1. In 2010 you were CTO of McAfee when they shipped DAT file version 5958 which caused thousands of computers to crash.
In 2024 you’re CEO of CrowdStrike which has caused millions of computers to crash. Why haven’t you learned from your mistake the first time and how many do you aim to crash in 2038?
2. McAfee was forced to sell itself to Intel as a result. Who do you think will buy CrowdStrike once this debacle is over?
3. You left McAfee because you saw a laptop on a plane take 15 minutes to upgrade McAfee’s software. What do you have to say to everyone who was on a plane that was grounded for hours because of the CrowdStrike upgrade?
4. You were paid 46 million USD for the previous year. How much do you think you personally owe in compensation for your latest blunder?
Because the type of voting system to use ends up being subject to the same problem as the voting system it's trying to replace.
I live in Ontario, Canada, where there was a referendum on switching our voting system from first past the post. What ended up happening is that everyone starts to bicker over which specific voting system to switch to, proportional representation, run-off, this system, that system... so how do you vote for which alternative voting system to use?
While most people agree first past the post is a terrible system, not enough people are willing to unite to pick an alternative to replace it.
So approval voting probably is a fine system, but if you open the door to approval voting then you open the door to a host of other systems which act as spoilers and you're left with the status quo.
Microsoft has probably the largest support organization of any software company. A lot of it is outsourced support that mostly runs through support trees, but enterprises can and do pay for support from actual employees who can actually debug issues and involve developers when needed.
There's the whole Ishikawa situation going on taking up the news in Japan, so I think there's very little pressure for them to just appear to be doing something.
On the other hand, they might be suspecting something, and apply this change as a stopgap just in case, even if they later settle down on another cause.
The scene may have been staged, but Wiki's entry on them suggests the demonstrated behavior is completely authentic, instead taking a more semantic argument about the term suicide:
---
"Lemmings have become the subject of a widely popular misconception that they are driven to commit mass suicide when they migrate by jumping off cliffs. It is not a deliberate mass suicide, in which animals voluntarily choose to die, but rather a result of their migratory behavior. Driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. They can swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat. In such cases, many drown if the body of water is an ocean or is so wide as to exceed their physical capabilities. Thus, the unexplained fluctuations in the population of Norwegian lemmings, and perhaps a small amount of semantic confusion (suicide not being limited to voluntary deliberation, but also the result of foolishness), helped give rise to the popular stereotype of the suicidal lemmings, particularly after this behaviour was staged in the Walt Disney documentary White Wilderness in 1958.[12] The misconception itself is much older, dating back to at least the late 19th century. In the August 1877 issue of Popular Science Monthly, apparently suicidal lemmings are presumed to be swimming the Atlantic Ocean in search of the submerged continent of Lemuria.[13]"
---
The Disney Film narrated the event (from the article) as, "A kind of compulsion seizes each tiny rodent and, carried along by an unreasoning hysteria, each falls into step for a march that will take them to a strange destiny. That destiny is to jump into the ocean. As they approach the sea, they've become victims of an obsession -- a one-track thought: Move on! Move on!"
I just tell them that I saw a better deal on gestures broadly the Internet and they give me some discounted rate.
This happens all the time with every single type of service provider, why would some shitty service like Booking.com get to mandate no one can offer any other discounts?
What, just because there's some sort of aggregator service out there that you've partnered with you are not allowed to offer coupons, discounts, or your own booking services yourself? I would find that VERY difficult to believe.
Plus, based on what we're hearing everywhere, potentially losing your contract w/Booking.com seems like a blessing.
> Dimension Apple trip destinations have become increasingly vague, as the “Road Trip” group chat suggests, part of an overall and troubling vague-ening of the Dimension Apple
This bit was hilarious. It's comfort food in the same vein as the Barbie movie - everyone is polished and no one needs to work.
And this is why I hate having to deal with AWS. Learning this stuff isn't technical knowledge, it's product knowledge.
