Do certificate revocation lists need to keep including certificates that have long since expired? I don't see why root certificates need to expire as long as the certificates signed by those roots all have reasonable expiration windows, unless someone is doing something strange about trusting formerly-valid certificates, or not checking root certificates against revocation lists.
My impression is that tools that grew complex only because they want to serve every use case under the son got obsoleted by AI, and static site generators like Hugo are a good example.
Today, if I were setting up a blog to host just some text and images, a vibe-coded SvelteKit project using the static adapter[1] would easily solve every single problem that I have. And I would still be able to use the full power of the web platform if I need anything further customized.
Type inference is when you try to infer a type from its usage. ``auto`` does no such thing, it just copies a known type from source to target. Target has no influence over source's type.
Taking this idea further -- this is the sort of thing that really makes me consider whether or not ATProto might be literally the worst idea in all of social media.
Which is to say "can track you just as intrusively as any private service, but now your history is cryptographically signable and even EASIER to share and move everywhere"
> 35x less system calls = others wait less for the kernel to handle their system calls
That isn't how it works. There isn't a fixed syscall budget distributed among running programs. Internally, the kernel is taking many of the same locks and resources to satisfy io_uring requests as ordinary syscall requests.
More system calls mean more overall OS overhead eg. more context switches, or as you say more contention on internal locks etc.
Also, more fs-related system calls mean less available kernel threads to process these system calls. eg. XFS can paralellize mutations only up to its number of allocation groups (agcount)
> More system calls mean more overall OS overhead [than the equivalent operations performed with io_uring]
Again, this just isn't true. The same "stat" operations are being performed one way or another.
> Also, more fs-related system calls mean less available kernel threads to process these system calls.
Generally speaking sync system calls are processed in the context of the calling (user) thread. They don't consume kernel threads generally. In fact the opposite is true here -- io_uring requests are serviced by an internal kernel thread pool, so to the extent this matters, io_uring requests consume more kernel threads.
I hadn't read that piece, but it's the conclusion I got to after reading a lot of sci-fi in my YA years.
The sci-fi I enjoyed the most would make one impactful change, say allow for intergalactic travel like in The Forever War, or allowing people to backup and restore their brains like in Altered Carbon, and see where that leads.
Others just use sci-fi as a backdrop for an otherwise conventional story, without really engaging with the sci-fi elements. They can be good stories, but I enjoyed the former much more.
There's this quote I heard that said something along the lines of "Good sci-fi uses fictional technology to show us something about human beings that would be difficult to express otherwise".
I first read this as a foreword to The Left Hand of Darkness and it has completely changed how I read. It’s important to understand that there is an agenda behind every book, not as a bad thing, but as a way to understand and explore how the author thinks and how they have been shaped by the real world that they live in and build from to create.
Man, I loved Neuromancer when I read it as a kid. Yes, it's a tough book to read, especially today where there are too many distractions as well as too many works of art built on the sci-fi ideas of that era.
Neuromancer is the first installment of the Sprawl trilogy, followed by Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive.
So trying not to spoil too much: Count Zero asks questions about / describes how AI could have influence over religious/spiritual life of humans.
Will we see AI preachers having a real influence on human religious life? ChatGPT the prophet? Maybe this is the real danger of today's nascent AI tech?
reply