Oh no it's definitely a theoretical paper. Even if the theory is fully formalised and thus executable it still wouldn't give much insight on how it'd perform in the real world because theorem provers aren't the most performant programming languages.
And, FWIW, CS theorists don't really care about running programs same as theoretical physicists don't care much about banging rocks together, in both cases making things work in the real world is up to engineers.
Using bencode over json would probably speed up the web more. Not to mention good ole ASN.1 (well, at least some binary schemes for ASN.1). The web is completely cooked when it comes to efficiency.
I blame Bavaria. If Germany had multiple price zones like other European countries instead of one giant one prices would plummet here in the north, while they'd explode in Bavaria. The state that does not want wind power, does want nuclear power, but already knows ahead of time that its geology (with lots of mountains and granite) is unsuitable for nuclear waste storage. Meanwhile, north German wind power and Scandinavian hydro dams complement each other perfectly. The Bavarians could do the same with the Austrians, they just don't. They want to eat cake and have it, too.
After reading through the abstract the article is pop sci bunk: They developed a method to save additional space with constant-time overhead.
Which is certainly novel and nice and all kinds of things but it's just a tool in the toolbox, making things more optimal in theory says little about things being faster in practice because the theoretical cost models never match what real-world machines are actually doing. In algorithm classes we learn to analyse sorting algorithms by number of comparisons, and indeed the minimum necessary is O(n log n), in the real world, it's numbers of cache invalidation that matters: CPUs can compare numbers basically instantly, getting the stuff you want to compare from memory to the CPU is where time is spent. It can very well be faster to make more comparisons if it means you get fewer, or more regular (so that the CPU can predict and pre-fetch), data transfers.
Consulting my crystal ball, I see this trickling down into at least the minds of people who develop the usual KV stores, database engineers, etc, maybe it'll help maybe it won't those things are already incredibly optimized. Never trust a data structure optimisation you didn't benchmark. Never trust any optimisation you didn't benchmark, actually. Do your benchmarks, you're not smarter than reality. In case it does help, it's going to trickle down into standard implementations of data structures languages ship with.
EDIT: I was looking an this paper, not this. It's actually disproving a conjecture of Yao, who has a Turing prize, certainly a nice feather to have in your cap. It's also way more into the theoretical weeds than I'm comfortable with. This may have applications, or this may go along the lines of the Karatsuba algorithm: Faster only if your data is astronomically large, for (most) real-world applications the constant overhead out-weighs the asymptotic speedup.
An MVP should not be a beta version, but fully functional and bug-free. The idea is to reduce scope to not necessarily even release it (though that's possible) but to have a solid foundation onto which to duct-tape bells and whistles.
The MVP of a car doesn't have heated seats, heck the seats might not even be adjustable without a wrench, but it's absolutely going to drive and drive well and be crash-safe. Because if it doesn't it's nowhere close to being a viable car, go back and fix that before spending time on those seats.
Importantly, the success of the Beetle came after the Nazis. They built the factory using confiscated union funds as well as having people pay instalments for cars which they would never get, built two or three Beetles, then switched production over to war-time production, Kübelwagen. After the war the unions effectively took over the whole plant... and also bought a couple of farms to make sure workers and families had enough to eat. Most of that is gone now but they still have their own butchery, VW part number 199 398 500 A is a saussage.
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
"food" here can be safely assumed to include "water". "Everyone" means "also people who can't afford shoelaces". There's exactly one country in the world which didn't ratify the ICESCR and it's the US.
Regarding "uniquely evil": Yeah I'm definitely boycotting Chiquita (United Fruit) and Bacardi harder, both are still, effectively, whining about having their slave plantations expropriated. Both aren't exactly hard to do their bananas are more expensive than no-brand organic ones over here, and Bacardi, well there’s plenty of good rum, Bacardi ain't one of them. If you ever make a Cuba Libre with Bacardi I shall explode into tirades.
Plenty actually, like former slaves from plantations which sold products to Nestle.
...it's part of the reason why Nestle is currently lobbying the EU to not dilute the supply chain act, those kinds of cases are a PITA for them, and the documentation they need to do for the supply chain act is exactly what they need to nib cases in the bud, "Here's the inspections we did, here are transcripts of anonymous interviews with random workers at the plantation", "If something slipped between the cracks we deeply regret that but we did do our due diligence, plaintiff's beef is with their ex boss, not with us".
It is absolutely more expensive to pay an army of lawyers to defend yourself than it is to pay workers proper local wages and document that. Not to mention that people who run slave plantations don't share their extra profit with Nestle.
The other reason is that they don't want smaller companies to have a competitive advantage: Smaller companies are not subject to those kinds of lawsuits, and also the ones complaining about the supply chain act. Nestle is also not at all keen on a consumer boycott from Africa.
a best guess as to what the next instruction or data it needs will be
More precisely it's speculating on the results of a yet to be executed (but already known) instruction, e.g. whether a branch will be taken or not, and begins to execute instructions in that branch before the final verdict of whether it will be taken is done. If it guessed right, it can just continue, if it guessed wrong, it has to cover its tracks, making sure that what it did is in no way observable. It's the latter part, "in no way observable", that all these security failures are about: If you can somehow observe that stuff, you might be able to observe stuff you're not supposed to see because the branch speculatively taken was "nope, you're not allowed to do this".
