This definitely has the sting of bitterness in it, I doubt djb would have filed this suit if NTRU Prime would have won the PQC NIST contest. It's hard to evaluate this objectively when there are strong emotions involved.
When it comes to the number of times DJB is right versus the number of times that DBJ is wrong, I'll fully back DJB. Simply put the NSA/NIST cannot and should not be trusted in this case.
They’re not in question for many people carefully tracking this process. He filed his FOIA before the round three results were announced.
The lawsuit is because they refused to answer his reasonable and important FOIA in a timely manner. This is not unlike how they also delayed the round three announcement.
If NTRU Prime had been declared the winner, would this suit have been filed? It's the same contest, same people, same suspicious behavior from NIST. I don't think this suit would have come up. djb is filing this suit because of alleged bad behavior, but I have doubts that it's the real reason.
Yes, I think so. His former PhD students were among the winners in round three and he has other work that has also made it to round four. I believe he would have sued if he won every single area in every round. This is the Bernstein way.
Does that seem like reasonable behavior by NIST to you?
To my eyes, it is completely unacceptable behavior by NIST, especially given the timely nature of the standardization process. They don’t even understand the fee structure correctly, it’s a comedy of incompetence with NIST.
His FOIA predates the round three announcement. His lawsuit was filed in a timely manner, and it appears that he filed it fairly quickly. Many requesters wait much longer before filing suit.
This is great news! For far too long, Website owners have been collecting data on their users at no benefit to the users themselves. When website owners try to collect data on their users (for any and all reasons) it just violates the privacy of those people and needs to be put to an end. Those French website runners should really create their own, CNIL and GDPR compliant anonymized data storing, rather than using off the shelf, low cost alternatives. After all, things have been a bit too easy for them. (Running a website is pretty easy, I would know!). In fact, The fact that other, compliant-data aggregators, offer fewer features and lower reliability is actually a good thing. Trying to improve your website or even pester me with whatever you made is just irritating spam; I can't believe those independent owners would even dare. They should just be flushed out of existence.
HEY! Why is everything being centralized to just a few services? Why is the web dying?!
This is lazy explanation that's easy to agree with if you don't think very hard about it. Two reasons:
1. A shitty job at $15 an hour is equally unappealing at $16 an hour. Someone who doesn't want the crap hours, crap boss, and crap customer interactions isn't going to change their mind over an extra buck an hour. The money isn't the problem, it's that companies make it _not rewarding_ to work.
2. Raising pay ratchets up inflation, and isn't a response. Cause and effect are reversed. Unlike food, gas, houses, movie tickets, and restaurants, the amount of money transacted in wages/salary cannot go down. McDonald's can't tell their employees that due to supply and demand, they are only going to make $14.83 an hour this week. Imagine if your company lowered wages due to the "expected recession". You would start looking for a new role. This means pay increases can never go down again after a temporary bump. I won't say it's the cause, but it artificially limits deflation from ever pulling things back. Like an elevator that can only go up.
> money isn't the problem, it's that companies make it _not rewarding_ to work
Lots of people are fine making sacrifices for money, but it sounds like you think that "crap bosses, crap customer interactions, crap hours" are things not in the employers control. Be nicer, have sane schedules, make customers (generally) happy goes a long way.
> Raising pay ratchets up inflation, and isn't a response.
While pay raises have a slight inflationary affect, worker pay over the last few decades FAR lags modest inflation. IF you have to work TWO jobs just to cover rent, then your pay is too low.
> lowered wages due to the "expected recession". You would start looking for a new role
Unless this "expected" recession is fictional, employers do exactly this, but just not in the way you frame it. It's true they generally don't ask for pay cuts, but cutting hours and shifts, drop bonuses and even lay people off. And since it's a recession and many businesses are similarly affected, you just can't "look for a new role".
> pay increases can never go down
In absolute terms, sure. But if future pay raises are below inflation, you actually do lose ground in real terms.
"Lots of people are fine making sacrifices for money"
This line made me realize that, yes, lots of people are fine making sacrifices for money, but that no one is fine making sacrifices for survival. Sure, you can deal with it for a while, years even, but if every day requires a fresh sacrifice then you will wear out and ultimately break.
