"Lighthouses in the sky" was pro-slavery & pro-racism Virginia Senator John Randolph's criticism of John Quincy Adams policy to build astronomical observatories throughout the US. Adams referred to the observatories as "lighthouses of the skies" and Randolph turned the phrase during the Congress of Panama to embarrass Adams. Could be complete coincidence that Dr. Getting used the same phrase, but this time with a productive connotation.
They asked if it could be "as fast as the JVM", which JIT is a crucial part of how the JVM achieves its performance. JIT in this context is referring to the process of a source file (.rb, .js, .c, etc), or usually bytecode, being compiled into machine code. I cannot think of an instance where a C source file is JIT compiled and dlopen(3) will not be happy if you tried to call it on a C source file.
And yet we were just talking about the JVM, which will not be happy if you tried to call it on a Java source file. Or is WASM an AOT compiler because it runs the equivalent dlopen of C code somewhat slower than the native dlopen?
Bytecode is not machine code, and I specifically said source files "or usually bytecode". A C program is compiled into machine code (and more specifically a platforms given executable format) before dlopen(3) is called on it. Not sure what point you're really trying to make.
I’m saying your definition isn’t logical since there are counter examples to those claims. For one thing, Java byte code is a machine code (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_processor Jazelle). These things differ in degrees of quality (along various axes) more than in their definitions.
This is an incredibly convoluted hypothetical trying to negate the idea that users notice and/or appreciate how quickly their applications start. Usually as a PM you are managing multiple engineers, one of which I would assume is capable of debugging and eventually implementing a fix for faster start times. Even if they can't fix it immediately due to whatever contrived reason you've supposed, at least they will know where and how to fix it when the time does come. In fact, I would argue pretending there is no issue because of your mountain of other problems is the worst possible scenario to be in.
I've heard this is a recommended paradigm for mixing, to only ever pan things R, C, L and nothing in between, but it doesn't make sense to me. Possible because i have to mix on headphones, but it sounds much too extreme to me. Sure, _some things_ can go all the way but i generally enjoy to fill the space between the far edges, and allow some reverb busses to blur the lines a bit if needed.
Is hard panning really strongly recommended like that, or just a hold over that the old heads learned and passed down
That’s totally not true. The original stereo patent from the 1930s is based on M+S signals, not separate channels, and was born out of a desire to position sound across a stage (movies).
By the time the hard-panned records of the 60s were made the technology was already old, it was just a stylistic choice.
I've recently been reading lots of books about 50/60/70s computing & especially the San Francisco element of it, so I've been watching Engelbart's demo myself on and off for the last few weeks. It really is amazing being "close" to all this time of history, even if the only way we can interact with it is over USB nowadays!
Tiniest footnote correction but not only were the desk & offices designed by Herman Miller; the chair Engelbart is sitting on during the demo was also specially designed by Herman Miller!
I've been reading The Innovators[1], which includes early computing history, just finished the section on The Mother of all Demos yesterday coincidentally.
Looting and pillaging is fine, as long as you build an entire economic / social system around it? Because that is the only semblance of logic I can take away from your statements. These museums didn't just pop into place for the artifacts to reside in; they were built to show off their spoils.
Take the Taliban example of destroying Buddhist culture in the 90s. They are/were the current people in power would you suggest returning items to be destroyed or carefully preserving them for future. Would you return items to a place incapable of taking care of them?
I love how an extreme example of one country doing this to their historical artifacts, is used to deny entire swathes of billions of people access to their artifacts. So all colonized countries must be damned by the record of Afghanistan (which itself owes a lot of its instability to meddling by colonial powers), while the British Museum must NOT be damned by it's own record of having hundreds of artifacts defaced and parts sold for scrap: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/style/artefacts-british-m...
Do you have any interest in talking about the British & American roles in funding, training, and arming the Taliban in the 70, 80s, and early 90s? Or would you prefer creating a hypothetical where we are burdened to take care of the people who just can't take care of themselves (after we wreak havoc on them)?
We can talk about the US and USSR proxy wars and how they trained and armed people on different sides because they did not want to engage directly. Doesn't change the fact that the Buddhist cultural items were being destroyed because it conflicted with their version of Islam. Handing them back would be unwise.
Well I don't want to talk about that first part, mainly because it's a very poor interpretation of history. You brought up the Taliban and I wanted to investigate that thought you had further. You seem to be trying to paint an ideological picture unrelated to the topic and insist on a leading question built on the assumption "if you give the artifact back, it will be destroyed".
> Would you return items to a place incapable of taking care of them?
Isn't this like saying "I'm not going to return what I stole because you clearly aren't capable of taking care of it, if you are it would never have been stolen"
I think there's a misunderstanding about the intention behind asking for return of stolen artifacts. It's not aleays about the artifacts themselves or how valuable they are or preserving them at all.
Returning items is like acknowledgment of historical mistakes and a signal that the other party is ready to make amends.
Merely acknowledging the mistake while holding onto the stolen artifacts is just a lip service that isn't even sincere.
It's like taking a pet fish from your friends house. He moves but you want to give it back to the new home owner who doesn't have tank. Not a good remedy. Neither is giving it back to your friend if he isn't allowed pets in his new home.
The fish should never been taken but trying to do the ideal thing will kill the fish. Be practical not idealist.
> These museums didn't just pop into place for the artifacts to reside in; they were built to show off their spoils.
You have a very cynical and skewed view of things. These museums were built specifically for the public good, to show off things that were of no interest in their original countries at that time. The British didn't say they wanted to build public museums to increase tourism, that came later as an unintended consequence.
Excellently written history on a period of time I am fascinated in.
However, I think the author puts too fine a point on the literal exact geographic position of the technology, and not the historical & material forces that manifested. Obviously every computer advancement didn't occur in sunny Palo Alto directly (just reading where your device was "assembled" will tell you that). But even this article trying to highlight the other places where all of this was going on; the author cannot be unburdened by the massive forces coming out of the Bay Area. This is most obvious when the author has to mention Xerox PARC but not interrogate _why_ Xerox chose that of all locations to let them start a "wild unsupervised west-coast lab".
I'll relent and admit that some of the people might knowingly have acted in the interest of the CCP, because you surely cannot be saying that it is not in the CCP's interest to avoid TikTok's divestment.
You are displaying a level of paranoia about the Chinese government that is clearly unhealthy. When US apps are facing legislation abroad that would ban them or regulate them
in unfavorable ways they also notify their users. Take a step back and ask yourselves what the multinational company TikTok would do when facing a ban in one of its most profitable markets. Probably rally their users to oppose it.
The Chinese government
and the US government exert their influence over companies in the same way -- regulation, backdoor conversations asking them to kill/mute stories, and NSL type requests. There's not some
government propagandist sitting at a switchboard. In fact it's the "West" that goes above and beyond with an entire technical apparatus to real-time mass censor social media to "protect democracy." If you don't consider every US company to be a direct arm of the US government but do for China then it's because your feeling about China than your feelings about social media manipulation.
It is in China's interest to avoid divestment because TikTok is a successful company making China money. And now it's in their interest to avoid divestment to not get bullied by the US gov't. If TikTok had the power you and others in this thread ascribe to them they would be more successful at swaying public opinion.
>If you don't consider every US company to be a direct arm of the US government but do for China then it's because your feeling about China than your feelings about social media manipulation.
I do. I live in the EU, and our laws arguably don't allow sharing data with US companies for that exact reason (Schrems II judgement)
It doesn't matter why TikTok does anything. They have shown they can influence their users en masse, and they're legally obligated to do it if the Chinese authorities demand it.
