Ambiguë (ambiguous) and aiguë (acute) [1], but these are "old" spellings.
For instance, this word "ambiguë" was changed in the 1990 spelling reform to "ambigüe" [2] probably to emphasis the fact that the U is not mute (because for most -gue words it is, like for "fatigue" in french and english).
Like with ï and ü, the tréma mark is precisely the mark of an exception.
> It only really makes sense for extremely memory-constrained embedded systems
Even "mildly" memory constrained embedded systems don't use swap because their resources are tailored for their function. And they are typically not fans [1] of compression either because the compression rate is often unpredictable.
[1] Yes, they typically don't need fans because overheating and using a motor for cooling is a double waste of energy.
It's pretty hard to hide it from anything. Its surface is ~17000 m² (a tennis court is ~260 m²), and is 75 m high (~ 25 floors building - probably half of it under water, but still). And that's a mid-sized carrier according to Wikipedia.
It's not built for hiding at all, that's what submarines are for (and that's where our nukes are).
You don't have to search the entire planet. A carrier's general location is always semi-public. There are websites dedicated to tracking them, just like jets. And carriers roll with an entire strike group of 8-10 ships and 5-10K personnel, which are together impossible to miss.
A carrier strike group isn't meant to be stealthy. Quite the opposite. It is the ultimate tool for power projection and making a statement. If it is moving to a new region it will do so with horns blaring.
Obviously troops shouldn't be broadcasting their location regardless, but this particular leak isn't as impactful as the news is making it out to be.
Of course it's possible to find a giant ship. The interesting parts are that this vector is crazy cheap using public APIs, and the irony of the location source being the voluntary-or-ignorant active telemetry from a US service person.
It's possible to go to the moon, launch ICBMs, and make fusion bombs. It's news when something possible gets cheap and easy. It's also newsworthy when one of the most powerful and expensive weapon platforms in history doesn't have its infosec buttoned down.
Interesting point. On one hand they probably don't care if everyone knows where the carrier is (actually I'm pretty sure every military power knows where the other powers' military is), on the other hand from a "good practices" perspective, it doesn't look good.
Would it just be virtue signaling, or is there more to it?
>It's also newsworthy when one of the most powerful and expensive weapon platforms in history doesn't have its infosec buttoned down.
Well, peace makes you sloppy. No one is at war with France right now, and no one is realistically going to attack this ship.
If we were fighting WW3, you can bet sailors wouldn't be allowed to carry personal cellphones at all. Back in WW2, even soldier's letters back home had to be approved by the censors.
Ah, yes, Ticonderogas should be so far from the carrier so they couldn't even protect it, despite protecting their carrier is their main duty. Makes sense.
Data cache issues is one case of something being surprising slow because of how data is organized. That said, Structure of Arrays vs Array of structures is an example where rule 4 and 5 somewhat contradict each other, if one confuses "simple" and "easy" - Structure of Array style is "harder" because we don't see it often; but then if it's harder, it is is likely more bug-prone.
> The only downside was anything you shared with her would be spread in the entire village before dawn
It's a better service than FB or Instagram that depress because people only show their good sides there... As you said, she was an essential part of the community ;-)
> It's a better service than FB or Instagram that depress because people only show their good sides there...
Sadly it's not only that.
Social networks are "half-duplex" where you most likely to broadcast or consume at a time. it's not a true dialog. it made FOMO a thing. and worse, it's not only used for showing good, But it's being used to make complicated world events into bite-size good/bad dividing humanity instead of embracing and considering the complexity.
The problem simplicity is facing is mentioned in TFA with the keyword "future-proof", which is the typical instance of FUD in software. It is extremely difficult to fight against it, as, just like fake news, it would take 10 times more effort to debunk it than to make it. Yes, you spell out the cost of the additional layer, but it is invariably answered with "that's not so expensive", and risk aversion does the rest.
The cost is stupidly high, though. Look at the source code of [1].
The only good page to take from OOP book is the automatic and implicit pseudo-variable "self" or "this", that can reduce stack juggling significantly. I've implemented that in my (yet to be published) dialect and it works like a charm. In my experience, you can have that for cheap and anything more is not worth it from the point of view of a byte-counting Forth programmer.
