I haven’t hired anyone as a developer remotely who I don’t trust to get in with the work, in other words I would not remote monitor nor would I work for someone who did.
I think they may lack management skills, but also lack skills in managing remote workers in general. This could well be a condition put in by a non dev manager.
What scares me is that they do OS wide change based of wording "This can make", "And since we suspect" and "In all likelyhood" instead of doing actual tests. I know that open systems doesn't have required workforce, but doing changes based on subjective reasoning is slippery slope.
They care about making OpenBSD secure, not about producing security exploits.
Many OpenBSD devs are security researchers in academia. If they hear whisphers over beers that there are new Spectre attacks coming that exploit this or that, they might not be able to reproduce the exploit without putting a lot of work into it (it's research after all), but they might be able to prevent it by making a simple change, like disabling hyperthreading.
OpenBSD cares more about security than basically any other trade-off in OS design (performance, usability, ...), so it makes sense to me that they went this way. If you want a balance of security and performance, OpenBSD is not for you any ways.
Did it scare you when your operating system started to support it, on the basis that it would "in all likelyhood" be fine?
For a system aiming at security, it's a completely valid choice to disable things that start to look questionable, even if it's not conclusively proven yet. Just like potential software vulnerabilities are patched even if nobody has demonstrated that they actually are exploitable yet.
That's currently where I'm at myself. Do you feel that, that approach scales fine and you get a broad enough idea of where problems are for the general user and where you need to improve/change things?
It doesn't scale, in that you ideally want to test your app's UI/UX with first time users who haven't gotten used to your app's quirks yet. But it allows to catch a lot of stuff early on at the cost of buying them a coffee or a beer (if that).
Isn't this whole idea flawed? How is dynamic JS content update easier for browser than static HTML5 content? Overall amount of CPU time and RAM used will be larger so if anything it's not faster or lighter. Also turning off JS for site using this lib makes it unusable.
Well, youtube does manage to play the video instantly but having to wait 5+ seconds for recommended videos and comments to load is pretty awful and distracting once they load
The worst is that on Safari (at least, might also affect other browsers), when navigating to a different page and setting the player to fullscreen, it will go back to windowed mode when the other page components (related videos, etc) load. It's a nightmare.
(This is of course my opinion, not scientific fact) The biggest argument for EA is that proper implementation does not get stuck in local minimum. GD and SGD have that tendency, if not in one spot then probably looping between many. Problem with EA by the other hand is that its mathematical model is based on probability which is quite tricky to operate on even for above-average programmer.
I made some resource management tools that helped me in MMORPG's (ex EVE, WOW) and they had potential for real-life usage. There was also a episode in my life where i tried to predict random using simple neural nets in roulette, lottery and some stock markets. Fun thing to do but time-consuming.
Resource management tool was made before git when SVN was a thing so im more than sure that it doesn't exist anymore.
That neural net thing may still be alive, but buried deep on my workstation. I'll look for it and publish it on git eventualy.
There is also particle swarm optimization lib i made for it here:
https://github.com/CreoOne/ParticleSwarmOptimization
Well, you motivated me to actually get started with something like this - doesn't mean I can actually beat my procrastination, but if, you definetely played a big part in it. So thank you!
And if you go back and modernise it, I'm still interested in Github links :D
Off-topic: 2008 ... everyone was using G product (in my env at least). Imagine saying back then "10 years from now Google will provide military with artificial intelligence".
This was an obvious outcome to me. I'm a Googler, previously worked for a national lab (non confidential, but the military was free to use our free software products), and I always expected that one of the end games of a US company with advanced ML would be selling it to the US government.
