I've been happier once I tried using one of the myriad of tools out there for writing slides in markdown.

If you don't need to deal with images or anything to fancy, it's worth considering, imo. Since I had it version controlled, someone even sent me a patch fixing some typos, heh.

IIUC, you're not misreading. KPTI solves the problem of leaking data from the kernel address space (besides a bare minimum). But this was an issue because Intel was speculatively accessing kernel addresses in the first place.

It does seem to be rather poorly written, e.g. the next paragraph

> they actually don't follow Newton's Law, they follow Schrodinger's Law so that theory is what we call quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical interpretation tells scientists a lot of insights.

It sounds like it creates a mapping from lines to "bugginess." How much value do you think there would be in some sort of semantic analysis, e.g. "new function foo is suspect bc it calls bar, which has shown up in a lot of stack traces lately"?

> How much value do you think there would be in some sort of semantic analysis

Disclaimer: I'm the founder of GitSense (https://gitsense.com), which is also focused on predictive defect analysis, among other things.

Incorporating semantic analysis, by cross referencing semantic code changes with bug reports/static analysis report/stack trace reports/etc., will be absolutely critical for defect analysis and automatic code generation, in my opinion. It's also not trivial, both from a computation, storage and retrieval perspective. For example, running semantic diffs analysis on every revision (on any possible branch) and cross referencing the results with external data like bug reports, continous integration results, etc. is a very expensive/complex operation.

In order for ML to work, you need good datasets and in order to generate good datasets, you need lots of raw data (static analysis results, code change history, etc.) that can be data mined and cross-referenced, to produce meaningful data. Creating good datasets for ML, in a scalable manner, will require you to rethink how to extract, store and retrieve code related information.

With GitSense, it's designed to be installed on every developer desktop/workstation, which is how I solve the computation problem. Since every developer workstation is designed to be a continuous indexing machine, indexing can be distributed across dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of machines. Being able to index and cross reference as fast a possible, is absolutely critical, since the goal is to prevent developer mistakes from happening.

Generating semantic analysis is fairly straight forward. Incorporating it, is where the challenge lies.

Hey nickelbox,

This is among the several problems that I'm trying to solve. As a developer, when you're calling an existing function -- you don't really have any data at your disposal WRT the quality of that function. Likewise for modifying individual lines. To me, it seems obvious to want this information.

But I'm trying to test that hypothesis and see if other developers feel the same way.

Thanks,

Weirdest? This is just a lolcode derivative, isn't it?

What I found more amusing is https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10242 They even implemented a 2d N-body solver.

Haven't really looked at the source, but is the neovim dependence just for starting ranger async? In that case vim 8 support might come soon?

I have a neovim build, but I tried out SpaceVim on it and just went back to a very lightly patched vim since SpaceVim felt too bloated and I've been too lazy to clean it all up.

No. It's more like to implement ranger's functionality using neovim's rplugin framework. Vim8 support would require other framework such as nvim-yarp.

I understand why people are upset, but not why they are quite so upset. Apple always felt like the company that you went to when you wanted good UX. Unlike Android, they twist all the knobs for you, making tradeoffs like this so you don't have to care.

Of course, making battery degradation more clear would have been nice, along with some UI element explaining the impact as it gets worse.

I don't know if the majority of consumers would care in the slightest about Microsoft making their index public. Maybe among certain crowds like this, but what would it gain us? I couldn't just send a PR to help improve it; the only benefit I can see is transparency and perhaps a fun, maybe even useful visualization.

Also, the image of a "hip" Google competitor like Snapchat seems tremendously unappealing, personally.

> I don't know if the majority of consumers would care in the slightest about Microsoft making their index public.

It's not just about consumers, but a plethora of other startups who can then use the index to build something creative on top of it. For e.g., you currently have bing/google customise certain type of websites with custom view for quicker access (IMDB, Wiki etc). However there is a limit a big company can be creatively about this.

Imagine a search engine where any user can submit a custom widget under a market place and consumer users can then install that as a plugin. For e.g., stock brokers can install stock widget, programmers can install document/stack overflow search and so on as a quick widget to see the top result without opening the link.. since it is community maintained, it will be proactively maintained by the community itself. That alone can topple something like Google if there is enough momentum (E.g. see VSCode overtaking Sublime text.) That is just one possibility. And it can also improve the search results as users may voluntarily come up to improve the result accuracy.

Other possibilities include voice based search, gesture search, integrated search within any mobile or smart watch app etc. With current licensing model, other startups have severe limitations in obtaining search results from the wast internet. This could explode and perhaps take over everything.

Ah, that makes much more sense now. You want to enable a community of plugins/widgets/apps built on top of the index. That's fascinating. I feel it would probably require some centralized base set of widgets similar to what Google already provides. That way the average user can just type "5 minute timer" without having to manually install the widget first. Quality/security outside that base set might be nightmarish. People put a lot of stuff into search bars.

May I remind you about when it was hip and cool to use Google? Google's tried to keep that image going as long as possible, but as a giant corporate behemoth, it's hard to realistically expect that to hold up forever.

That's very much true; I should have been clear my objection was primarily to something Snapchat-like.

I don't know if an open collaborative approach to search is really possible given that there's a whole SEO industry out there. If we could have the equivalent of white hat SEO folks help point out flaws and exploitable bits, then maybe?

I think the problem is that such statements (and worse) do come from professional adults. So I find assuming such views come from people with just enough wherewithal to type out a comment to be a) pointlessly hostile and b) a distraction from the troubling reality.

Mark your calendars, kids, because someone on the internet just got their mind changed. Specifically the b) part, in that my thinking leaves a big blnd spot to reality. The a) part, meh, not so much, but it gives me words for consideration.