As CEO of Chef, Barry Crist has the authority to say, "Chef will withdraw from all ICE contracts. We cannot change ICE's policies, but we are not obligated to remain complicit in the harm these policies cause."
He could have said this. He could have taken a stand and set an example. He chose to take the easy way out, and I think there are too many people in this thread willing to make excuses for his moral cowardice.
He may have done the right thing as a CEO, but he has failed miserably as a human being and an American citizen.
What ability does Chef have to change family separation and detainment? These things would still be happening if ICE had to go back to whatever they were using before Chef.
Harder how? Explain how making ICEs deployment pipeline slower will make ICE release migrants or stop family separation.
If you want to claim that Chef should cease business with ICE explicitly on the moral grounds that no company should have any business with the agency, that is a valid claim. But to say that Chef had any influence, let alone "all the ability" as the root commenter wrote, to affect ICE's conduct is not a statement I find to be honest.
If anything, this sort of thing makes it worse for the immigrants awaiting asylum hearings: if it's harder to keep track of who's there, it's harder to process them. There was a company whose employees walked out when they found out they were making beds for ICE detainment facilities... resulting in fewer beds for detainees.
If there was an easily defined definition of "respecting users data" the we wouldn't be in this situation. Plenty of people think putting a clause in the EULA that says user data can be monetized is being respectful of user data, but this is often prohibited by law. Plenty of people don't think having a tool to dump user data is necessary to respect user data.
> Plenty of people think putting a clause in the EULA that says user data can be monetized is being respectful of user data
Do they really believe that, though? I always thought they were just thinking it was just legal cover to allow them to do whatever they want with the data. Respect doesn't enter into it.
What's wrong with it? The End user license agreement is the document explicitly dedicated to explaining how the interaction between the user and the software will work. If a company explains how the data will be used and the user consents to that agreement what is the issue? I don't doubt that there are people that don't bother to read the EULA but thats a leading-a-horse-to-water situation.
I didn't say that there was something wrong with it, I said that it doesn't count as being respectful of user data.
That said, almost all EULAs and privacy statements I've ever read have not been forthcoming about the use of data. They usually state, in broad terms, that they'll share unspecified user data with mysterious "partners" for nonspecific reasons.
Some, perhaps, but nowhere near the figure given ($5trn). Saying that they'es $5 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies makes people think that if we just cut these subsidies then we'd have $5 trillion of spare cash. That's not the case, these subsidies are really speculated externalities.
Do we make solar PV companies to pay into funds for people who get sick from heavy metal poisoning (which does happen and is expected to continue happening, it turns out solar is cheaper if you ship the waste to a third world country)? Do hydroelectric dams pay for water loss from evaporation?
I don't disagree that the externalities are worse for fossil fuels than other energy sources, and that's a good reason to decarbonize our energy supply. But externalities are exactly that: impacts external to the cost of power generation. When someone says "we subsidized X industry by $Y" to me it means that $Y worth of goods and services was given to that industry. In reality, the fossil fuel industry received nowhere near that amount of money. This "subsidy" is really a speculative cost of externalities. Especially when the projected cost of externalities vary widely, equating externalities with subsidies comes off as intellectually dishonest. If externalities account for effectively the entirety of this so called subsidy, you're better off calling it an externality rather than trying to redefine a term.
2004, 2006, and 2007 for Dawn of War, CoH, and SC respectively. More well known titles like Red Alert 2, Command and Conquer Generals, and Warcraft 3 were even earlier than that. Starcraft 2 was the last "AAA" RTS game that I can think of. Deserts of Kharak is probably the only RTS game I've played in the last 8 years that I really enjoyed. I tried CoH 2, but the micro transactions put me off. Eugen's Wargame series and Steel Divison had interesting and deep nuanced mechanics, but single player was very rough and the multiplayer player base wasn't big enough to sustain a good matchmaking experience.
Personally, I think the main culprit is that MOBAs like DotA 2 and League of Legends are too similar in genre and won over much of the RTS player base. Anecdotally, most of the people I knew that were into SC 2 started playing League or Dota 2.
Edit: I totally blanked out on the Total War franchise. That's definitely a staple of mine, and still playing Rome 1 and Medieval 2 mods to this day.
Is confidential mode actually trying to sell itself as an encrypted email service? Google's articles about confidential mode doesn't mention encryption [1], so I'm not sure why tutanota is focusing so much on the lack of encryption. It seems to me that confidential mode is more about providing proof of receipt via SMS, and making it slightly harder for employees to forward emails to people not meant to receive it.
If wanted to send an encrypted email, I'd do my encryption and decryption client side in my own terminal. Don't ever let the service's email client get access to the plaintext.
Google advertises this stuff as "confidential". You don't get "confidential" without encryption.
This is like a company advertising "our product will make your car use less fuel", and all they give you is a sticker that says "less fuel!" to attach to your car. But that's OK because they didn't say "our product uses 'technology'"?
There are some variations of fizzbuzz that have you print out the number of iterations performed at that point on each line. The memory consumption could still be predetermined, but the math is a bit more complicated. Other variations have you reading integers from a stream (integers are not in any order), printing "Fizz" and "Buzz" when it's a multiple of 3 and 5 respectively, and that does not have a predetermined memory footprint.
While FizzBuzz has become notorious for weeding out total incompetence [1], there are some variations of the problem that are unexpectedly nuanced.
Is it not possible to keep allocating contiguous memory? Just keep appending to the string and allocating more memory. Repeated calls to malloc are not guaranteed to be contiguous but I think you can do this with posix_memalign. Just keep growing the heap segment, and appending more character to it. I suppose it's not going to be contiguous in physical memory, but it should in virtual memory.
You can use realloc. It will try to use the existing contiguous span of memory, but if it cannot, it will malloc a new span and copy the previous bytes in and return a pointer to it.
In that case, you need to test if the memory is contiguous and copy to the new pointer if not. O(N^2) in the worst case, where every memory allocation returns a distinct start pointer.
What I was getting at is that in virtual memory the heap is always contiguous (even if it isn't in physical memory, but we only need it to be contiguous in virtual memory). So one can guarantee that the solution will never require copying data if the program exclusively uses the stack, and the resultant string is the only piece of data on the heap. You always add contiguous memory so your string can dynamically grow without ever copying to a new buffer. This probably requires allocating memory through the use of OS-specific syscalls to request new memory pages instead of malloc or realloc.
Yes, the kernel will map virtual to physical however it sees fit, no guarantees there (at least not in user-space via glibc). Realloc will always return a virtually contiguous slice or NULL if it can’t. And you’re right, obviously all those potential subordinate mallocs would be inefficient. :) In this contrived FizzBuzz example case, you could pretty easily do the math and just malloc it all in one go at the start of the function. Fizz and Buzz are the same size, you would just need to add up the iota lengths and the trailing \0. If you take an arg for N (1..N) then stack allocations are not going to work. You need to statically declare their size.
What I'm getting at, though, is that it's possible to implement it without any copies even if the memory consumption cannot be predetermined. Bypass malloc() and realloc() entirely and invoke brk() to increase the program's segment size. This grows the data segment contiguously (in virtual memory), so there will never be a need to copy the result string to a different buffer. In other words point the result pointer to the start of the heap, and never put anything else on the heap.
I speculate that veganism and vegetarianism is strongly correlated with food health consciousness in general, thus fostering a sense of equivalency between veganism and vegetarianism with "healthy". French fries are vegan. Maple syrup is vegan. Chocolate is vegan (as long as it doesn't have animal fat added to it). I can have a very unhealthy vegan meal that consists of french fries dipped in maple syrup and chocolate.
