klickverbot

6 ms·

1.
by klickverbot 4y ago
> I think this is a pretty small point to get hung up on. The rest of her article is perfectly reasonable. The above isn't the only place that betrays her lack of understanding, though. For instance, she confidently writes "Io
2.
by klickverbot 5y ago
Essentially, yes; all of quantum key distribution (QKD) is generating a secret key which can then e.g. be used as a one-time pad. The novelty here is that we can do it with much fewer assumptions on how the quantum devices behave than in co
3.
by klickverbot 5y ago
> My naive security architect view is, I get the impression the people doing quantum engineering and those working as cryptographers have a very narrow overlap. You probably aren't wrong, but also note that popular science articles
4.
by klickverbot 5y ago
> QKD is no replacement for asymmetric cryptography since it requires exchanging a secret key before the communication can take place. Your general point about QKD "promises" vs. practical IT security is well taken, particularl
5.
by klickverbot 5y ago
> Would it be accurate to say it is scaled back to the level achieved by classical (non-quantum) cryptography? Not quite. Classical cryptography of course requires the additional assumption that the computational capacity of the attacker
6.
by klickverbot 5y ago
> I always read perfect secrecy as a term of art with some technical meaning. That's indeed the case, but I fear the subtle technical definition here is usually one of the first things to go in the cycle of press releases and news a
7.
by klickverbot 5y ago
First author of one of the preprints mentioned in the article here (theory in Paris/Geneva/Zürich/Lausanne, experiment in Oxford) – happy to answer any questions! I obviously speak only for myself, not for any of my colleague
8.
by klickverbot 5y ago
There isn't anything special about functions; the original article does not describe this correctly. Rather, the big conceptual difference is the point at which the expression is evaluated – once for the whole program (`=`), vs. at eac
9.
The “Many Meanings” of Variables(cdsmithus.medium.com)
1 points by klickverbot 5y ago|0 comments
10.
by klickverbot 7y ago
Physicist here too. What exactly do you disagree with? The parent comment is sound – thermal imaging cameras typically under-read on shiny metal surfaces. Their emissivity/absorptivity at relevant wavelengths is low, and reflectivity i
11.
by klickverbot 7y ago
Reproducible in Firefox 67 on macOS as well. "DOWNLOAD" is only in one line for very wide windows, and for my default half-screen-wide window size (960 px), the main body title renders as NATIONA L PARK
12.
by klickverbot 8y ago
There seems to be something very strange going on with the way you are building LDC. On the machine I am typing this message from [1], building DMD using DMD in optimized mode takes 58s, plus another 2s for druntime and 7s for Phobos (the t
13.
by klickverbot 9y ago
Nope, not photoshopped. It's a single exposure; the apparatus is illuminated using flashes. The latter made lighting the shot in a controlled fashion a bit easier than if I had used continuous sources – you'd be looking at using a
14.
by klickverbot 9y ago
Photographer here. The amount of attention this has received has caught me a bit off guard – this is really just a somewhat pretty picture of what is a standard technique in physics by now. I'm putting together a short post with answer
15.
by klickverbot 9y ago
There are some advantages to having access to a human-readable representation for the symbol name, for example because not every piece of binary tooling out there necessarily also supports reading debug info for the target platform in quest
16.
by klickverbot 9y ago
> it'd be the same amount of effort without as-fast-as-possible. While the first part is perhaps somewhat subjective, the second is just wrong. D allows you to get to the same bare-metal, no-holds-barred level of performance that C+
17.
by klickverbot 9y ago
> D is arguably in the same bucket as Swift, and partly as Go. I don't think it's very useful to compare and contrast it against Rust. It is easy to claim how things "arguably" are, but without providing any justifica
18.
by klickverbot 9y ago
It's a lambda expression ("closure"/"anonymous function"/…) that doesn't capture any outside state (see e.g. http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/lambda ).
19.
by klickverbot 9y ago
> Rust and Go .. made better design choices that made them more popular [citation needed]
20.
by klickverbot 9y ago
D can interface with Objective-C just fine. The Apple-provided tooling will indeed be more convenient for the developer , but the result the end user sees will be a "high quality & native app" just the same.
21.
by klickverbot 9y ago
Do you depend on the C runtime as well?
22.
by klickverbot 9y ago
We LDC developers of course hope that you will continue to use LDC for all your non-x86 and high-performance needs. ;)
23.
by klickverbot 9y ago
> https://godbolt.org/g/IQ0O06 (And, of course, the entire main() disappears on -O1 and above: https://godbolt.org/g/FAWtak. )
24.
by klickverbot 9y ago
Just to clarify: LDC master is on 2.073.2 right now (the latest DMD release), with a 2.072.2-based release imminent, and work towards 2.074.0 (currently in beta) already underway. GDC is sadly a different story, though.
25.
by klickverbot 9y ago
LDC dev here. All the credit for this goes to Ilya Yaroshenko for the expertly crafted implementation and the LLVM developers for efficient low-level code generation (inlining, register allocation and so on, and in some places auto-vectoriz
26.
by klickverbot 9y ago
Yes – there are a number of research and/or hobby projects that implement kernels, drivers, etc. in D.
27.
by klickverbot 9y ago
Weka.io develop a software-defined distributed storage system in D with latencies well below a millisecond (over Ethernet). They use the GC in some parts, but avoid it on the hot path as much as possible as it is a simple pause-the-world ma
28.
by klickverbot 9y ago
(Disclaimer: LDC developer and former maintainer here.) > GDC is the compiler of choice when it comes to supporting multiple targets and cross-compilation. That entirely depends on what your targets are. GDC has some claim to "sup
29.
by klickverbot 11y ago
Well-engineered hardware is definitely interesting, but unfortunately this article is rather lackluster. I'm not even talking about the many typos, but absurd claims like the suggestion that the use of Torx screws "Protects Dyson
30.
by klickverbot 11y ago
I'm amazed by how well it holds up despite being both #1 on HN and /r/programming (twice, in the latter case).

More ›