In a similar vein, HTTP header smuggling attacks exploit differences in header parsing. For instance, a reverse proxy and a web server might handle repetition of headers or the presence of whitespace differently.
This is the Hacker News community. Let's be constructive and civil. Your comment would have more interesting and relevant if you had explained why this trading strategy is a bad idea instead of just labeling it as "idiotic".
* In deferrence to Boglehead philosophy, hedging bets is a fool's errand because the idea is you lose your money the more you touch it. Make a plan, invest, and then hold hold hold staying the course come hell or high water.
* If you truly want to reduce or eliminate risk, the best way is to simply cash out. A $1 bill will always be a $1 bill with absolute certainty.
As a boglehead... that's just not how it works in the real world. Some people would treat the loss of $X worse than the gain of $X is good. Thus, they don't have linear value for money (no one really does... if you lose 90% of your bank account, you still have dinner tonight; if you lose all of it, you might not).
Some people want to come out neutral or lose a guaranteed small amount, rather than the chance to lose or gain the same amount. I'd pay $5 to avoid having to flip a $10k +/- coin. Thus, if I knew I would lose $10k if X got elected, I could place a $10k bet for Y to win.
> Some people would treat the loss of $X worse than the gain of $X is good
Most people. "Loss aversion refers to a cognitive bias in which the same situation is perceived as worse if it is framed as a loss, rather than a gain" [1].
> I'd pay $5 to avoid having to flip a $10k +/- coin
Risk aversion. Seemingly related, but in fact quite rational.
> In deferrence to Boglehead philosophy, hedging bets is a fool's errand
The flagged comment didn't say that hedging was idiotic, but implied that the specific hedge mentioned was idiotic, yet didn't give any reason for calling it such.
>$1 bill will always be a $1 bill with absolute certainty
Hmmm... I nominate Mortal Kombat (1995) for the cringiest title drops. Instead of being used once for a climatic fight scene, they keep dropping it over and over (10 times according to the article).
Alternatively (or at least additively), most C# developers don't really need all the new ref/Span features. They're writing line-of-business apps and garbage collection is a fact of life, not some burden to be avoided.
Microsoft probably added these features to push the language into new niches (like improving the story around Unity and going after Arduino/IoT). But it's of little practical appeal to their established base.
As far as I'm aware, it's the development of Kestrel which pushed the introduction of ref/Span etc. Due to it Kestrel has seen quite a large speedup, it being one of the fastest HTTP servers nowadays. ref/Span allowed them to make the core almost allocation free, together with using vectorized operations (SIMD ) for parsing the request.
Heuristics don't have to be perfect to be useful so long as they improve the efficacy of our attentions. Once that breaks down society must follow because thinking about every topic is intractable.
My cynical take (as an American) is that anything but the previous design would have been subject to politicization and protracted decision-making. Donors would have been more fickle, stakeholder groups would have mushroomed, and reconstruction probably wouldn't have even started yet. From a project management standpoint, the decision to keep it the same was as absolute win.
Yes for sure, I never had much hope for any kind of change because of the reasons you gave. I think it's quite telling of our time how we cling to some idealized idea of the past.
I find interesting that both the example you gave are places for the dead. In contrast Notre Dame is still an active place of worship, and it would shock me less to see change to it. A similar but more secular example would be the glass dome on the Reichstag building in Berlin.
Today's Great Pyramid is much different than what the Great Pyramid looked like when it was first built, according to the TV programs I've seen. There used to be an outer layer of white limestone on the pyramid.
Relatedly, when I was young, Notre Dame was black from years of pollution from the industrialization period. They cleaned it up and restored its original stone color.
The Ancient Egyptians were also like us in that they were into architectural bling and greenery, so I'm not actually sure they'd be complaining that much. They were into materials like gold, electrum, and polished stone, but I'm sure you could sell them on modern glass.
That said, the Great Pyramid is a historical site, not an active worship site, and modern archeological sensibilities prioritise conservation. A restoration like that might make it hard to answer future questions about the pyramid.
I’m not worried about offending the ghosts of the ancients. Let’s try another analogy: if the Mona Lisa were damaged, should we “improve” it with “modern bling”?
> Yes for sure, I never had much hope for any kind of change because of the reasons you gave. I think it's quite telling of our time how we cling to some idealized idea of the past.
Or perhaps leave old things as they were and build new things according to current ideals?
Could someone explain the joke? I've been dabbling with learning robotics and I've been confused by how ROS and ROS2 both appear to be actively developed/used. Is ROS2 a slow-moving successor version (like Python 3 was) or a complete fork?
Slow-moving successor, which the community isn't exactly going wild over. It offers modest improvements in exchange for a painful upgrade process, and many of the original issues with ROS1 remaining unsolved.
The other half of the joke is that ROS was never an operating system either.
Well there is one thing that ROS 2 does better, you can declare params directly inside nodes and reconfigure them all without building extra config files. And it doesn't stop working if your local IP changes.
But the rest are firmly downgrades all around. It's slower (rclpy is catastrophically bad), more demanding (CPU usage is through the roof to do DDS packet conversions), less reliable (the RMWs are a mess), less compatible (armhf is kill). The QoS might count as an improvement for edge cases where you need UDP for point clouds, but what it mostly does on a day to day basis is create a shit ton of failure cases where there's QoS incompatibility between topics and things just refuse to connect. It's lot more hassle for no real gain.
Config generally feels more complex though, since there isn't a central parameter server anymore. The colcon build system also just feels more complex now, which I thought was already impressively complex with catkin.
Yep it takes super long to get parameters from all nodes cause you need to query each one instead of the DDS caching it or something.
And yeah I forgot, there's the added annoying bit where you can't build custom messages/services with python packages, only ament_cmake can do it so you often need metapackages for no practical reason. And the whole deal with the default build mode being "copy all" so you need to rebuild every single time if you don't symlink, and even that often doesn't work. The defaults are all around impressively terrible, adding extra pitfalls in places where there were none in ROS 1.
No it’s much worse, python3 was all round better, it just took a while to get all your dependencies ported which made the transition hard. Judging by the comments it doesn’t seem like people agree that ROS2 is even all round better from ROS.
It's funny this topic came up today because I have a group of students working on a ROS2 project and at our meeting this afternoon they had a laundry list of problems they've been having related to ROS2. I'm thinking our best option is to use ROS1...
You're right ROS2 isn't all round better than ROS so the transition will never happen fully.
FWIW I'm working on an actual replacement for ROS, I'll post it to ShowHN one day soonish :P
Weir may have invented a new genre: STEMcore. His narrator-protagonists face a series of puzzles which they resolve with imaginative STEM skills and... well, that's most of it. I mean, he sets up a pretty good near-future world and gives the protagonist one big problem to resolve that helps drive tension (making it a quick read), but ultimately you're reading a short story that ate a physics textbook.
STEMcore (which, to be clear, is just a term I made up) mostly solves problems with STEM. Contrast with something like The Expanse which builds the setting from (some) realistic physics (plus a few enabling premisses) and mostly solves problems with politics and tactics.