I read the TCP/IP illustrated series cover to cover and learned that stuff cold, and this was useful knowledge to me for decades.
However I always find myself resisting learning this AWS stuff, which is just as complex in its own way too. This diagram makes me feel that if the goal was to simplify things, then I'm not sure how successful they were at that.
Sorry if I am missing something obvious, but the 10 editable files hasn't bothered me (very) much yet. Am I not using it as much? I'm I too inexperienced to notice other features that were previously there?
Ever since Windows 11 MS really seems to be keen on making the taskbar more docklike… this is another step in that direction (OS X has had force quit in its dock icon context menus for something like 20 years at this point).
I don’t particularly mind because I’ve never been fully sold on the Win9X style desktop paradigm, but I think MS may be making a mistake by cherry-picking bits of macOS UX and removing them from the context that makes them work. It’s probably not a recipe that’s likely to please longtime Windows users.
Why download updates at all without the user knowing? Is prompting before downloading such an awful user experience in comparison? Or, you know, prompt once per day and add a 'remind me in x days/minutes' option?
The whole take-away of this article feels backwards. Instead of going 'hey maybe we should not just download stuff in the background without prompt', the author doubles down and actually proposes to add a way for the server to signal to the client that an update should be forced.
This is interesting, for sure, but the steps here are the easy part. The challenge is doing this legally, since I’m pretty sure srsRAN is going to use bands you almost certainly don’t have a license for.
The only viable options for the hobbyist is a network using unlicensed bands (like 2.4 GHz / 5GHz, or the 33cm ISM band) along with CBRS[0]. As I understand it, most UEs (handsets) that support one of those bands will not use it exclusively—only in tandem with another licensed band.
Have to say competitive optimization existed long before AI and it kinda feels like the parallels are drawn just because that’s the current buzzword.
Real life sports are slightly more resistant to it because of a couple of factors, but video games have been dealing with competitive optimization to the point of destroying the game since people put money on them.
Since the games were not easily patched early on there was a “do what you can to win” mindset/game theory outcome with rare community added rules for tournaments. Plenty of games just died because they aren’t fun to play seriously due to major imbalance or some hard to police technique.
In short it’s just the nature of putting a monetary prize on something. You have to design and adjust your system in such a way to handle the idea of people taking every edge they can get
Learning to ski is certainly a particularly strong example of a case where you're likely to have a lot of false positives.
But, honestly, even with something like hiking, tripping over a tree root or something like that isn't exactly rare. I've taken a ton of spills over the years and fortunately nothing worse than some minor bloodshed or maybe a twisted something was involved. (And the one time it was something more serious I didn't actually fall but did have a serious bone break.)
I've been on the fence whether I ought to enable the feature on my watch.
Is there a theoretical ideal of what line-drawing and anti-alliasing algorithms are aiming for? Is there a perfect line drawing algorithm you can use if you have the time?
Funny that you wrote `break if v == 11`. In a prototype I wrote 5 years ago (to learn syntax handling) I implemented this. What ended up happening is if I could do `break if ...` then I'd wanted to do expr if. Like `fn() if v == 1`. But at that point it gets confusing to read. Maybe I can try implementing this only for `break`, `continue` and `return` but it might annoy people because expressions aren't allowed. If expressions are then it's back to the problem I had in the prototype
I don't know if it'll make things more clear to you but curlys aren't nessicary when you use return/break/continue. I didn't write it because I didn't want to scare people off with the lack of curlys or confuse people on the front page
The `::` part looks nice. Would you want the statement to be forced on the same line? Or not like how C allows statements after `else`? As mentioned the compiler forces curly braces so it'll have to be forced to be on the same line as the on statement and I don't know if you'll find that to be a dealbreaker
This article prompts the Star Trekkian question Who Analyzes the Logic Analyzers? Incidentally it is not the device manufacturer because they didn't do a great job testing, so the signal to noise ratio on these devices is quite low. It highlights the bigger picture problem that it sucks to have to debug something when the manufacturer has locked down the firmware. Right to repair and other freedoms seem quite germane, you can plug and play those arguments right here.
