Not just similar, it's exactly the same issue caused by exactly the same kind of change, and is probably hard to fix for almost exactly the same behind-the-scenes complexity on Windows.
The specification for an architecture is meant to be useful to anyone writing assembly, not just to people implementing the spec. Case in point x86 manuals aren't meant for Intel, they're meant for Intel's customers.
There is a lot of cope re the fact RISC-V's spec is particularly hard to use for writing assembly or understanding the software model.
If the spec isn't a 'manual' then where's the manual? If there's just no manual then that's a deficiency. If we only have 'tutorial's that's bad as well, a manual is a good reference for an experienced user, and approachable to a slightly aware beginner (or a fresh beginner with experience in other arch's); a tutorial is too verbose to be useful as a regular reference.
Either the spec should have read (and still could read) more like a useful manual, or a useful manual needs to be provided.
Yeah the other day in calc.exe I pressed F7 in programmer mode to change to octal (F5 to F8 select Hex, Dec, Oct, Bin), and instead it asked if I was sure I wanted to enable caret browsing.
One of the last straws that got me to migrate to Linux was how long it would take for calc.exe to open in Windows 10. Even on much older computers and much older version of Windows it was instant. Suddenly in the mid-2010's the calculator is so bloated you have to wait a few seconds for it to load? Fuck off.
It didn't always take a long time to load, but often enough that it was noticeable and 'worrisome' for the future of Windows.
Oof. That's a special kind of stupid. I get how it happened, but like, they found a way to make calc bad while also bringing an obscure feature in modern browsers I hate with a passion.
It reminds me of King of the Hill where Hank says "Can't you see you're not making Christianity better and you're only making rock music worse?"
Are you sure you are geoblocked, and that's it's just not the updated SSH host key change from 2022?
Actual, geoblocks can be confounding of course. After brexit I've personally thought of blocking UK phone numbers from calling me though... So could just as well be intentional
The copy on the linked "UK geoblocking" page doesn't contradict that, though.
The authors say, basically, that there's a risk of prosecution in the UK that would financially devastate anyone that works on the project, and that the act of determining how to comply with UK laws is itself an extremely resource-intensive legal task that they can't or won't do. In other words, they're geoblocking the UK not out of activism but out of pragmatic self-preservation.
That's not in any way mutually exclusive with collective action.
...also, couldn't deciding to geoblock the UK be a form of collective action? If that's what you originally meant, I sincerely apologize for reading it backwards.
To me it just seems like they are prejudiced against Brits or something.
I don't buy their statement about legal concerns given it's as vague as GDPR, and equally as inapplicable to a www git, and yet they've not banned the EU.
It's quite toxic to ban a whole country from your project without good reason. I've seen people break more of a sweat worrying about whether Russia should be banned from open source projects than the UK. It's not unfortunately unexpected, people love being ignorant about the UK.
This is very nice. I'm currently writing a minimalist C compiler although my goal isn't fitting in a boot sector, it's more targeted at 8-bit systems with a lot more room than that.
This is a great demonstration of how simple the bare bones of C are, which I think is one reason I and many others find it so appealing despite how Spartan it is. C really evolved from B which was a demake of Fortran, if Ken Thompson is to be trusted.
> Apple bundled BASIC for free because Woz wrote it himself, they had no software costs to recoup.
But in respect of Gates' letter, Woz didn't write that BASIC for free, he wrote it to enable his hardware platform and the time spent writing it is a cost/investment in the platform. Gates was just trying to make a business writing software without the hardware.
Also Apple are the ones that made Gates' sentiments a reality with the precedent set in Apple v Franklin (1983) defending the copyright of their BIOS software.
> Technically, in CA, the speed limit in school zones are 25 mph
Legally a speed limit is a 'limit' on speed, not a suggested or safe speed. So it's never valid to argue legally that you were driving under the limit, the standard is that you slow down or give more room for places like a school drop-off while kids are being dropped off or picked up.
> Yep, if I plow into stationary vehicles on the highway while going the "limit" that's not a very solid defense is it?
Well, people are doing a lot of what-about-ism in this situation. Some of that is warranted, but I'd posit that analyzing one "part" of this scenario in isolation is not helpful, nor is this the way Waymo will go about analyzing this scenario with their tech teams.
Let's consider, for argument's sake, if the Waymo bot had indeed slammed at the brakes with max decel, and had come to a complete (and sudden) stop barely 5cm in front of the kid. Would THAT be considered a safe response??
If I'm a regulator, I'd still ding the bot with an "unsafe response" ticket and send that report to Waymo. If YOU were that pedestrian, you'd feel unsafe too. (I definitely have seen such responses in my AV testing experience). One could argue, again, that that woulda been legally not-at-fault, but socially that would be completely unacceptable (as one would guess rightly).
And so it is.
The full behavior sequence is in question: When did Waymo see the kid(s), where+ how were they moving, how did it predict (or fail to) where they will move in the next 2s, etc. etc. The entire sequence -- from perception to motion prediction to planning to control -- will be evaluated to understand where the failure for a proper response may have occurred.
As I mentioned earlier, the proper response is, under ideal conditions, one that would have caused the vehicle to stop at a safe distance from the VRU (0.5m-1m, ideally). Failing which, to reduce the kinetic energy to a minimum possible ("min expected response")... which may still imply a "contact" (=collision) but at reduced momentum, to minimize the chance of damage.
I suspect (though I dont know for sure) that Waymo executed the minimum expected response, and that likely was due to the driving policy.
We won't know until we see the full sequence from inside the Waymo. Everything else is speculation.
[Disclaimer: I dont work for Waymo; no affiliation, etc etc]
The main concern I've got here is the gap between a human's intuition to prevent this kind of situation vs an algorithm. I'm interested to learn more about Waymo's logic here too and I'm hoping my concerns are addressed in their algorithm, it wouldn't be impossible and it would make their vehicles safer. I can believe in a scenario where these vehicles are safer than 99% of humans, and I don't think we're there yet, but I'm open to being proved wrong. The main point I'm making with my speculation and hypotheticals is that the safety of the kid that walked out doesn't start with them walking out, the safety starts before that, and it's worth comparing with experienced drivers with good track records and asking them what sort of things are going through their head as they drive. They're more perceptive than some people might expect, and I would guess more perceptive than the algorithm currently is.
reply