>This reminds me of the uproar in archeology circles about the work of Graham Hancock. He presents himself as a journalist and author, and certainly not an archeologist or scientist, who simply raises some interesting questions about the past. His work is often dismissed as pseudoscientific quackery, which is funny to me since he never claims it to be scientific at all. It is edutainment content for a mass audience interested in these topics, nothing more than that.
This is a weak argument. He has a platform far bigger than any actual archeologist, he consistently misrepresents the archeological viewpoint, he 'just asks questions' about a bunch of coincidences to advance a pseudo-scientific theory that just doesn't make any sense, and then he whines about being silenced when some youtube videos (with a view count substantially lower than his audience) say 'these are some cool sites, but what you're saying doesn't make any sense, and BTW archeologists don't actually think the things you're saying they think'
Not entirely. There are a few different motivations for punishment: one, is to act as a deterrant (people won't do the crime because they fear the punishment. Tends to work best when people think they are likely to be caught), two is to act as a form of correction/rehabilitation: (after one punishment people are less likely to do it again. Tends to have problems when the punishment sets people up to be more likely to commit crime, by either putting them in contact with other criminals or further pushing them into desperate circumstances after the punishment), third is as a sense of justice, to some extent as revenge. The punishment of an offender can help the victims on an emotional level and also foster trust in the system (requires that the punishments are viewed as just and proportional). Lastly, in extreme cases, as a form of protection/prevention: by removing the person from being able to commit any further crimes.
There is also a bias that the people who agree with the status quo tend not to be noisy about it, so as the status quo shifts you may well hear from different people to before.
So they could in principle get a full list of dependencies of each build step. Though I'm not sure how they would skip those steps without having an interposer in the build system to shortcut it.
But initially the article sounded like it was describing a mix of tup and Microsoft's git vfs (https://github.com/microsoft/VFSForGit) mushed together. But doing that by itself is probably a pile of work already.
Yes, you are correct - SourceFS also caches and replays build steps in a generic way.
It works surprisingly well, to the point where it’s hard to believe until you actually see it in action (here is a short demo video, but it probably isn't the best way to showcase it: https://youtu.be/NwBGY9ZhuWc?t=76 ).
We intentionally kept the blog post light on implementation details - partly to make it accessible to a broader audience, and partly because we will be posting gradually some more details. Sounds like build caching/replay is high on the desired blogpost list - ack :-).
The build-system integration used here was a one-line change in the Android build tree. That said, you’re right - deeper integration with the build system could push the numbers even further, and that’s something we’re actively exploring.
Yeah that’s what I meant. I bet you the build must be invoked through a wrapper script that interposes all executables launched within the product tree. Complicated but I think it could work. Skipping steps correctly is the hard part but maybe you do that in terms of knowing somehow the files that will be accessed ahead of time by that processes and then skipping the launch and materializing the output (they also mention they have to run it once in a sandbox to detect the dependencies). But still, side effects in build systems seem difficult to account for correctly; I bet you that’s why it’s a “contact us” kind of product - there’s work needed to make sure it actually works on your project.
Tesla have done a lot of vertical integration, but for other manufacturers there's a lot of common electronic components. Stuff like headlamps (even if it's a different plastic housing the board will be the same basic design), door locks, infotainment, dashboard displays where there's little reason to significantly reengineer them for an EV.
The fact that it was turned on by default in edge really hurt it as an argument under these laws, because it then turned into a 'well we don't know the user actually selected this' thing. Making it explicitly have the force of law regardless would still be a good thing, though.
No, this wrong. The law says that by default you can't process personal data, unless the user gave consent. That setting matched both the expectation of users and the default as specified by the law.
The story that advertisers don't know what users selected and that somehow allows them to track the user is disingenous.
It doesn't allow them to track, but it does allow them to more convincingly argue that they can nag them about it (I think some regulators in some EU countries have rejected this, but I don't think this is universal). i.e. it makes it ineffective as a means of stopping the annoying pop-ups. Because the companies are basically belligerent about it there needs to be a clear declaration of 'if this header is set you may not track _and_ you may not bug the user about it'
If the user has already indicated that they don't consent by setting the header, you don't ask. If they want to change, make it available as a setting.
(and frankly, the number of users that actively want to consent to this is essentially zero)
Hence why I think the default hurt the initiative. And the header could be set on a per-domain basis, if you wanted that for some reason. I'm curious, why do you consent on such pop-ups?
I always consent as well. They can show much more relevant ads when you consent to cookies. If I block cookies I get generic ads about stuff I don't care about.
Because it offers a better experience. The cookies are not pointless to the experience and you need all of them to have the full experience. The legal definition about what cookies are needed does not match reality.
I think it gets to the heart of the matter quite succinctly, but the more I see discussions on this the more I think that there's two viewpoints on this which just don't seem to overlap. (as in, I feel like people feel like the Chinese room is either obviously true or obviously false and there's not really an argument or elaboration on it that will change their minds).
In that case you've basically just created a split-brain situation (I mean like the actual phenomenon of someone who's had the main part of the connection between the two hemispheres of the brain). There's one system which is the man and the rules that he has internalized, and there's what the man himself consciously understands, and there's no reason that the two are necessarily communicating in some deeper way, in much the same way as a split-brain patient may be able to point to something they see in one side of their vision when asked but be unable to say what it is.
(Also, IMO, the question of whether the program understands chinese mainly depends on whether you would describe an unconscious person as understanding anything)
reply