No, you forgot that architects count the wind forces in, not just the weight of pieces hanging onto the facade. Give them dynamic spikes of factor 10, so it looks more like 1000lbs. Only once you can get your engineers to agree on only factor 2, you can build much much lighter structures.
No I didn’t, you’re talking about big sheets of stuff, which probably won’t have anything to hold onto on it. I’m talking about the fiddly little bits that he’s likely to be holding onto. A little bit of flashing around a window has a wind load approaching zero.
When I'm cleaning highrise windows I put a looot of force crimping window frames to move laterally. I haven't broken anything yet.
I've also done a facade inspection on a building where massive sheets of metal had been badly installed. The vast majority of them weren't connected to the structural steel beams, they were just held together by single screws (with no nuts!) that were falling off due to wind making the screws bore a bigger hole. A sheet had fallen off the 12th floor right onto the busy boulevard below.
you're not wrong, but i lived in Taiwan a while back for a number of years and things are built different there. it's not something you would necessarily notice unless you live there for a while, but once you start seeing it, it's hard to unsee.
the walls are thicker. everything is reinforced. external structures are bolted more securely. why is this a thing? taiphoons and earthquakes, is why.
if you like solid construction, there's plenty of it in taiwan. also, 101 is a flagship building. an item falling from the facade would kill someone or be a huge embarassment. this is not something they would let happen. just some local context fyi. that said, i wouldn't trust my life to those external structures either, but you do see alex testing as he goes.
I still use a 10x faster lexer, RE2C over flex, because it does so much more at compile-time. And on top of that has a bunch of optimization options for better compilers, like computed goto's.
Of course syscalls suck, slurping the whole file at once always wins, and in this case all files at once.
Kernels suck in general. You don't really need one for high perf and low space.
I also thought I could trust mega Corp. That's why I put all my code on their platform, code.google.com, and not on this obscure platform without any business model, github.
Well, that sucked. And why should I use protobuf, when I just need to share structs and arrays in memory (aka zero copy) with a version field? Like everyone else does for decades?
> Causal dependencies can be modeled as commit parent-child relationships.
And there we have the problem. Git does not guarantee these things. Git is no CRDT. A proper replication protocol would, but git not. Git requires manual intervention to resolve coflicts. You end up with hourly conflicts, which need to be resolved manually, or not. Leading to inconsistencies all over when two people merge and resolve conflicts differently. Let not people merge, the system must handle this automatically. As in all online collaboration tools. Like Google Wave eg. If CRDT or as with databases PAXOS or single owner.
For the source code in the repository, conflicts must be merged by users (or their tools, like `mergiraf`), just like with any other Git repo containing source code.
What might confuse you is the mention that a collaborative object may opt in to ask the user to resolve a conflict. Well, in this case, strictly speaking, it's not a CRDT anymore of course. But none of the collaborative objects commonly used in Radicle use this escape hatch.
It is clear that Git itself does not give you CRDTs, but Radicle implemented CRDTs on top of Git, which is entirely possible. This is also what's explained in the Protocol Guide. I don't understand what's the misunderstanding here, sorry.
Not just the source is laden with conflicts. Also all other data. One rejects a PR, another merges it, the next still waits on a disapproval. This cannot work without CRDT. It's worse than source
According to it, it seems that if someone registers autodiscover.com then example.com lacking autodiscover.example.com will make Outlook try checking if autodiscover.com has an entry.
Alex is just a bit too crazy to follow him. I don't like suicidal tendencies
reply