Maybe less likely if everyone has to sacrifice like this, say in war or famine, we are remarkably good at adapting to our situations.
But, when your friends are buying houses and getting married and having children and going on vacations and you're stuck flipping burgers and paying all of your money on rent and ramen? No, there's a point where anyone would break.
> Unlike food, gas, houses, movie tickets, and restaurants, the amount of money transacted in wages/salary cannot go down.
And when, exactly, looking at 5-years windows has the amount of money transacted for movie tickets, food, gas, etc. gone down instead of up? Not prices from one week to the next or to the next month, when did prices consistently trended downwards for a period of 5 years or longer for a given product?
You are right and the GP is wrong. When I worked for near minimum wage I was very conscious of exactly what I would get in each week's paypacket. Either a couple of extra hours or a small payrise (eg. 40c per hour for being kitchen trained) were a big deal to me.
If you are making say $380 a week, you might have fixed costs of $200-$250 a week. Other costs, maybe $60-100, which are difficult to cut without making your life much worse. And the constant chance of an unlucky break which will cost you $300-1000 and need to be paid straight away.
A small payrise can mean the difference between having $20 left over for everything nonessential, and having $50 - 2.5 times as much. Or the difference between having $30 and having nothing at all. Or the difference between ending the week with slightly more than you started, or with slightly less.
Imagine the average software developer earns $140,000 but due to some historical oddity, a company needs to hire people who'll develop software while people occasionally spit on them. They actually had a team of people doing that, and getting paid an average of $130,000, but they laid them off during the pandemic. Now they're finding it impossible to hire.
In a sense this is a money issue, in that I'm certain they could hire software developers who'll let you spit on them for, say, $1,000,000 a year.
In a sense it's not a money issue, in that if they could just remove the requirement to be spat on they could probably rehire for only a modest increase in salary.
I think I'd agree to be spat upon (depends on how often it happens) if that means my salary was doubled. This means my time till retirement is more than halved, which sounds like a good enough tradeoff. Probably also tells you how much I dislike working in the typical work environment.
Do you talk with regular people, outside of the tech bubble often? If money were really the problem, Walmart employees would jump at an opportunity to work at Costco or any of the other higher paying places. OP is claiming that because salaries aren't high enough, people are deciding to stay home and watch Netflix.
That's exactly what they do. Most of my family falls in that category, and a desk job doing customer service at AT&T with reasonable health insurance is a big fucking deal. Getting that higher paying job in that market isn't as easy as you think it is.
Yes they would.. except that most places where there is a walmart, there is no costco. They do not have other higher playing places that can accommodate the workforce. I currently live in Seattle and when I drive down to Portland, there is maybe 3 costcos along I-5. There are a tons of more walmarts, targets and other big box stores. Walmart is the largest non-federal employer in US.
Do you really think people work at Walmart because they love the job? Check out /r/target for some insane stories. If forced to choose between insane working conditions or take their chances, some are willing to take their chances.
I think what happened was a lot of those low-tier workers had time to evaluate what they were doing during the lockdowns, and figured they didn't have to be treated like dirt anymore.
Some people of course retired, and Covid claimed people too ... so now those low-tier workers had job choices.
And bad employers found their labour pool was more selective. They thought the root cause was Unemployment Insurance and people sitting home, but even after those programs expired they still faced difficulty hiring.
So, I don't think people are siting home watching Netflix; but they are unwilling to work for a crap boss serving crap customer during crap hours for crap money, because there are options.
1. Nobody is talking about $16, but living wage payment that are not paid to workers.
2. It's millionaires and billionaires who increases the inflation, not workers.
>This is lazy explanation that's easy to agree with if you don't think very hard about it.
And that's a lazy ass response because you only talked about wages and ignored EVERYTHING else. Wages alone, fine I don't disagree terribly with what you said. But it's everything else that is the major issue!
The complete lack of basic benefits- which translate to "I don't give a shit about you as an employee, just do as much work as you can and I'll give you as little as I can, and no one can stop me because there's little to no regulations on what I have to give you".
