It scales if you let userland do thread scheduling (instead of having green threads on top of OS threads)

Something like https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/procthread/us...

See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726357

I'm not sure how threading is relevant. CGI inherently requires a new process per request, regardless of any choices you may make about threading.

Facebook deleted fake news from brazilian president Bolsonaro though

https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/brazil/zuckerberg-cit...

I want to search code with regex. You know, like I do when I clone the repo to my local machine.

This isn't perfect yet, but it's better than nothing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22396824

Awesome, thanks!

One of regular meetings.. from 2018? Did you publish minutes from this year?

Scott Aarson didn't comment on this paper specifically but gave a FAQ[0] on his blog (he believes Google actually attained quantum supremacy). See also this[1] when the announcement was done.

Moreover, the naturalness argument is pretty strange. Of course complexity arguments are useless if big constants dominate the run time, but, why is it justified to assume the constants are small enough? Is it to make our life simpler? Real life is seldom that simple.

[0]: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4317

[1]: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4372

> I don't like to see wasm replacing native for stuff like development tooling, and desktop apps.

Wasm is like the JVM or CLR in that regard. It's not the future - it's the past.

Yes. Even if there were a number of dominant architectures, install-time compilation would be better than run-time compilation for frequently used software. The RAM and Energy overhead isn't just worth it.

Dude, just make it opt-in. It's that simple.

but the thing is, i want to copy the video itself

not copy the url, paste in a terminal for curl or wget to download it, then copy the video..

> In the 23andme case there was a worry that people might commit suicide or make massive life changes, if they discovered they had a potential terminal illness. Here, the 2x2 matrix of positive vs negative and true vs false, seems most dangerous on the false-positive side for people who believe it grants them freedom to do whatever they like. False negatives are dangerous for those who then feel certain they don’t have the disease currently and thus expose others unwittingly (but this is already likely!).

So you suggest it's better to not test people?

Isn't that the suggestion? That if there are groups of individuals who you know are going to make wildly irresponsible choices because they don't have the ability to interpret such information, you would prefer not to give it to them?

It's entirely reasonable to assume that tests with high error rates cause problems for everyone, not just "groups of individuals who you know are going to make ..."

For example, a PhD biologist friend of mine agonized for months before she was willing to look at her personal 23-and-me results, after the FDA certified them as accurate enough to show to consumers.

It's a real problem for everyone.

No, I was just calling out the "you know, the outcomes just aren't that bad here". As I ended on, I think they'll come to the conclusion relatively quickly that there is minimal risk to the public from having such diagnoses, even if they're misinterpreted.

> you can't configure additional peripheral FPGAs.

My understanding is that you can only have a single FPGA.