Yeah, I didn’t mean far out as in good. Some people would say that the important thing to take from OOP is message passing. Which I assume is a no go in Fort? Regardless of dialect.
In communication protocols, you typically send a symbol which tells the receiver the meaning and the syntax of the message, and then the data attached to the message.
In technical terms, messages belong to different application protocol data units ("APDU"). The receiver typically uses the APDU symbol (which can be just e.g. a byte) to dispatch the message internally to the right processing routine.
Message passing in OOP is the same thing, and it's ultimately about late binding. Late binding has, indeed, as much presence as dynamic typing in Forth, contrary to other scripting languages like Lisp or Lua where they are cornerstones, so to speak. Forth is firmly in the early binding camp, to the point that it does even know forward declarations [1]. Forth programmers won't do anything unnecessary, and so they expect their system won't do anything they don't need.
[1] Many scripting languages realized that skipping declarations to be "user-friendly" was a big design mistake and eventually implemented some sort of "strict" mode that became the de facto default. So they have two language features that cancel each other...
Thanks for the explanation! As you can tell, I'm very ignorant of Forth.
But I'm not sure I quite follow what you're saying. Forth has early binding, explicit forward declarations, and message passing but not in the usual OOP late binding sense. Is that right?
You're welcome. Actually, Forth doesn't have forward declarations as a "direct" feature, but it has what I would call "function values", which can be used like functions and changed almost like variables [1]. This is used for all kind of things, including forward declarations because otherwise some recursive algorithms would be very painful to write if not impossible. It's still not ideal because it is an unnecessary indirection.
It could have message passing by doing what I described earlier, like you would do in C by having a switch-case function that dispatches messages to dedicated routines. It would even be easier because there's no type checking, and more specifically no function signatures.
That's something one could do in specific cases where it is advantageous, but otherwise I would say it is "anti-idiomatic" for Forth. In particular, although Forth has no problem with variadic functions and multiple returns, including variable number of results [2], it is discouraged.
Forth is generally trying hard to push things from run-time to compile-time, and Chuck Moore was very pleased to find a way to push things from compile-time to edit-time with ColorForth [3]: the user, by switching the colors of tokens, tells the system what it should do with it: compile it, or execute it right now, or do nothing because it is comment.
This is made by the company the inventor of the language created. Then he left it because Forth, inc. needed the language to be standardized, which wasn't his idea of Forth and, his point of view is that he solved the software problems and what was left was solving the hardware problems, so he moved to working on stack-based processors.
Swift Forth is literally a professional Forth and is well regarded. The other often recommend Forth is the FOSS GForth. They are good for starting because they are popular and standard, so you'll find help easily.
Other "smaller" Forth are often non-standard dialects and are more-or-less mature experiments.
There's none. It's kind of like the "hello world" or "empty program" example for arrays.
What this page shows is that the CREATE ... DOES> construct is similar to a closure, except it can only capture one address (or reference in languages that don't want you to dirty your hands with addresses ;-) and it is always a global symbol (like almost always in Forth). It is still useful to encapsulate implementation details, though.
Some people have said it is a basis for objects, which is a bit euphoric IMHO. You know, "closures are the poor man's objects, and objects are the poor man's closures".
The CVE itself only lists Chrome as the "affected software configuration", and I missed the line saying other browsers in the blog post, so I had a slight doubt. Other projects could use a drop-in replacement lib for the CSS, that's something one sees sometimes for other things (e.g. crypto libs - some projects have compile-time options ready for this).
They would have been if they could patch and release under a day. They are not affected only because they lag behind a little.
Why do you dream things up? no chrome based browser will do html/js/css different. it's all hooked deep in the engine. they only add things on top and change the chrome (the confusingly named ux component)
For instance, this word "ambiguë" was changed in the 1990 spelling reform to "ambigüe" [2] probably to emphasis the fact that the U is not mute (because for most -gue words it is, like for "fatigue" in french and english).
Like with ï and ü, the tréma mark is precisely the mark of an exception.
[1] https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambigu%C3%AB , https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/aigu%C3%AB
[2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambig%C3%BCe
reply