The article seems to state as much minus the obfuscation. However justified they are to respond, this can be a slippery slope. We're bound to hear more reports of hidden user data exfiltration.
This show captures much of what I miss about computing in the 80s and 90s. You could get your hands on hardware, be able to largely understand what all the hardware and software was doing. You mostly used computers as tools, which only accepted commands and didn't try to affect your decisions or workflow (yes, there was Clippy). The leaps forward in computing power, memory and storage were more impactful to the everyday user. There was a sense of wonder, and it didn't envelop your and everyone's life. Most of all, we weren't yet slaves to our computers, and they weren't devices crafted to endlessly grab your attention by any means necessary.
The enforcement of read-only protection for pagecache pages (and the scatterlists and or other structures they point to) seems to be diffuse and incredibly fragile.
The imports themselves may be dynamic. I once did a little review of dependencies in a venv that had everything to run pytorch llama. The number of imports gated by control flow or having a non-constant dependency was nontrivial.
I miss the people of her generation. I feel like we could use their perspective, experience and fortitude right now. I sure miss their music too...even though Bird Lives.
I might relate to this, but I also spent more time talking to friends on the phone 20 years ago. The perception of this greatness can't be disentangled from the experience of youth.
I like to think that the enthusiasm for retro computing can make a clearing for innovative things to happen. I imagine such an environment can support values that aren't normally represented in fashionable, modern, commercial technology of today.
That is impressive. It certainly shows what is possible _if_ you are familiar enough with the intricacies of modern C++. I'm not sure how I feel about a workflow where one needs to continually address "overhead" introduced by the language environment.
I've found adherence to C++ conventions in low-level software to be a rather contentious issue, mostly recently when working in an ML compiler group. One set abhorred the use of macros, the other any kind of polymorphism or modern C++ feature.
Coming from a background of working with OS kernels and systems software, I don't mind the kind of explicit "C++ lite" style used by the OP. Left to my own devices, I usually write things that way. I would think twice if I was trying to design a large framework, but ... I try to avoid those.
> The beauty of this, despite the bad views on blockchain, is that they freaking sped up the cryptography of commonly used algorithms more than anything open or closed source that I personally am aware of.
For users that have AVX-512, which isn't widely available (AMD Zen 4 / Zen 5, Sapphire Rapids)...
Incidentally, and naively, I have to ask: Is there a business model that can promise customers a product that's immune to eventual usurpation? It's a hidden cost to build your world around a product only to see it turn into pay-to-play.
Sadly, it seems the kind of caution you advocate is conspicuously absent from cable "news" punditry. Even worse, there are millions of viewers who feel that they are being informed by this kind of caustic debate.