way? no.
Equally questionable are formal and bureaucratic prescriptions for better data protection — more documentation, privacy impact audits, formal training, etc.
Does anyone honestly believe that more paperwork will lead to more privacy? More security risks in handling of our data (say thousands of hand signed consents) are somewhat more likely, I’m afraid.
“hurr durr red tape”… this is just making stuff up… why is it questionable? why are there now more security risks? this article is total garbage.
is gdpr perfect? of course not. is gdpr solving every privacy issue? it certainly isn’t. that doesn’t invalidate it, still.
…the issue with this piece is that it’s presented as some form of journalism, without any disclosure, when it’s not.
Would you rather the article be written by someone with no practical experience in the field? This isn’t rhetorical, it’s a genuine question: do we want experienced and potentially biased people, or inexperienced people with fresh perspectives?
In any case, I don’t think experts are responsible for disclosing everything that has shaped their opinion. I don’t think any of us is. I think dealing with that reality—with the fact that every opinion belies an entire life experience—is just par for the course.
It seems like you disagree with the article’s points, which I can respect. (There are some points that I disagree with as well, and I hope you don’t imagine my argument as just an extension of the author’s.) Going after that person’s prior experience, as though it invalidates their opinion, just doesn’t make sense.
At home, I’ve been optimising my compression algorithm.
The encoder hasn’t received much attention yet, but I found a very nice trick for optimising one small part and it doubled the speed of the whole thing, putting it on par with LZ4. With tweaking it should beat LZ4 quite handily.
The decoder is where I’ve been focusing my efforts, and it destroys anything in the open source world. I’ve seen 60% faster with the same or a bit better compression than LZ4 on normal non-degenerate files, and I still have work to do. There’s definitely room for tweaking, and I want to try widening to AVX2. AVX is a bit derp though so I’m not sure if that will work out.
This is all particularly exciting because LZ4 has the world’s fastest practical LZ encoder (ruling out things like density) and I believe I’m in the same ballpark as the world’s fastest decoder (but with much less compression :<).
Next steps are to become #1 and figure out how to turn it into money.
I think they even had a real-world, case study toward the end involving life-like hands and cylindrical objects. Might be useful for bicycle games or something.
I’m observing compression-related subjects from the sidelines occasionally. (Lately I started providing some moderately recent Windows binaries for some compression-related tools, that are not widely available.)
Are you perhaps unaware of encode.ru forum? You can look there for some projects that were based on LZ4, like LZ4X or LZ5, and a lot of other interesting stuff, like promising RAZOR - strong LZ-based archiver for instance. You’ll find there knowledgeable people from the field and their insightful posts.
Sort of. I’m trying to avoid taking them head on because I won’t win that. AFAIK they don’t put much effort into having super fast encoders, which leaves room for me to focus on end to end latency.
This year, npm started using Rust in production to serve JavaScript packages. The Rust pieces eliminate performance bottlenecks in their platform that serves around 350 million packages a day.
All databases suck in their own ways, but historically I’ve found the hype around postgres to be pretty unreasonable. They’ve closed many of the severe operational gaps in the last few years, but you still see a lot of pain when pushed hard. Everyone eventually gets burned by the architecture’s performance limitations, multitenancy deficiencies, vacuum issues etc… It’s sort of like the redis of the relational world: lots of features, great for developing features againts, but gives SRE’s headaches when pushed into production at orgs with diverse tenant needs / high connection churn / high throughput / high concurrency / etc… Over time it will overcome these, but I don’t trust it with demanding usage for the time being.
I’m a noob if it comes to databases. Could you tell what alternatives to Postgres are there? I understand that answer is mainly: it depends. But maybe you could write a couple of “if this then that” alternatives?
I imagine that icefall was comparing it to MySQL. The best thing MySQL has going for it is that many operations teams know how to run it at scale and it scales well. Developers don’t need to spend a ton of time to make their SQL performant, they can just USE INDEX. Postgres is more featureful and “correct”, but it isn’t easy to run at the very high end of performance.
That being said, not many use cases require that high end performance and can get along quite well with Postgres.
AFAICT, most software does not run an especially demanding workload.
When the value your software generates is high compared to the (computer-and-therefore-operational) load it generates, correctness and features are in higher demand.
