Painting actually introduces some scaling issues in manufacturing. Any painting step prevents you from haphazardly mixing all the parts produced on a line. Most vehicles will have multiple lines that eventually converge across multiple suppliers. Painting forces you to either coordinate the production of each individual component so that they're all painted the correct color during final assembly (which becomes difficult if any parts fail QA), or buffer painted parts in a giant warehouse. There's other advantages to the warehouse, but I wouldn't call it cheap.
Very common to use a mix of both strategies in practice.
This is very cute. I set up my Android UI with a [conceptually] similar thread border and colored fabric tiles [0]. I've been wondering if it's worth extending the skeuomorphism to my desktop environment.
I used a unique masked email (and account) for my "Who's Hiring post". Some of the spam it's received afterwards is hilarious. The best was a masked email service berating me for posting personal info on the public internet and how the right thing to do is sign up for their masked email service instead.
The thread generated a few leads though, so at least it was more effective than my previous employer's "relocation assistance". I received nothing from that except a bizarre deluge of offers from bodybuilding life coaches and money mule scams.
There was a version of optane (optane DC?) that plugged into DIMM slots and cost less than RAM, with possible higher capacities. That would be a useful tradeoff had it kept up the advantage.
Intel had multiple false starts on getting their platform ready for these devices to be used in a sensible manner. I have one of these false starts in a closet somewhere, and I did some kernel dev work for it. It was an incredible mess.
(I didn't actually have an Intel DIMM module -- I had a different vendor's. But fundamentally there needed to be a clean way to get data from software into the durable memory domain, and there wasn't. There also needed to be a clean way to talk to the module to get health information and to configure it to the extent it was configurable, and that didn't exist either. I wrote the kernel driver for the latter and submitted it upstream, and it probably could have gotten merged if Intel had assisted with the gnarly bits involving coordination with platform thermal firmware that shared the same SMBUS lines, but they didn't.)
That's the persistent memory modules; they were roughly half the price per GB compared to DDR4 from my quick research, but substantially higher memory latency, which would significantly affect usage as a KV cache, which would probably be their primary use case since SSDs beat it in raw data throughput. Who knows how it would have developed over the years since it was discontinued, but my gut reaction to the numbers said you'd rather just invest in more RAM based on the numbers I saw.
One example is OLAP databases, which often heavily exploit SIMD for query processing. You can also turn parsing into a SIMD problem, which is applicable to things like handling XML, JSON, and CSV. Simdjson comes to mind, or parabix for XML.
The weakness of C++ contracts is that they are mostly syntactic sugar over C asserts.
The sugar is actually one of my issues with them. The evaluation semantics are much more complicated / potentially slower than C asserts because of the sugar, and why you would have to pay those costs isn't obvious at first glance. Lisa Lippincott's excellent talk on the design of contracts [0] is what switched me from a sort of neutral support to disliking it. I think it's a stupid place for the national bodies to draw the line though. std::regex is acceptable, but a nothingburger like contracts tanks the vote?
To be clear, I have a lot of issues with the contracts proposal. I probably wouldn’t use despite living out on the standards frontier. I don’t even use C asserts already because they are not expressive enough in important ways. This proposal kind of reifies the inadequacies.
I think the risk is that C++ contracts become an evolutionary dead-end that hang around forever in code bases because they were standardized. It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened.
You'll find plenty of info if you search for anything like "c++ contracts" [0], but the short of it is that they're just pre/post conditions on functions. Slightly improved assertions, basically.
cppreference is often a bit too technical for its own good :)
But I think there's a broader issue which is that if it took me multiple searches to find a good-enough visual "pitch" for what contracts look like in practice, its champions have not yet won hearts and minds - which brings us to the situation at hand.
It never ceases to amaze me what information is online. There's a Wikipedia article on the history of US postal rates [0], which lists several increases in the last few years alone.
It apparently has one small mistake though, because it says the postal regulatory commission (PRC) sets rates, while the PRC website says they only set rate limits and the USPS sets their own rates [1].
Very common to use a mix of both strategies in practice.
reply