“Mild” in this case means you don’t go to the hospital (and/or the morgue). It doesn’t rule out long COVID or extremely severe (from a layman’s perspective) symptoms.
And that’s the same as other “mild” COVID infections, yep. The ones where you don’t die. You ignorant dipshit.
How did he deserve it exactly? They were being snarky, sure, but population-wide infection hospitalization rate is estimated around 2-3%, so yes, the vast majority of Covid cases were mild. That's not even a controversial statement.
Yikes - attacking another user like that will get you banned here, regardless of how ignorant they are or you feel they are. We're trying to avoid this sort of degenerate spiral.
Attacking another user like that will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are, and regardless of how bad any other comment is. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Have you never had a severe cold when you were young or did you get one of those stupid attendance trophies in school? Geez. I'm starting to wonder if anyone on Hacker news has ever gone through any hardship.
This, so much. I maintain corporate, closed-source components which are central to my org’s mission and have to request radical changes on PRs submitted by other teams on a frequent basis. It’s really not “perfectionism” to avoid introducing serious maintenance issues and bugs long-term.
This is like jwz’s interaction with the emacs team decades ago — the story was that the emacs team was being unreasonable about merging some changes jwz/Lucid wanted. If you actually read the correspondence, turns out jwz wasn’t listening to review feedback. The feedback was completely technically reasonable from a maintainer’s perspective and jwz/Lucid just wanted the code merged without consideration for the emacs team’s future plans.
To make progress in OS architecture, it’s optimal to have a clear view of the failings you want to address. The author seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of basically everything.
Unix is garbage in a lot of ways. But there’s nothing to see here.
It’s no mystery why. It remains unclear why the ownership rights of a digital signature — which do not also convey the ownership rights to the digital object signed — have any value whatsoever. So everyone not NFT-pilled assumes that the explanation is wrong and fills in the gaps: you must mean the NFT owner owns some portion of that image, right?
Think of it like a patron buying a piece of art but donating it to the public (museum, church, public square, whatever). You still get the prestige, but you avoid the hassle with keeping the art stored yourself.
We can't all be Rockefeller or Carnagies! I get your point - most NFT does not have great prestige and is probably more a question of speculation. My example was more to explain why formal ownership of a piece of art could be valuable even if it didn't mean ownership of any physical object or even ownership of the copyright. For people paying hundreds of millions for a van Gogh, the purpose is probably not the physical access to the thing (I assume it is just in some safe vault anyway, when not on loan to a museum) and it is not because they expect great returns on selling reproductions either. It is just the prestige of ownership and probably the hope that the piece sell for even more in the future.
What you say is true of historic artworks like a Van Gogh.
Almost no NFTs are in any way like a historic artwork.
An algorithmically generated cartoon character that is one of thousands, simply isn’t valuable. The fact that you have what amounts to a receipt for paying for one, is more a mark of stupidity than prestige.
The popular, misguided jokes about Gore "inventing the Internet" come from the work he did in Congress in the 70s and 80s, and into the very early 90s, when he was one of the first politicians to embrace and push legislation for it. He was definitely influential in its adoption and proliferation, insofar as politicians are important in funding all these things, and acting as evangelists. There's a pretty good Wikipedia article[1] about it all.
Of Gore's involvement in the then-developing Internet while in Congress, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that,
> As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high-speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship ... the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983.
> The popular, misguided jokes about Gore "inventing the Internet" come from the work he did in Congress in the 70s and 80s
I think most people got it from this interview he did with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. At least that's how I remember it. The jokes started flowing the next day. The number of people who knew of his work on internet related legislation pales in comparison to those who heard him say this on a major TV network.
Declan McCullagh, a now largely-forgotten libertarian opinion writer, seems generally responsible for the perception that Gore's claim was hyperbolic rather than the factual statement it actually is.
Yeah the joke/meme is clearly mocking that weird comment.
The narrative that OP has fallen for is so pervasive that I think it's probably misinformation created for damage control.
It's not that it's even a particularly bad lie as far as politicians go, but it is easy to prove it wrong and easy to makes jokes about it. So I think it could easily be considered damaging enough to warrant a specific PR effort.
I wasn't all that tech savvy but I was using the internet in 1985 when I was a university student. Oh, right, it wasn't called "the internet" and we used bang addresses for email and rcp instead of scp to copy files between hosts because security was physical locks on the room with the VAX in it, but it was continuous with what is today called the internet.
I was using internet email and Usenet in 1985. I wasn't "tech savvy" - I coded, but I didn't know much about the internet or email. I got access through a UK BBS system called CIX (Compulink Information eXchange).
I first came across Usenet through my employment with Olivetti. They were selling AT&T Unix minis at the time, so we had a Usenet feed via AT&Ts office on the other side of the city. Two updates daily, I think.
[Edit] For home access to CIX, I was using a 1400-baud acoustic coupler, which I had "liberated" from the basement of a former employer. Bandwidth mattered in those days - you could DoS someone by sending them ten pages of text.
Public access starts in the late 80s with things like The World and Netcom, but people were posting on the Internet in the 1980s. There's http://olduse.net where you can go and read old USENET posts from the era.
XPC sync is not in fact async underneath in recent macOS versions. It’s a severe performance pessimization to use async in many cases, because sync propagates thread priority and async often can’t.
You don’t seem to have a full grip on the reasons for the intermittent hangs you’re experiencing. Can I suggest two things?
1 Grab a sysdiagnose during one of the hangs and file a feedback report with Apple
2 Use the `sample` command line tool to see what’s actually hanging a particular process for yourself
Yeah, I've recently done exactly this for one of the hangs. Unfortunately Apple was extremely unhelpful, it took a few back-and-forths with DTS to get a response from someone who even bothered to actually read my bug report. (I just got a few generic replies "please submit an Xcode project" first). But even then they just kept asking me for a way to reproduce the issue, which I couldn't, since it happened on a customers machine, and disappeared after a restart. Even though the issue was reported multiple times over a couple of months by various customers, it took me a lot of time to actually get a usable sample from a customer. But apparently even a sample of the process showing exactly where Apple's frameworks are hanging isn't enough for them to start investigating.
I try to report all of the issues I see to Apple, but at some point there's nothing I can do except complain that Apple's frameworks are buggy.
The biggest problem with these bugs is that customers always seem to think it's an app bug, and there's nothing the app developer can do except hope that Apple fixes the issue. One early sandbox bug took Apple about 3 years to fix. To be honest I don't even know if they fixed it, it was never mentioned in a changelist, it's just that I stopped getting reports of the issue at some point.
When you get to kernel land it is "something async plus a wait"; there's no other way for it to be when the remote task is on a different core.
But it's a special wait that the scheduler and other systems know how to benefit from using vouchers/turnstiles/etc. If you look at spindump output you should see it.