If this sort of thing interests you and you have 25 minutes to spare, this talk by Tal Oppenheimer contains these facts and many more! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmg1ECC2r2Q
Edit: if you don’t have much time, here are some bits I found:
02:00 Internet usage growth in India is over 100x larger than any other country (sorry I mistakenly attributed this to “developing countries” in general) https://youtu.be/Vmg1ECC2r2Q?t=120
On the other hand, these people from developing countries probably don’t have access to super-fast LTE either, so having access to Wi-Fi would be an improvement for them.
This number is lower in developed countries (10%-20%) but is increasing rapidly.
Where do these numbers come from? They seem pretty high given that free Wi-Fi is everywhere nowadays. Are there any “heavy” internet users in that group or is it just people who replaced SMS with WhatsApp and aren’t even aware they’re on the internet now? Those people never really needed Wi-Fi anyways.
I really doubt that anyone would want a phone with no wi-fi. If it were the case that you have absolute 4G LTE coverage everywhere you go(with the right modem to support the different frequencies in different parts of the world) and have no data cap at an affordable price, then maybe.
I don’t know about other people, but if a phone has no Wi-Fi chip on it, I’m not going to even consider it.
Do you have any examples of manufacturers not putting a Wi-Fi chip in a phone nowadays?
Reading Tarn’s interviews makes me always want to become a video game developer.
“But if it were something harder, like, what if the price of teleportation is uncontrolled nausea for a week and you lose a quarter of your blood, or something like that? I don’t know how much blood people can live without. But you’re just completely out of it for a week or a month. There’s still cases where teleport is valuable. So then you need to teach them sort of a cost/benefit analysis type thing. Which, I don’t want to be too flippant, but it’s not much different than having a different movement value for a forest than a grassland. There’s a cost to this movement, and the cost is, ‘how much do I value my blood? And how much do I value not being sick all the time?’”
In quantum mechanics, there’s this thing called the Schrödinger equation. As an extremely oversimplified description, it says that you can describe the entire quantum in terms of the “Hamiltonian” operator. It’s a nonlinear partial differential equation, so really messy to work with, but hypothetically you can reduce everything in quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, chemistry, biology, weather patterns, etc to solving the Hamiltonian. That doesn’t mean, though, that it’s easy. Here’s roughly where we are in terms of complete solutions.
Proton: Trivial.
Proton + 1 electron: Tricky, but we solved this almost a century ago.
Proton + 2 electrons:Holy shit what the fuck is going on
Even with a single unified equation, you very quickly hit systems where you’re pretty much stuck. And that’s just three particles! Once you give up analytic solutions, you’re now in a world of emergent phenomena, where small quantum rules avalanche through a system and lead to bizarre macro-level properties. For example, if you model a metal as a free sea of electrons and add a slight force coming from the ions in the lattice, you suddenly get “forbidden zones” of electron energy, aka band gaps. Then that cascades to make insulators and semiconductors possible, which cascades into transistors, which cascades into, well, computers. So a very slight change in the electron model gives you a universe where I can ramble about my undergrad classes to a complete stranger who may or may not be on the other side of the world.
Dwarf Fortress might just be graph traversal and topological sort. Glass is just a bunch of harmonic springs. Weather is just Newton’s equations spread over a lot of particles. Doesn’t mean that we understand it, can predict it, or don’t find it mysterious and full of wonder.
Funny, that the same 1-2-3 pattern holds just for Newtonian gravity an orbits.
Single object in empty space: trivial. Two objects: Kepler’s laws hold precisely. Star-planet-moon: Well, up to some approximation… Three stars of comparable masses: oh no not this.
But does having a simple structure underneath weaken or strengthen magic-ness (especially if the details in the next level are carefully thought out)? After all, a digital clock is less magic than a digital clock running on Conway’s Life.
Is that different from seeing human relations as applied decision theory?
Which immediately suggests that Tarn should add in irrationality and biases to dwarf logic… assuming he hasn’t already.
Losing my blood probably will hurt a bit immediately and may have serious long-term impacts, but those are quite a bit more difficult to measure so let’s assign that negative value at 1/10th its actual cost.
By installing libre office? Oh! Oh! Oh. Sorry, I had to make this bad joke
Wasn’t OpenOffice better than Libre Office, or is my memory playing tricks on me? Or maybe I was just more content with those kinds of GUIs when OpenOffice use to be popular.
From what I remember OpenOffice was great, but over time feature development and stability started to get worse. LibreOffice became the response to OpenOffice
LibreOffice was forked from OpenOffice around when Oracle acquired Sun. Shortly after, Oracle dumped OpenOffice onto the Apache Foundation, where it’s still being updated.
