vc8f6vVV

6 ms·

1.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Yep, I'm not actually claiming that driving is safer per se, but it's apples vs oranges. I'm also not sure about 24M hours, total commercial airlines hours (i.e. aircraft hours, not passengers') is around 14M/year i
2.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Statistics is a tricky thing. There are 43K traffic fatalities in the US per year and 53K deaths from colorectal cancer. Which means chances of dying from colorectal cancer is higher than dying in a traffic accident. Well, over a lifetime,
3.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Let's do some math, shall we? > In 2007, the National Transportation Safety Board estimated a total of nearly 24 million flight hours. Of these 24 million hours, 6.84 of every 100,000 flight hours yielded an airplane crash, and 1.19
4.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
It does change odds. So when considering defensive driving the rule "flying is safer" may not hold.
5.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Yes, entropy increases in the salad dressing, but only when it's insulated (in reality we can't consider salad dressing outside of the Earth gravitational field, but let's say the Earth is insulated too). Now imagine that the
6.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Standard gear box oil is 80W90, which at -30C (even at -20C) turns into a thick jelly. Even in neutral starter has to move gears in that jelly. So normally you don't want to release the clutch until engine is warm enough and stable, an
7.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
People just don't care about their vehicles, that's why. There are multiple examples of even diesels starting at -25°C without heating. All my cars have been gas and while starting them at -30°C required some magical actions (like
8.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
> It hates any form of order and will actively attempt to destroy it. If you are talking about ever increasing entropy, it applies to any environment. But keep in mind that the Moon itself is a manifestation of order. If it hadn't b
9.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Most modern cars will happily start at -20°C and many will start at -30°C without any special additions (don't ask me how I know, you just need to know what you are doing). Of course it's not -200°C, but one thing to remember is t
10.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
If you block your timer goes out the window, right? Because the poll will never get there until the blocking call is done. So yeah, you can block, but it will disrupt the whole chain, including tasks above yours up to await. Similar to Erla
11.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Interesting, in the Java world Thread.stop is deprecated too: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/concu... Which means there is no good way to actually stop a thread involuntary.
12.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Most languages I know allow killing a thread, or at least unblock a system call.
13.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Can you cancel a tight computing loop (i.e. without system calls and without yielding of any sort) with async? I wonder how? Also if you can inject a cleanup code in your async task what prevents you from doing it with threads? Such things
14.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
You wait on a shared channel so both read and sleep threads queue a message when ready (whichever comes first). Not sure about channels, but in other languages it would be a concurrent queue.
15.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
As I understand when you are blocked on I/O and sends a signal to the waiting thread, that system call will simply be released and return an error. Ruby (Java etc.) does make it simple because of GC, so I don't need to worry about
16.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
What happens if I block a future in a single threaded runtime?
17.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Channel with an additional thread for sleep? Waiting for a channel is not a poll.
18.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Not sure about Rust, but in other languages that don't have async: create a queue, spawn a thread with your task, thread with sleep and wait for a message from any of those two. Kill the still running thread when you get the message. C
19.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
In some sense it is. Async is a glorified future, and future is a glorified thread management, and threads are a way to facilitate asynchronous execution. You can also create a threadless runtime, but then you are relying on OS threads (e.g
20.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Not exactly sure how async in Python works, but if its runtime is non-preemptive and single-threaded (i.e. based on yield), then congratulations, you reinvented Windows 3.1! Those who are old enough to be "lucky" to use it, rememb
21.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Depends on the nature of commercial code and if it has another level of parallelism (think of web servers and read my comment below). As for DB queries, here's the thing: most commercial code is using DB transactions and there is no wa
22.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Also parallel execution is never simple, there are multiple problems no matter what technology you use, be it async or threads. Meanwhile there are different threads too, you know, green, system etc. There is Erlang for example, which exist
23.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
If you carefully read my message, I said there are cases where async is beneficial. Most of the time I don't think even threads are necessary. E.g. the most common application nowadays (arguably) is a web server. Of course those who wr
24.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Maybe I don't understand the complexity, but in good old Ruby I can easily stop a thread if I don't need result anymore. No async needed and no yield points necessary. Doesn't it apply to Rust too?
25.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
Nope, my answer boils down to: "I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." (c)
26.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
> Why don’t people like async? That's pretty simple. The primary goal of every software engineer is (or at least should be) ... no, not to learn a new cool technology, but to get the shit done. There are cases where async might be b
27.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
> 1. Screening mammography has been proven to reduce cancer specific mortality in many studies. So let's assume that an annual X-ray caused another cancer in women who would never develop breast cancer (i.e. 87% of them). You are sa
28.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
> 99.9% of people won't ever get colon cancer, and therefore won't ever benefit from a colonoscopy. But they may have complications from a colonoscopy, that's the idea. No test is completely harmless, even a blood work. Yo
29.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
> Colorectal cancer screening is not all that unpleasant Also not that harmless as you think. Only you suggest to perform it on 24 other patients who won't ever have a colon cancer. And that might be you, right? With the real risk (
30.
by vc8f6vVV 3y ago
> You, specifically, might have been helped if screened when you had a little baby tumor. Or your screening might have caused that tumor? X-rays are not harmless and they can cause cancer. Other screenings have their respective complicat

More ›