At least these kinds of broken things lead to fun hobbyist reverse engineering projects. That's the silver lining (though at the end of the day it is nice for things to just not break).
I hate to say it, but San Francisco needs a complete reset. They need a dictator to come in and - as disrespectfully as possible - go around the bureaucracy.
- Institute a broken windows policy a la NYC in the 90s. Jail / heavy fines for public defecation.
- remove homeless encampments.
- increase police presence in tourist and small business neighborhoods
- delete the open air drug farms. Eliminate all programs that distribute needles.
- sweep the city for needles and feces.
- reduce regulatory burdens on small business owners.
- terminate all bureaucrats who don’t go along with the program
I have a different take: The main problem with reddit is in how badly it's bungled its several different redesigns over the last few years, and how it's slowly ruined its users' experience in misguided attempts to drive mobile traffic to its app.
Right now, here's the process for browsing a subreddit on mobile without the (ads and tracking loaded) reddit app:
1. Navigate to subreddit. Find out which of two (non-NSFW) or three (NSFW) "experiences" reddit decides to give me on mobile.
2. Depending on experience, jump through hoops including random "get the app!" prompts, failures to load content, failures to load nested comments, and outright refusal to display all the content in a thread unless I install the app.
3. If on an NSFW subreddit, and on about 50% of "unapproved" non-NSFW subreddits: Be blocked from viewing any additional content by an unremovable prompt. (Often, content loads in before the prompt, so you enjoy about 30 seconds of looking at your content before it's blocked.)
4. Give up, and go to old.reddit.com, which is ugly and not designed for mobile, but at least works okay.
Desktop isn't much better, but I have long had browser extensions installed that redirect everything to old.reddit.com on most of my browsers, so it becomes less of an issue.
If reddit took away my ability to use old.reddit.com, I'd probably stop browsing the site within weeks.
> Morton (tehnically, Morton Norwich) made other chemicals as well, including rocket fuel. The fuels were marked up so highly, that - together with a company called Thiokol - they decided they could make and fly the whole rocket engine cheaper than NASA could.
That's...not really true. Thiokol and Morton Norwich merged in 1982; Morton-Thiokol did a lot, wasn't centered on a proposal to “make and fly the whole rocket engine cheaper than NASA could”, and, in fact, the rocket engine business they had after the merger was the same one Thiokol had before the merger, just with the new entity’s name. Thiokol had been a contractor on the shuttle program since the 1970s.
> Their first attempt at rocket building was the Challenger, which blew up less than two minutes after launch
No, it wasn't. Thiokol was the contractor for the SRB motor segments from well before the merger, and Thiokol and then Morton-Thiokol made the motor segments for the SRBs for all of the launches before the 1986 Challenger disaster (and all of them after, though some under different names, after Thiokol was purchased.)
> and the Morton-Thiokol partnership.
Morton-Thiokol wasn't a partnership, but it's true that most of the chemical business was spun out as Morton in 1989, with the propulsion business staying as Thiokol. This wasn't really an unwinding of the merger; Thiokol had a substantial chemic business before the merger. It was a novel split of the combined business that happened to use the branding from the old components because it was available.
1. In 2010 you were CTO of McAfee when they shipped DAT file version 5958 which caused thousands of computers to crash. In 2024 you’re CEO of CrowdStrike which has caused millions of computers to crash. Why haven’t you learned from your mistake the first time and how many do you aim to crash in 2038?
2. McAfee was forced to sell itself to Intel as a result. Who do you think will buy CrowdStrike once this debacle is over?
3. You left McAfee because you saw a laptop on a plane take 15 minutes to upgrade McAfee’s software. What do you have to say to everyone who was on a plane that was grounded for hours because of the CrowdStrike upgrade?
4. You were paid 46 million USD for the previous year. How much do you think you personally owe in compensation for your latest blunder?