LibreOffice is considered by most to be better maintained and more actively developed, though.
Thanks for the context!
Depreciation warnings would probably work better if there was a date provided on when the depreciation becomes an error.
I’m interested to see how that works out.
Works pretty well in OCaml!
I don’t mind taking surveys, as it is helpful for the broader community.
In this case I am not sure what is the data being used for which makes me not want to fill out the survey. For all I know this could be some sort of psyops operation under the guise of University of Florida grad students to build profiles off of lobste.rs users for some nefarious reason(not likely I know).
Who is your advisor, what is the topic of your research? What will you do with the data once the research project is over, will it be deleted? Will the paper be published so that we can read it?
How hard is it to put a timestamp/date on an article?
The author seems to have no issue with using a date to describe an iPad they’re talking about, why not extend the courtesy of dating the article as well?
Sorry for the rant, undated articles is one of my pet peeves.
I can understand how any of these things happen, but I do not understand why a development team would re-use configuration settings and give it a completely new meaning. That just sounds like asking for trouble. I really wonder what led to that decision.
Most likely some company policy on facilitating code reuse, or maybe adding a new flag would’ve been too much work?
Either way, this is a process failure on every level. It’s a fascinating read. I was talking to a friend about it earlier today and when I checked here I just saw it was posted 3 years ago, so a lot of new people could see it.
We are. Especially interested in devops candidates (aws/terraform/saltstack).
Hi.
Do you have remote positions(US based)?
We do have a few remote-only folks, a remote friendly atmosphere, and try our best to maintain a good culture of communication (remote teams and employees keeping us honest).
On-site is preferred (Eugene/Denver), but for the right candidate remote may be an option.
This reads like an opinion-as-proof fluff piece.
The thesis of the article seems to be “policy can’t fix this, technology can”. Coincidentally(heh) the author is a cofounder of a cryptocurrency called “Consent Token” that allows you to use the blockchain to sell private information.
https://thenextweb.com/author/mindaugas-kiskis/ http://www.consentok.com/
I hate it when people say “look at what this person built!” or “look at what this person supports!” as though it’s proof the person’s opinion is compromised. It’s totally expected that someone who holds this opinion would follow through on it by building something around it. If you’d like to suggest they’re just saying what’s convenient for their position, you can use as much popular psychology as much as you want; as is common with pop-psych, you’ll find false-positives everywhere.
the guy is free to build whatever he wants on the grounds of whatever he choses to believe. the issue with this piece is that it’s presented as some form of journalism, without any disclosure, when it’s not. that’s the same as having a pro-fracking article in a national newspaper, criticising anti-fracking laws, written by a guy who owns a drilling company. can you not see the conflict of interest? his opinion is compromised, it’s biased! worst than that, is that this dude throws around statements w/o much backup:
i’ve seen loads of web pages now asking you to consent to things such as trackers. doesn’t that slow down data processing? does it not actually stop it?
how come? what would a meaningful change be in this author’s opinion
bethen?what’s the issue here? this is just rambling at this point. does gdpr keep you from sharing your data in any way? no.
“hurr durr red tape”… this is just making stuff up… why is it questionable? why are there now more security risks? this article is total garbage.
is gdpr perfect? of course not. is gdpr solving every privacy issue? it certainly isn’t. that doesn’t invalidate it, still.
Would you rather the article be written by someone with no practical experience in the field? This isn’t rhetorical, it’s a genuine question: do we want experienced and potentially biased people, or inexperienced people with fresh perspectives?
In any case, I don’t think experts are responsible for disclosing everything that has shaped their opinion. I don’t think any of us is. I think dealing with that reality—with the fact that every opinion belies an entire life experience—is just par for the course.
It seems like you disagree with the article’s points, which I can respect. (There are some points that I disagree with as well, and I hope you don’t imagine my argument as just an extension of the author’s.) Going after that person’s prior experience, as though it invalidates their opinion, just doesn’t make sense.
I like the shade that this disclosure is throwing:
At home, I’ve been optimising my compression algorithm.
The encoder hasn’t received much attention yet, but I found a very nice trick for optimising one small part and it doubled the speed of the whole thing, putting it on par with LZ4. With tweaking it should beat LZ4 quite handily.
The decoder is where I’ve been focusing my efforts, and it destroys anything in the open source world. I’ve seen 60% faster with the same or a bit better compression than LZ4 on normal non-degenerate files, and I still have work to do. There’s definitely room for tweaking, and I want to try widening to AVX2. AVX is a bit derp though so I’m not sure if that will work out.