All that might be hard to grasp without an understanding how modern CPUs execute instructions, which very much is not "an instruction at a time", Computerphile has excellent videos about pipelining and branch prediction.
I don't want to represent or speak for you, I want you to speak your own truth, and listen to that of others. I also never said that it's "all women's fault", I'm saying that generalised enmity is counterproductive.
I'm saying that we all have a part of the puzzle and if we all manage to chip in instead of villainising each other in essentialist terms, things would move along a lot faster. I'm an Anarchist, not an incel.
you scream from the rafters that men are hurt to, but NEVER when I asked for fucking help!
They were. They were absolutely hurt and damaged when they were not able to help you because they internalised a patriarchal narrative: "Men are perpetrators, not victims". It's there to replace camaraderie with hierarchy, institute a pecking order. It does not serve men a bit, hierarchy never does any good.
These two things -- you not getting help from men, and men being hurt -- are not at odds with each other. They're causally connected.
Ukraine didn't even want to join NATO. Before the invasion, that is. Also Russia doesn't get to tell other countries which alliances it can and cannot join, what are you, an imperialist or something?
I think people downvote quite more readily to show disagreement here, not in the least because downvoted comments don't get buried.
And, like, seriously. If you can't even muster thoughts and prayers, if you can't even muster being indifferent, can't muster simply not leaving a comment at all, but have to shout your disapproval of Ukraine existing as a sovereign state from the rooftops, you're an asshole. Unambiguously.
I was a young man who was sexually assaulted, and by a woman, and I still know that doesn’t mean that it’s equal. It’s people like you who de-legitimize what I went through by making it seem like a game of Brinkmanship with women, when in reality it was the women I spoke to who got me through it, and the men who asked if it was possible for me, as a man, to be raped, and then mocked me for it.
And what I'm talking about doesn't invalidate that for even a second.
I can't relate to it because male culture doesn't work like that over here but, sure, it sucks. Still doesn't make sense to ignore psychological violence in the overall picture, though. I'd call the stuff the men display there narrative violence: They internalised that they can never be victims, and then accosted you with their self-perception.
They are reminded that if they wanted to talk about that, they were more than welcome, but a thread about a woman who was talking about her sexual assault isn’t the place to ‘what about us.’
This isn't one of those threads. Yet what did you do? We had a thing going on, there, there was banger music. Seriously if you haven't yet listen to it. Use the UK subtitles.
The only place I know on lemmy on which it's possible to have a whole thread about this is !mensliberation@lemmy.ca. Press doesn't like to talk about it, presumably because of a predictable "what about the women" pushback, so it never comes up in the news communities. Plenty of sociological research exists, though.
Also cool dodge of having your entire argument torn apart only to abandon it and switch to a different one.
I didn't want to go into the weeds of how BKA statistics are police statistics and in no way, shape, or form, suitable for anything without taking both the actual criminal statistics (cases brought to trial as well as convictions) and other surrounding factors such as under/overreporting, current force focus, etc, into consideration. According to police statistics, if you report your phone stolen and then retract that because you found it again, that's a theft.
I said women can talk about being victims of violence and men always do what you’re doing right now.
When men talk about being victims of psychological violence, what happens then? That they have been driven into depression, even into being violent, by an intimate parter, parent, or such?
If you start a sentence with "all men" then you should take a step back and say "fucked-up men" or suchlike, is all I'm saying. That was even three words, not five. You can also say something like "men should speak up more often", that's a general call to action, and not a blanket verdict on individuals who might be reading it. The "yes all men" of this song (total banger btw).
This is a general norm I apply to everyone regarding every topic: Don't paint groups with broad, antagonistic, brushes. It never does any good, no matter who does it to whom or whatever the excuses are one might be able to come up with to justify it. The means are vile, the ends at best neutral, there's no benefit to be had.
Also side note at least according to the statistics over here in Germany partner violence, if psychological violence is taken into account, is almost exactly even among hetero couples and, in the overwhelming number of cases, mutual: Assholes hook up with assholes they just, statistically, express it differently. Things might very well look differently where you're from, another reason to not generalise.
When you're baking bread you want 1% of flour weight salt, plus minus a bit. For a quite standard bread made with 500g flour that's 5g, being off by "a couple of grams" ranges from none at all to twice as much. With a cheap kitchen scale there's no issue landing at 4.5-5.5g which is adequate. It's the rest of the ingredients you can and should adjust as needed but I'm still going to measure out 300g of water because that's the low end of what I want to put in.
But that's not actually the main issue, the issue is convenience up to plain possibility: The thing I actually weigh the most often is tagliatelle, 166g, a third of a pack, doesn't need to be gram-accurate just ballpark. Try measuring differently-sized nests of tagliatelle by volume, I dare you. Spaghetti you can eyeball, but not that stuff.
Oh no it's definitely a theoretical paper. Even if the theory is fully formalised and thus executable it still wouldn't give much insight on how it'd perform in the real world because theorem provers aren't the most performant programming languages.
And, FWIW, CS theorists don't really care about running programs same as theoretical physicists don't care much about banging rocks together, in both cases making things work in the real world is up to engineers.