I think it is more accurate to think of them as syncretic. (that is what Wikipedia has them listed as) Their main focus seems to be on nationalism/anti-immigration rather than socialism. Many fascist parties historically flirt with socialist policies as a way to make inroads with working class voters so it is not always straightforward.
What is causing the recent jump in new arbitration agreements? I have gotten emails from Google, Amazon, Venmo, various credit card companies, and now FreeTaxUSA in the last few weeks with very similar policy changes.
The idea of a copy with no original is even more relevant than when the book was first published as it has become possible to use AI to generate fake images. (e.g. the million "Look what they took from you" slop accounts on Twitter that post nostalgic images of "traditional values" with clear anachronisms or inaccuracies)
Current events have also been increasingly defined by fake images or videos that can be made very realistic-looking at first glance. There doesn't seem to be any effective mechanism to stop these kinds of lies from spreading. Social media incentivizes this content and whatever fact checking or correction that comes after is too slow to reverse the effects of the misinformation.
> All a country has to do to find itself on the receiving end of punishing Chinese trade actions is being mildly critical of China in the wrong way, and next thing they know their exporters to China report being held up for months.
If Donald Trump feels personally slighted by a country, he will put massive tariffs on them or threaten to invade them. At least China doesn't have an erratic mad king.
Does anyone more familiar with Hurd know how they addressed performance issues encountered by other Mach-based kernels? I remember reading that one of Mach's bottlenecks was validating that each IPC message had proper permissions/access when sending them between processes due to the large number and frequency of messages.
Mach's problem wasn't that it had slow IPC, but rather that in terms of microkernels, Mach was pretty damn big.
There are some very fast microkernels out there, like the L4 family, which negate the IPC overhead of microkernels by being small enough to fit entirely in the L2 cache of most processors. Linux may only have the single IPC call per round trip, but it's a fucking huge kernel and there is typically a ton of cache thrashing going on.
Are you saying there is cache thrashing because callers often sercice rheid own requests themselves? If you don't want to service requests in the same thread, doesnt it mean you have to spend entire core(s) for running the kernel?
What even is a 20% delta in performance? Like a five year old difference in hardware design.
If I could get a micro kernel with a better security profile than Linux, that doesn’t sound so bad. I could easily be using a ten year old chip for my day to day browsing and probably wouldn’t notice.
If anything, Mach style IPC has gotten worse because of the greater overhead if kernel/user transitions. Spectre really did a number on context switching overhead.
Not true in a data center - 20% less work for same CPU is like 25% more cores needed for any applications where the scaling is driven by CPU utilization. That is $ - and people have made things so far from efficient many medium size companies have 100k cores to pay for.
I'm not a Hurd contributor ( or any OS kernel / library ).
I'm not sure this holds today. One example I can see is related to crypto. We used to have specific hardware for computing cryptography functions but it's now handled directly in standard hardware and the software has not evolved ( but it's been faster and faster to compute checksum functions )
Yes, you want to do more IPC, its basically linear with the increase in performance. So the amount of overhead stays the same basically. At least in IPC benchmarks and those tend to be important.
So for an I/O heavy program like a web browser, what percentage of CPU time is spent in syscalls? Someone must have that data for Firefox. 1%? 10%? And then that moves to 1.1% (or 11%)? And then every other program is even less affected? Curious if anyone is in the know.
Firefox isn’t io bound it is spending a ton of CPU parsing network buffers and rendering UI.
Nginx is IO bound in general - for my headless go stateful server, i could get syscall6 up to 20% of the profile time. It was a fight between GC in the gRPC code allocating for headers and the syscall6 for top single profile footprint.
Most RTOS for high integrity computing deployments are microkernel based, and the large majority of cloud deployments are running on top of microkernels, which is basically what a type 1 hypervisor ends up being, even more so, if it they are serverless workloads running directly on top of the hypervisor.
This is what I like about Haiku OS, they have focused a lot functionality and have that fairly solid, now optimization and stability is being worked on more closely.
So what is the rational reason someone who isn't a subject matter expert (assuming that's what you mean by SME) to bet in prediction markets? The platforms appear to be marketed to the general public to be used casually as a way to make quick money.
Someone who is a "subject matter expert" (and given how specific many of these predictions are, being an expert usually means you are an insider with non-public information) can indeed make money as long as a bunch of idiots with worse information place bets thinking they know the outcome. This is considered to be a crime when done with other securities.
They do it because they get a dopamine hit from doing it, have superstitious beliefs, or have delusions that they can predict events they have no information on.
Interested if you believe insider trading of stocks should be legal - aren't insiders just providing the market with more information about that stock?
I think a lot of it was driven by the Chernobyl disaster, which was a massive environmental and health catastrophe. But plants today are vastly safer than Chernobyl due to better design and processes, which I think anti-nuclear people haven't realized.
> But plants today are vastly safer than Chernobyl due to better design and processes, which I think anti-nuclear people haven't realized.
Even other plants built in the same timeframe as Chernobyl are safer (not even getting to newer designs/builds), because in the West they were built with containment.
The founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank isn't anti-nuclear:
The environmentalist hatred for nukes long predates Chernobyl (if anything Chernobyl was an environmental boon by driving humans out of the zone). It started as a justified disapproval of nuclear tests (especially open air) and military nuclear, but then nuclear militaries made sone pointed remarks about the health and safety of a few beatniks going against the military-industrial complex, oil companies started fl funding groups, and voila civilian nukes are an environmental problem.
The post you linked to seems to jump to conclusions, to say the least. For example:
> One probable outcome of an unsafe-language-dominant world is full Andrew communism, which is precisely what Andrew “Smelley” Kelley proposes: abolish ICE and replace the market economy with a globally distributed network of community-maintained allocators.
> Rather than a commercial product, software becomes a “public good,” ultimately provided by the Zig Software Foundation as manually managed digital infrastructure.
Calling him "smelley"? Really? Pulling in the political views of the founder of a language and claiming that they inform his language design as part of a grand conspiracy against Rust/capitalism? Where are they getting all of this? Free, open-source compilers and related tooling (both of which Rust and Zig have) are already public goods managed by global communities of mostly volunteers
> This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I have never met an unsafe-language advocate who could explain how this ecosystem is supposed to sustain itself without unpaid maintainers, ideological volunteers, subsidized infrastructure, and endless donations to compiler projects that still cannot protect users from basic memory errors.
How is Rust any different than Zig in this respect? Both are projects largely run by nonprofits relying on communities to promote, maintain, and improve them.
Frankly, that entire "Institute for Type Safe Memetic Research" seems like either an elaborate satire or an account run by genuinely insane people who think type and memory safety are paramount societal issues.
> run by genuinely insane people who think type and memory safety are paramount societal issues
So. Rust evangelists ? :)
But yes, it is wild that people can honestly quote such drivel as evidence of the language and its philosophy being superior.
Each time I try to evaluate Rust, I do so on its own merits. Going online I am rapidly convinced that I don’t want to be in the same room as a large chunk of its userbase. Statements start to sound a bit like that one time I was dragged into a pentecostal meeting.
If you saw the "Institute for Typesafe Memetic Research" and thought, "This is the den of Rust evangelists!" I don't want to break your illusion, because it's much funnier this way. Especially since there are like two people that like Rust on Twitter, and I'm one of them.
> Frankly, that entire "Institute for Type Safe Memetic Research" seems like either an elaborate satire or an account run by genuinely insane people who think type and memory safety are paramount societal issues.
You've been had. Your entire rant means the bait worked.
Laughable to imply that an individual retail investor will have any say or influence on a corporation as large as SpaceX in which Musk has a controlling stake.
reply