This is all particularly exciting because LZ4 has the world’s fastest practical LZ encoder (ruling out things like density) and I believe I’m in the same ballpark as the world’s fastest decoder (but with much less compression :<).
Next steps are to become #1 and figure out how to turn it into money.
I believe there’s a ‘documentary’ called Silicon Valley that can be a good starting guide.
I think they even had a real-world, case study toward the end involving life-like hands and cylindrical objects. Might be useful for bicycle games or something.
Good luck with your project!
I’m observing compression-related subjects from the sidelines occasionally. (Lately I started providing some moderately recent Windows binaries for some compression-related tools, that are not widely available.)
Are you perhaps unaware of encode.ru forum? You can look there for some projects that were based on LZ4, like LZ4X or LZ5, and a lot of other interesting stuff, like promising RAZOR - strong LZ-based archiver for instance. You’ll find there knowledgeable people from the field and their insightful posts.
Giving RAD a run for their money eh? :)
Sort of. I’m trying to avoid taking them head on because I won’t win that. AFAIK they don’t put much effort into having super fast encoders, which leaves room for me to focus on end to end latency.
The website of the discoverer is https://shiptracker.shodan.io/ but it’s currently dead under load.
It means you don’t have enough karma, I think.
I think it’s 50 karma, but don’t quote me on that.
Yep, it looks like 50.
https://github.com/jcs/lobsters/blob/308eee7cb9f1e89f5ae580e3785d8b2c21bb96fe/app/models/user.rb#L87-L97
One of the neatest things about Lobsters is how people can answer questions about rules by referencing published, source code.
Amen to this! I’ve had lingering questions at times, but refrained from posting because I looked at the source code!
I sometimes also do the same with Cisco Spark. Before I report an issue, I try to find relevant source code and sometimes even open a PR or two.
Oh how I wish more people did this. Read the source, Luke!
The part that really stood out to me is:
This year, npm started using Rust in production to serve JavaScript packages. The Rust pieces eliminate performance bottlenecks in their platform that serves around 350 million packages a day.
Oh the sweet, sweet irony.
we need to go deeper with the tag suggestions.
I do agree though, it would be nice to filter out the tag suggestion type posts from the meta posts that are usually about the community itself.
All databases suck in their own ways, but historically I’ve found the hype around postgres to be pretty unreasonable. They’ve closed many of the severe operational gaps in the last few years, but you still see a lot of pain when pushed hard. Everyone eventually gets burned by the architecture’s performance limitations, multitenancy deficiencies, vacuum issues etc… It’s sort of like the redis of the relational world: lots of features, great for developing features againts, but gives SRE’s headaches when pushed into production at orgs with diverse tenant needs / high connection churn / high throughput / high concurrency / etc… Over time it will overcome these, but I don’t trust it with demanding usage for the time being.
Could you expand more, or maybe share a link, about the Redis critique? I’m curious to learn more about that.
I’m a noob if it comes to databases. Could you tell what alternatives to Postgres are there? I understand that answer is mainly: it depends. But maybe you could write a couple of “if this then that” alternatives?
I imagine that icefall was comparing it to MySQL. The best thing MySQL has going for it is that many operations teams know how to run it at scale and it scales well. Developers don’t need to spend a ton of time to make their SQL performant, they can just USE INDEX. Postgres is more featureful and “correct”, but it isn’t easy to run at the very high end of performance.
That being said, not many use cases require that high end performance and can get along quite well with Postgres.
But you need to avoid JOINs when using MySQL, especially when involving more than one table.
AFAICT, most software does not run an especially demanding workload.
When the value your software generates is high compared to the (computer-and-therefore-operational) load it generates, correctness and features are in higher demand.
This is from March 31 of last year, which means it was probably April 1 somewhere in the world when it was sent. So I’m guessing this was a prank?
Yep, it has the satire tag too.
Weird. People like this submission but not the other one? https://lobste.rs/s/drhisn/docker_project_renamed_moby
I guess it’s what people see first and at what time of day they see it?
My knee-jerk reaction is: no, Wi-Fi isn’t going away. But let me present a few Interesting Facts™ about the state of the internet today:
Taking these trends into consideration, it’s not so far-fetched to imagine a world without Wi-Fi.
Where are these facts from?