>European Union legislation mandates that all 27 member states must by law grant all employees a minimum of 4 weeks of paid vacation
How many people doing the jobs that pay under even say 40k get 4 weeks vacation? Get sick leave? Get maternity benefits? Get any descent healthcare? Those are the REAL problems.
Every time someone calls someone else lazy I am thinking that there is a demotivational element somewhere that actively discourages people from working.
Now that's a lazy explanation. Inflation does not equal pay. That's a lazy assumption folks love to repeat without the slightest evidence. Other than the lazy "It's obvious to me".
Think of a world that worked that way. The only way to make a country work is to have a slave-labor class that struggles for a pittance while simultaneously bidding up the prices on things? I guess Karl Marx would agree, but I don't think he had any more evidence than "It's obvious to me" which is the bar here.
I have read your other comments on the thread too and I am really confused about something - are you saying that life/US treated you unfairly and hence everyone should suffer as you went through (suck it up, buttercup is the phrase I believe)? or are you saying that these crap jobs for $8 are fair?
I did not grow up poor neither did I grow up rich.. but I would love for people in my neighborhood, my state, my country and rest of the world (somewhat in that order) to have a better life with less uncertainties than what the previous generation had. The attitude of "I struggled, so everyone should also struggle" makes very little sense to me.
I'm saying that struggle made me a better, more complete person. It taught me virtues like not wasting time, using money wisely, saving, educating myself, not taking anything for granted, amd ultimately building my own business.
The upsides of struggle don't make as much sense to people who didn't need to struggle. But there are upsides nonetheless, and I would contend that a society without struggle for the individual becomes decadent amd lazy.
That wasn't the reason for this comment, however. It was that when I hear the attitude 'why would anyone want to work for $16/hr', I know I'm talking to someone who doesn't need to work.
CEO pay in 2021 went up 18.2% in 2021 and inflation is through the roof. Rich people wealth has exploded and inflation is through the roof as a result. That whole talking point is a scare tactic but inflation is through the roof and normal wages are in the toilet.
Typical humans would save the money to live on through daily expenses.
CEOs spend on big projects with inflating costs, circularly inflating costs.
It’s simple arithmetic and a whole lot of propaganda the rich are the best. Really the masses are just poorly educated (<13% have advanced degrees).
Of course not, you don’t want to think in terms that do not align with your experience and propaganda addled brain.
The Fed was just saying they’re trying to get wages to stop going up; aka CEOs tossing more money at people, and trying to get people to save.
It’s gaslighting while ignoring the obvious trend; decades of CEO pay/growing wage inequality have lead normies into high inflation despite being told paying workers more would be the cause.
The powers that be are not dumb; they intentionally peddle narratives contrary to their intentions all the time; Roe v Wade for example. They’ll conveniently ignore the status quo of paying them more deflating our buying power because barely 90% of country is college educated and won’t question the hierarchy defined for them their entire lives, and the educated are outnumbered so they just play along.
I don’t know how it can be anymore clear; decades of doing what we were resulted in the situation we find ourselves; JIT logistics only the elite can thrive in.
> I hate how it forces to you create a module everytime.
This affected me recently, so I have sympathy for the author. Trying to upgrade an older project I had to the module system meant trying to find out how to import modules which don't have reachable URLs and were only on the GOPATH. At I hate how it forces to you create a module everytime. some point programming in Go stopped being for fun.
When this came out, someone in my dorm made a mock of it on our whiteboard. With a few extra lines, it looks like a fat guy bending over. People always look for a human shape in what they see.
Step 1: have a lot of friends. You can usually spend a little politcal capital to get your first few users/customers by talking to them directly. For products that are targeted towards businesses, you'll need to call up your buddies from previous jobs and talk to them about it. After that, you'll probably need to hire a BDR or an AE to start looking for the next few. For B2C, I am not familiar.
Very timely; I found out yesterday that the UPX program (EXE specific compressor from many years ago) was made by the same guys who made LZO. I had this realization that there is a progeny from people who write compression stuff. In a similar vein, The Rob Pike post from yesterday mentioned Ken Thompson had made a custom audio compression for the Plan 9 release. He also made the UTF-8 compressor too. I love seeing how these people keep refining the state of the art.
