> Processors have a very weak notion of data types
This is absolutely not true, unless you mean to say that processors should somehow support composite (aka C struct) data types as an instruction primitive. Processor operations have to be strongly typed, by definition. For example, these are the data types supported by operations in the modern x86 instruction set (ignoring vector extensions):
- signed and unsigned integers of 8, 16, 32 and 64 bits
- floating-point decimals of 32, 64 and 80 bits (and 128 via sse)
- nul-terminated byte strings
> For example: casting a `float` to an `int` has a very specific definition in C, and that definition involves altering the pattern of bits
I don't understand this example. Casting a float to an int also has a very specific definition in IEEE-754 and is pretty much universally implemented as a hardware instruction. It has been in the x86 family since its inception: https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/fisttp
> Processor operations have to be strongly typed, by definition.
Individual instructions assume the data they operate on is of a particular type, but it doesn't differentiate data types in memory. Here's an example where I forced the C compiler to treat the bit pattern of two floats as integers, then add those values as integers. The result is, of course, absolutely meaningless.
float dx = 1.0;
float dy = 1.0;
int *pix = &dx;
int *piy = &dy;
int isum = *pix + *piy;
float *pdsum = &isum;
printf("%d\n", isum);
printf("%f\n", *pdsum);
That's just how processors work, right? Apparently it doesn't have to be that way. From my understanding of the iAPX 432, attempts were made to encode object types in hardware.
Processor instructions are not _strongly typed_.
They take bit patterns as input and output new bit patterns.
The bits are untyped, the choice of operation decides how the bits are interpreted. Nothing enforces the type of that result, you can always interpret it as something else. It may not be meaningful. Or it may be, like a fast inverse square root.
Strong typing means that each value has an intrinsic type, and there is no reinterpreting it. What CPUs do is not that, or rather the only types are "_n_-bits" (_n_ a power of 2).
I wholly agree, processors are strongly typed, even if there are holes like using integer instructions on floating-point values in XMM regs, very insightful comment:)
True for IEE754 floating point operations, which are constrained to valid bit patterns. An operation on an invalid pattern - can happen with uninitialised memory - throws an exception.
What do you mean by invalid patterns? Signalling NaNs? I wouldn't really call those invalid, but also that's only about one in a thousand bit patterns. If it kicks in less than 1% of the time it's not really "type checking".
That seems to be a recurring theme regardless of the country's economic system. We're two months away from seeing if the US still has a working succession strategy.
You're advocating for self-medicating with an over the counter drug over doctor-prescribed (and presumably monitored) drugs? I agree with your stance on SSRIs and don't think they should be used to address situational anxiety, but your suggestion is not an improvement.
To the OP: if you're at a point where you're taking medication to cope with your job, maybe you would be better off taking long term sick leave.
That's covered by trying and seeing what sticks. That's really all there is to it. I already got downvoted for saying this in other words - feedback against observed phenomena is what matters. Everywhere you see shitty "science" you see either missing or ignored feedback.
To me it's not really the concept of the app store that's dystopian, it's not that different from a deb or rpm repository. What is dystopian is the level of control the OS vendor maintains over the entire ecosystem.
>it's not that different from a deb or rpm repository
The difference is that the default app stores require you to make an account to be able to use them. This would rightfully be considered insane on desktop OSs, yet is considered normal for phones.
Is it really that insane of itself? I don't see many people arguing that Valve is evil for requiring a Steam account to access their game library (ignoring the online activation/DRM question).
It’s not insane because Valve is not the OS provider, and you can install as many “app stores” as you want. Even SteamOS doesn’t lock down the OS so Steam is the only way to install software.
Annoyances like requiring an account become a preference, because you have alternatives.
You don't need an account to browse the steam store, you need one to verify you're a user before downloading/installing a game, or (obviously) buying a game.
In a perfect world, you wouldn't need an account to buy or download something, either. It's too bad we've somehow normalized this idea that you need an account just to buy something.
On the other hand, I struggle to think of a reason how harm could come from delayed activation of a registered public name. Can you describe a use case that cannot be solved by opting for a subdomain of an already-existing domain?
England have just scored the winning goal in the world cup and I want to celebrate by launching my personal tribute on Lionesses.rock
Why shouldn't that go live instantly?
A disgraced pop star has just been found guilty. I couldn't register Bob-The-Builders-Crimes.uk before the verdict and I want to get my story out now.
I've had a brilliant idea for an eCommerce website but it is 1705 on a Friday night and, because no one works weekends, I have to wait until next week before the domain is agreed.
I agree that there's no great harm in having to wait a day, or a week, for registration to complete. But in a world of instant gratification, it feels old fashioned.
None of these require a domain to work. There’s plenty precedent of things taking off without having a domain, eg Wordle, all Neal.fun sites, Hacker News, and I’m probably forgetting a few obvious ones.
I know that “mystupidvibecodedidea.com” is all the rage but nobody cares if that’s instead on yourname.com/mystupidvibecoded idea except you.
Back in the day (~2003) it was popular to get a domain name for every project. Loads of people I knew where holding a domain name for every idea they had. I even had a few (~40). But in like 2008 I think I switched over to using just sub-domains of my primary. If anything took off I could then find and buy the cool name. And if it dies (likely outcome) I've saved $30.
My impression is that one of the social effects of domain names being cheap and easy to get (at least among many vaguely technologist-adjacent cohorts) is that failing to invest in a 2LD for a new thing winds up seen as tacky, sort of an “if you weren't willing to invest enough to put a cover on it then what does that mean for whether it's any good” thing (you could see it as a counterparty good-faith deposit versus attentional costs if you like). In some cases this goes down to the level of individual publications. Additionally the way social technology has wound up around URLs seems to mean that both longer URLs and artificially shortened ones wind up losing secondary reach in unpredictable ways. I'm not that fond of this trend but I can see ways it winds up making sense in context. I don't know how widespread it is.
>A disgraced pop star has just been found guilty. I couldn't register Bob-The-Builders-Crimes.uk before the verdict and I want to get my story out now.
More likely:
Some flavor of shit has hit the fan. I need to register some viable short and to the point domain names to get the word out faster than BigCo or the government and their army of lawyers can buy those domains.
Would we have stuff like DeFlock if there was an objection period?
What about if some advocacy firm was trying to create a website for people harmed by a drug. The drug company would just object to all their attempted registrations and bog them down.
A delay doesn’t even really hurt this use case. The first person to register the domain would still get it, 24 hours later, unless there’s an actual objection.
I think the "actual objection" is the hardest part.
The UK Government might legitimately object to the registration of `dwpgov-uk-payments.pizza` but should they be allowed to object to `dwp-gov-uk-stole-my-payments.fart`?
One might be obviously dodgy, the other is someone ranting about their experience. Do you think Governments should be able to object to domains complaining about them?
I'm not entirely sure. But we have have mechanisms like Google Safe Browsing, and I can imagine that a similar mechanism could be used. Or there could even be a new classification in Safe Browsing and similar databases for newly registered domains that look like they are misleaing, and this could actually be fast enough if there was a 24-hour hold on new domains.
A delay wouldn't change that. You're talking about the difference of the site being up for a half day or not at all, which is admittedly infinity times longer, but not enough to make any sort of difference (as opposed to putting the anti-entrenched interests info up without its own domain name.)
reply