gargoiler00

5 ms·

1.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
They certainly are. But my point is that if you're only servicing the same number of IO connections as you have cores, it's not extremely scalable. Most networking servers should be dealing with hundreds or thousands of concurrent
2.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
> The idea that threads or processes are intrinsically slow was sheer unmitigated propaganda, and probably not only failed to contain a grain of truth, but are actively false. Threads / processes: * Run some code from A * Save
3.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
Yeah because I have as many cores as I have concurrent HTTP requests, and obviously it's CPU bound...
4.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
why would anyone still be using threads or processes these days? :/ hardly scalable or efficient.
5.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
It's really not a defining moment, in any sense of the word. Same old, same old. In actual fact though, The independent has stated that it wasn't leaked anything by the government, so the original post is moot. This is no better t
6.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
I remember when hacker news used to be about hacking, programming, startups etc. What the hell has this political article got to do with any of the above?
7.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
The supply of electricity however, is apparently limitless!!!
8.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
My first laptop was an Amstrad PPC512 in the mid 80s - almost 30 years ago. I'm still not convinced batteries have come that far since then. I'm actually thinking of going back to my nokia which has a battery that lasts a week on
9.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
> lithium-ion batteries (the latter were under active development), but they're now the primary power sources for portable devices, and lithium-ion batteries power the Tesla Model S. What does that mean for the user. Do batteries to
10.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
Take an AA battery. Now go back in time 30 years and look at an AA battery. Identical. Why has battery technology not improved one bit in the last 30 years? Well, obviously there's a massive disincentive - the better the battery, the l
11.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
I don't believe electric cars are technologically better. Lugging a half ton battery around, then waiting for hours for it to charge doesn't seem that clever to me. Of all the things that are banes of our lives these days, surely
12.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
Firstly, I don't believe electric cars are a good idea. Secondly, I absolutely hate the idea of cars so dependent on electronics and software. My neighbour has an old dumper truck he lets me use, probably 50 or 60 years old. It starts
13.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
HN has a raging hard-on for tesla. It's not surprising, but I agree it's ridiculously one sided here. Personally, I hope Tesla fail, and think they will.
14.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
It would probably take at most a few hours to rewrite a JSON encoder and decoder. It's hardly a complex piece of code is it.
15.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
Even that's not correct though. Port 80 is just the default port. Not to mention the number of web servers only doing HTTPS on port 443 and not 80. More correct would be "A scan of world wide web servers running on the default p
16.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
I think he meant scanning all ports, UDP+TCP+ICMP etc etc
17.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
Also what about the sudden population explosion? What if the survivors need after care for the rest of their lives, or expensive drugs?
18.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
The problem is, if wikipedia did alter articles based on advertisers demands (Which seems pretty far fetched to me), the public would just alter them back. Or see the edits wikipedia is making and put 2 and 2 together. >and then instruct
19.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
Welcome to the internet. You seem new. Everyone goes to Google.com to search for things. You know that when you do a search, you're going to see helpful related adverts. That level of conflict of interests and possible abuse, privacy c
20.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
That is one issue, indeed. But the downside is that you're hassling your users to give you money, rather than hassling advertisers to give you money. I'd rather not be hassled as a user. I would also click on adverts, and buy thin
21.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
It wasn't really fraud. The terms of use etc weren't really clear enough or lets face it enforceable. Was it fraud if you got a dog to play with the mouse, and never looked at the screen? The dog might have still been looking at t
22.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
For me personally, it ends up being far more annoying. I really wish wikipedia would just put small unobtrusive text adverts on each page rather than the massive intrusive banners begging for money.
23.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
Advertising on Reddit is not the same as advertising in general. If you advertise on Reddit, you're advertising to a violently anti-corporate anti-advertising audience, who may love you, but very well may hate you. You could be subject
24.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
It's ironic that the alternative to advertising, is to splash big "DONATE NOW" adverts over a website.
25.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
I think the mantra from the startup community is often: 1. Make money doing whatever it takes. eg come up with some crappy website, sell it to google, then shut it down. 2. The money problem is solved! 3. Spend money solving world hunger, d
26.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
That wouldn't address the lack of a sustainable business model. Being a forum where low wage/students/anti-corporate/anti-advertising types go and share memes is the elephant in the room problem.
27.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
Look back in time. Read up on other things that had a massive userbase, but were unsustainable. Checkup alladvantage - they paid people to surf. Had millions of users, but ultimately failed because their "business model" was idi
28.
by gargoiler00 13y ago
Last time they shared, they were spending ridiculous amounts of money on Amazon ec2 a month. Like ridiculous amounts. Someday, the money will run out, and they'll have to try and turn a profit. Their business model is fundamentally bad