> I would highlight that there are many cases where you CAN move an object safely until a certain operation requires the object to "stay put" in place.
You could model this with a state machine enum where the "stay put" phase is a variant that accepts a !Move, like so:
If you control both the client and server, then yeah, you can use whatever protocol you want. Doesn't even need to be TLS, you could roll your own thing.
But if you only control one of the endpoints, then your ability to connect to a peer depends on what the peer thinks. And if the peer follows a standard that says your offered ciphersuites are all insecure, then you're out of luck.
> I have lost entire enclosures to lightning strikes on more than one occasion. Everyone thinks their IT skills are hot shit until they wake up to a closet full of burned hardware in the morning. It is quite a humbling experience if you've never been through it before. There isn't any kind of semiconductor process tech, file system design or RAID configuration that can save you from this.
It's not cheap to them. You have to adjust for purchasing power - the US dollar goes a lot farther in most African countries than it does in the US. That Land Rover, if sold on the open market, could yield enough for a Nigerian live the rest of their life in Lagos without having to work. An equivalent-purchasing-power bribe in the US would be on the order of several million USD.
The troubles of handling call stack recursion is downstream of the lack of strong tooling for static analysis of stack usage. Of the few tools available for generating a build-time call graph for an application, almost none of them can do so in a machine-readable format. AFAIK, the state of the art here is LLVM's dot-callgraph pass, and even that emits DOT rather than something more widely adopted like CSV or JSON. Outside of that, you have to build your own thing, either via runtime profiling or a custom compiler plugin.
Every RDBMS out there has an option to configure a DB-enforced transaction timeout. But that configuration is tied to a connection, not to a transaction. So using that configuration means giving up connection pooling. Which a lot of people don't want to do because it impacts latency and DB resource usage.
Every xact within a given connection will use the same connection-wide config, but the timeout is counting how long a single transaction takes, right? I don't see why you'd need to give up pooling for this unless you need different settings per xact.
Pooling means you're sending multiple queries (from different HTTP requests) over the same DB connection. A well-designed DB wire protocol will allow for pipelining those queries:
[send Query 1] -> [send Query 2] -> [send Query 3] -> [receive Result 1] -> [receive Result 2] -> [receive Result 3]
But in Postgres and MySQL, pipelined queries are not executed in parallel. They're just queued up for a single thread (per connection) to execute sequentially. Thus, if Query 1 is a transaction that takes too long, then it ends up blocking the execution of Query 2 and Query 3.
Shouldn't the training data be preprocessed to transform time values to a relative coordinate system? I would expect a time-series training pipeline to contain something like:
> A few years ago, I began to see the "labor supply" issues of slavery, and how the South was basically an economic powerhouse fueled chiefly by the labor of its enslaved people--so how do you reconcile that after the fact? How does a Union of freemen compete with that?
A large population of (deliberately kept) illiterate, uneducated people who hate their oppressors is a disadvantage to society, not an advantage. It is low-trust culture distilled to its extreme. A society like that is incapable of innovating or adapting, so it ends up leaning heavily on resource extraction. The cash crops of the South became a weak point that the Unionists exploited to their advantage in the Civil War - when the fields were razed and the shipments were blockaded, it became impossible for the Confederates to continue funding their rebellion.
> I began to consider slavery as an institution that compels "employers" to provide all practical necessities for "employees". That is, room and board and clothing are all provided to the workers, in perpetuity, and this in fact granted a lot of stability and assurance.
It is not enough for a society to merely keep its people alive. The other levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs are also important, or else your society will be unable to sustain itself, partially for the reasons I outlined above.
> Now free the slaves. Wonderful! Hurrah for equality and justice! Now, however, every employee, every worker, is totally on their own for those basic necessities of life. They buy their own clothing, they find their own housing, they're paying for all their own food, and that of their families, especially their dependents. I mean, that's a huge, huge difference. How is that even possible? Sometimes it's not. Is it any wonder we've had homelessness, and the rise of the welfare state, and slavery by imprisonment? It's no surprise.
Underlying this flawed argument is the idea that a person cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about what clothes to buy, or what house to live in, or what food to eat. Why should I trust your, or anyone else's, judgment on which people to empower with self-agency? Surely you don't need to be reminded that the colonies revolted against the British for much less egregious violations of that agency?
> So yes, freeing the slaves was the right thing to do. Let's never forget that! But we should also consider the economic "downsides" and the other side of the coin, so to speak, when it comes to the labor of free citizens, and what the average worker needs to do, just to survive, outside the confines of those vanished institutions.
Reaching this conclusion requires a naive ignorance of the second-order detriments of institutional slavery in a society, not to mention an utter rejection of basic free market principles. The ability of participants to choose what to do and how to spend is a good thing for an economy.
Wow you just came in here eager to expose all the wrongthink in my comment, and in the process, to comprehensively quote nearly everything that I wrote. I am sorry if a singular comment does not do justice to the nuances of the issues of the American Civil War and the Civil Rights movement after it. I am sorry that it made you think that I am an ignorant bigot.
But no, you have come to some very hasty and incorrect conclusions about my beliefs. I do not believe that "people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions". In the hierarchy of needs, when a person's food, clothing, and shelter are already provided and they do not need to worry about these utterly basic needs, then they are going to function better. A freed worker must not only pay for all of these basic needs out of their own wages, but must also make all the relevant household decisions, trips to the store, and maintenance, that is a crazy mental and physical load, just to provide for their basic needs. Yes, that is the cost of freedom. I am just saying, that freedom's costs should be acknowledged, along with its responsibilities.
And you say that I'm naïvely ignorant for reaching "conclusions". I don't think I've reached any conclusions. I've simply contemplated the situation more deeply than I previously did. Is that wrongthink? I should not need to apologize for discerning and discussing more nuance than most people are willing to do.
A lot of those options are necessary complexity, not incidental. 3D modeling and animation are just very complex series of tasks, you can't condense the options much without sacrificing functionality for some critical workflow. The only way to satisfy both:
a) Having lots of options
b) Making those options discoverable for beginners
is with some kind of nested categorization scheme. Any UI you create to render that will naturally converge onto a high-fan-out tree-like menu.
> A lot of those options are necessary complexity, not incidental.
I believe this is false. I believe we just haven't figure out how to do it. I know it's not the same but if you give a sculpture a piece of clay they do not need 10000 options to mold it. Even a carpenter or wood smith don't need that many options.
I'm not saying I have the answer. I learned 3DSMax in 1995 and write extensive plugins for both 3DSMax and Maya (and PowerAnimator). I think someone just hasnt't figured out the better way and eventually they will.
> I know it's not the same but if you give a sculpture a piece of clay they do not need 10000 options to mold it. Even a carpenter or wood smith don't need that many options.
The digital equivalent of those disciplines are only a tiny subset of what people do with Blender, though. If all I need to do is shape a 3D model, I could boot up SketchUp (or a similarly "easy" modeling program) for that.
To extend your analogy: if the sculptor makes a career out of creating hour-long 60-FPS claymations with perfect interpolation between key poses, grandiose scenery, and every frame fully painted in detail, be absolutely assured that the sculptor will have an entire workshop filled with jigs, armatures, robots and any other specialized tools to speed up the process and automate everything that can be automated.
Right on. And for all people's whining about it's UI and terminology being too confusing, it was designed for traditional maquette sculptors and it was hugely successful in helping them move into working digitally.
You could model this with a state machine enum where the "stay put" phase is a variant that accepts a !Move, like so:
reply