Username checks out. :P
If this sort of thing interests you and you have 25 minutes to spare, this talk by Tal Oppenheimer contains these facts and many more! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmg1ECC2r2Q
Edit: if you don’t have much time, here are some bits I found:
On the other hand, these people from developing countries probably don’t have access to super-fast LTE either, so having access to Wi-Fi would be an improvement for them.
Where do these numbers come from? They seem pretty high given that free Wi-Fi is everywhere nowadays. Are there any “heavy” internet users in that group or is it just people who replaced SMS with WhatsApp and aren’t even aware they’re on the internet now? Those people never really needed Wi-Fi anyways.
You would be quite surprised. I’m in Kenya now and the 4G here is quite a bit better than my Sprint/Tmobile connection was in the US.
It’s kind of weird that in a rural Kenyan farm, where maybe 4 people in range of the cell tower have smartphones, I can get 4g.
Even if your numbers are accurate, you could just as easily theorise that WiFi usage will increase in developing countries as demand grows.
I really doubt that anyone would want a phone with no wi-fi. If it were the case that you have absolute 4G LTE coverage everywhere you go(with the right modem to support the different frequencies in different parts of the world) and have no data cap at an affordable price, then maybe.
I don’t know about other people, but if a phone has no Wi-Fi chip on it, I’m not going to even consider it.
Do you have any examples of manufacturers not putting a Wi-Fi chip in a phone nowadays?
Reading Tarn’s interviews makes me always want to become a video game developer.
“But if it were something harder, like, what if the price of teleportation is uncontrolled nausea for a week and you lose a quarter of your blood, or something like that? I don’t know how much blood people can live without. But you’re just completely out of it for a week or a month. There’s still cases where teleport is valuable. So then you need to teach them sort of a cost/benefit analysis type thing. Which, I don’t want to be too flippant, but it’s not much different than having a different movement value for a forest than a grassland. There’s a cost to this movement, and the cost is, ‘how much do I value my blood? And how much do I value not being sick all the time?’”
The flip side of this is that once you see Dwarf Fortress for graph traversal and topological sort, it loses a lot of its magic.
Physics story time!
In quantum mechanics, there’s this thing called the Schrödinger equation. As an extremely oversimplified description, it says that you can describe the entire quantum in terms of the “Hamiltonian” operator. It’s a nonlinear partial differential equation, so really messy to work with, but hypothetically you can reduce everything in quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, chemistry, biology, weather patterns, etc to solving the Hamiltonian. That doesn’t mean, though, that it’s easy. Here’s roughly where we are in terms of complete solutions.
Even with a single unified equation, you very quickly hit systems where you’re pretty much stuck. And that’s just three particles! Once you give up analytic solutions, you’re now in a world of emergent phenomena, where small quantum rules avalanche through a system and lead to bizarre macro-level properties. For example, if you model a metal as a free sea of electrons and add a slight force coming from the ions in the lattice, you suddenly get “forbidden zones” of electron energy, aka band gaps. Then that cascades to make insulators and semiconductors possible, which cascades into transistors, which cascades into, well, computers. So a very slight change in the electron model gives you a universe where I can ramble about my undergrad classes to a complete stranger who may or may not be on the other side of the world.
Dwarf Fortress might just be graph traversal and topological sort. Glass is just a bunch of harmonic springs. Weather is just Newton’s equations spread over a lot of particles. Doesn’t mean that we understand it, can predict it, or don’t find it mysterious and full of wonder.
Funny, that the same 1-2-3 pattern holds just for Newtonian gravity an orbits.
Single object in empty space: trivial.
Two objects: Kepler’s laws hold precisely.
Star-planet-moon: Well, up to some approximation…
Three stars of comparable masses: oh no not this.
But does having a simple structure underneath weaken or strengthen magic-ness (especially if the details in the next level are carefully thought out)? After all, a digital clock is less magic than a digital clock running on Conway’s Life.
That’s probably a matter of perspective.
Is that different from seeing human relations as applied decision theory?
Which immediately suggests that Tarn should add in irrationality and biases to dwarf logic… assuming he hasn’t already.
Losing my blood probably will hurt a bit immediately and may have serious long-term impacts, but those are quite a bit more difficult to measure so let’s assign that negative value at 1/10th its actual cost.
To be fair, we don’t know that the Universe we’re currently in isn’t much more than graph traversal and topological sorts.
What is the source for that, if I may ask? Not that I doubt you, but I’d be interested in explanations of how DF works under the hood.