The thoughts around information theory, entropy, compression, emergent behavior, and the intersectional limits of all of them are quite reminiscent and memetic to those who are interested.
You'll need to go back earlier than 15 years. ConcurrentHashMap and friends were added in 1.6, but String.intern has been in there since the beginning. Since Java shipped with Threads in the standard library, (but no memory model) that meant it would have been very difficult to do concurrent String deduplication yourself. If you agree string deduplication is needed, then String.intern() was a good implementation for a long while.
String.intern() also offers some other benefits for certain use cases. Earlier versions of java did not cache the String hashcode, which meant that to use Strings as hash table keys meant hashing a lot more. But, an interned string can be used in an IdentityHashMap, which was faster for a long portion of Java's early life.
(I worked on a moderately popular Java library that targeted Java 1.5 as the minimum version. It does occasionally come up useful, but only in specific, and increasingly rare circumstances)
Independent of Apple, I think we need an industry wide of saying "I'm not an idiot, this bug report is real". I've been on both sides (in a moderately used OSS project). The main problem is that the attending doesn't have a good way to filtering the noise from the signal. As a result, the likes of Apple (and the other FAANGs) implement these aggregate-and-discard blackholes for bug reports. "Only a 0.1% increase in crashes? Ship it" is the way the story goes sadly.
>The main problem is that the attending doesn't have a good way to filtering the noise from the signal.
Even if you could filter the noise; there's still a non-zero chance it won't get prioritized. I imagine in Apple's case you could have very real bug reports that only affect 500,000 people and they can't allocate time to fix this. I think there's a tendency to anthropomorphize companies (and OSS projects) as an all knowing person who can fix every problem and has infinite time. In reality there might be 10 people (or in OSS, just 1 person) in the company uniquely capable of triaging your issue in under an hour. The rest would be just as lost as you would be in a new code base and they have to weigh fixing your bug report vs the other opportunities they have (and I'm sure at Apple, closing Radar tickets wont get you promoted).
Maybe after two years of engineering experience you get one “this is real” token to use on an issue. If you use it and the issue actually is real you get the token back. If not you have to do two more years of engineering work to get a new token.
As an OSS maintainer, the way to show this is to show up with a full reproduction. "Run exactly this and it crashes".
Can't reproduce it? Well... you can of course still report it but "I'm not an idiot" is a pretty weak signal. Everyone gets lost in the weeds, and debugging a problem only for it to be an issue in some unstated part of the project is very exhausting.
As someone that has recently opened a bug report on a popular open source project, with a very simple and 100% effective reproduction process, I had a back and forth with the maintainer telling me to "what happens if you do X instead?"
What is the point of me providing an example case if the ones that know the internals of their code don't try to reproduce my bug?
Yeah, I know OSS devs do not have time/are unpaid. My point is however complete your bug report is, nothing guarantees it won't go stale without anyone having taken a real look at it. In my experience 90% of bug reports, on OSS or commercial products, die this way.
One of the things that made linearizabilty click for me was thinking in terms of happens-before:
volatile int a;
a = 1;
print(a) // Could this print Zero?
Even assuming only one program, one thread, one process, no interleaving and nothing fishy, could the final line print 0? In the serializable consistency, the answer is yes. Linearizability is framed in terms of clocks, but really that's just trying to establish that one thing happened before another. The "clock" in this example is the line number.
I probably don't know enough about the topic, but am curious: isn't serializable an alias for 'strictly sequential execution'? If so, given your constraints, shouldn't it always print 1? I.e., the effect of setting a to 1 is visible to all subsequent statements, as if there were a barrier after every statement?
Regardless, could you comment on if and how different linerizable interpretation would be?
It's covered in the article, but serialization just has to appear to execute in any sequential ordering of transactions. There are no other constraints about the ordering, so it technically allows the print to appear to run before the assignment.
Linearizability says that if A happens after B in real time (e.g. you don't start A until you get confirmation that B completed), A must see the effects of B. This would require the print to run after the assignment takes effect.
