Inside Google, there’s two wolves…

Which shouldn’t be surprising really; it’s contains a huge number of people, including people who post here in their spare time. The problem is that power tends to self-reinforce, and so in the absence of outside intervention, the proprietary enshittification wolf is bound to win.

What is this from?

Interesting. I’ve tried Linux phones, they’re not a bad idea per se. It looks like Waydroid is literally just emulating LineageOS, though, so I do start to wonder what the point is.

I suppose one advantage would be you can actually hack your system a bit, instead of having everything locked into the ROM.

And even this improvement wasn’t universally appreciated: some people found error messages they couldn’t ignore more annoying than wrong results, and, when judging the relative merits of programming languages, some still seem to equate “the ease of programming” with the ease of making undetected mistakes.

This guy was writing in the year x86 was first introduced, and I still feel like I see this attitude around.

(He manages to shoehorn in a “kids these days” paragraph too, though)

Yes, but quality takes actual skill to measure, instead of just a diff.

(Although I guess lines are still better than time in office as a measure)

Hmm, was the boss hoping to turn that into a “why do I even pay you” moment?

If you don’t care about installing any particular mobile software, that would work.

LineageOS is the current game in town otherwise, unless you want a Pixel, in which case there’s options like GrapheneOS.

Honestly, that’s great, but you might as well cut to the chase and switch ROMs as well. Google isn’t going to budge.

I can’t tell if they haven’t thought through what that would mean for them themselves, or they know it’s BS but it’s still good for marketing.

Foresight FTW.

In the end we inplemented NoTaD pointers (“notified on target destruction”, essentially weak pointers but this was back in the day when weak pointers and smart pointers weren’t really well defined) that would discover when the thing they took a precious pointer to was actually no longer valid.

It’s weird to me that programming practice has changed that much in 20 years. That’s still closer to today than to Dennis Richie doing his thing.

Hmm, guy who wrote his own kernel because he didn’t like the ones that existed. I’m sure he’s totally neurotypical. /s

Ahh, because of the 9 month gestation. 9+3=12

I thought this was about some kind of obscure subnormal float convention or something.

You probably know, but someone is going to point out an ipv4 address is four bytes.

That’s because humanity dates back to the teletype era, before bytes. It was decided that saving candles was more important than having the extra century of lifespan.

Now, by convention, the leftmost candle being unlit indicates it’s a standard human and not a member of another species-alphabet, possibly requiring multiple cakes.

(On a serious note, aging is not necessarily thought to be as simple as just the Hayflick limit)

Look, an OpenRISC user.

64 bits and you get to watch heat death slowly set in. (Or, y’know, cosmological catastrophe depending on the full physics)

You win Lemmy, I need this one explained.

Alright. Thanks for responding, anyway.

I get OP was a joke, but I was trying to make a serious observation.

Say you have some kind of stochastic algorithm that works on the assumption it’s fed a composite number most of the time. Maybe something like Pollard’s Rho algorithm, where whatever number theoretic structure you need accumulates slowly over time as a result. You decide to just pick a large number at random for each iteration.

Implicitly, you’ve solved the problem of finding a composite number by assuming all (large) numbers are composite, like in this post. It is pretty close, like also mentioned in this post. If that’s not good enough, you could also use a primality test that fails some small portion of the time, which do exist, and use less power than guaranteed tests.