A document proposing terminology to describe 0-based indexes in unambiguous language.
For example, considering a sequence like [5, 4, 7, 8, 2]
What is the 4th element? 8, but if I asked what is the "0th element", you would answer 5, but that is the 1st element. The document introduces the terminology of the zerid element (0id element), oneid element (1id), etc. to handle 0-based indexing.
I think this honestly has more to do with moslty Chinese sellers engaging in review fraud, which is a rampant problem. I'm not saying non-Chinese sellers don't engage in review fraud, but I have noticed a trend that around 98% of fake or fraudulently advertised products are of Chinese origin.
If it was just because it was cheap, we'd also see similar fraud from Mexican or Vietnamese sellers, but I don't really see that.
There are various ways to do the trick, sometimes they ship out rocks to create a paper trail, sometimes they take a cheap/light product and then replace the listing with something more expensive and carry over all the reviews (which is just stupid that Amazon allows but apparently they do)
If you think about it there is basically no scalable way for Amazon to ensure a seller is providing the same product over time - and to all customers.
Random sampling can make sure a product matching the description arrives. But someone familiar with it would have to carefully compare over time. And that process doesn’t scale.
One thing Walmart does right is having “buyers” in charge of each department in the store. For example fishing - and they know all the gear and try it out. And they can walk into any store and audit and know if something is wrong.
I’m sure Amazon has responsible parties on paper - but the size and rate at which the catalog changes makes this a lower level of accountability.
I actually disagree. I think that people will pay more for higher quality software, but only if they know the software is higher quality.
It's great to say your software is higher quality, but the question I have is whether or not is is higher quality with the same or similar features, and second, whether the better quality is known to the customers.
It's the same way that I will pay hundreds of dollars for Jetbrains tools each year even though ostensibly VS Code has most of the same features, but the quality of the implementation greatly differs.
If a new company made their IDE better than jetbrains though, it'd be hard to get me to fork over money. Free trials and so on can help spread awareness.
That does not describe the current subscription-based software market, then, because we do try it, and we can always stop paying, transaction costs aside.
There are two costs to software: what you pay for it, and the time needed to learn how to use it. That's a big different to the original Lemon paper. You don't need to invest time in learning how to use a car, so the only cost to replacing it is the upfront cost of a new car. Worse "Time needed to learn it" understates it, because the cost replacing lemon software is often far more than just training. For example: replacing your accounting system, where you need to keep the data it has for 7 years as a tax record. Replacing a piece of software will typically cost many times the cost of the software itself.
If you look around, notice people still use Microsoft yet ransomware almost universally attacks Windows installations. This is despite everyone knowing Windows is a security nightmare courtesy of the Sony hack 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sony_Pictures_hack
Mind you, when I say "everyone", Microsoft's marketing is very good. A firm I worked lost $500k to a windows keyboard logger stealing banking credentials. They had virus scanners for firewalls installed of course, but they aren't a sure deference. As the technical lead for many years, I was asked about my opinion of what they could do. The answer is pretty simple: don't use Windows for banking. Buy an iPad of Android tablet, and do you safety critical stuff on there. The CEO didn't believe a tablet could be more secure than a several thousand dollar laptop when copy of Windows cost more than the tablet. Sigh.
So the answer to why don't people move away from poor quality subscription software is by the time they've figure out it's crap, the cost of moving isn't just the subscription. It's much larger than that.
> but only if they know the software is higher quality.
I assume all software is shit in some fashion because every single software license includes a clause that has "no fitness for any particular purpose" clause. Meaning, if your word processor doesn't process words, you can't sue them.
When we get consumer protection laws that require that software does what is says on the tin quality will start mattering.
This is a simple problem I have met and dealt with before.
The issue is the lack of synchronization between cancellation and not handling cancel failure.
All cancellations can fail because there is always a race when calling cancel() where the operation completes.
You have two options, synchronous cancel (block until we know if cancel succeded) or async cancel (callback or other notification).
This code simply handles the race incorrectly, no need to think too hard about this.
It may be that some io_uring operations cannot be cancelled, that is a linux limitation. I've also seen there is no async way to close sockets, which is another issue.
> You have two options, synchronous cancel (block until we know if cancel succeded) or async cancel (callback or other notification).
> This code simply handles the race incorrectly, no need to think too hard about this.
I still think the race is unnecessary. In the problematic code, there’s an operation (await accept) that needs special handling if it’s canceled. A linear type system would notice the lack of special handling and complain. But I would still solve it differently: make the sensitive operation impossible to cancel. “await accept()” can be canceled. Plain “accept” cannot. And there is no reason at all that this operation needs to be asynchronous or blocking!
(Even in Rust’s type system, one can build an “await ready_to_accept()” such that a subsequent accept is guaranteed to succeed, without races, by having ready_to_accept return a struct that implements Drop by putting the accepted socket back in the queue for someone else to accept. Or you can accept the race where you think you’re ready to accept but a different thread beat you to it and you don’t succeed.)
To be clear, everyone alive today is still on average multiple iq points dumber than they would have been had we not burned tetraethyl lead 50 years ago, even though it has been banned for quite a while. Lead is THAT toxic.
Any source for this? Most of the research I've seen with regards to lead and IQ is correlational and could be confounded by intelligence being correlated with income which is associated with living in places with less lead exposure.
Basically the IQ gap between the lead exposed and non exposed has stayed the same even though the amount of lead in the bloodstream has dropped by orders of magnitude. So either the first part of lead exposure is 100x more damaging then the 100th part of lead exposure (which animal models do not bear out) or a lot of the lead exposure IQ research is confounded.
I believe when in life you are exposed makes a difference too. Children are at a higher risk for being harmed by lead for a number of reasons including having less blood than an adult, and being more likely to eat paint chips off the ground than (most) adults. I'd imagine that lead replacing calcium in the brain during critical developmental periods also matters a lot.
Contrast to say, copper, which doesn't start causing damage until levels exceed a certain tolerable threshold.
While lead is toxic at any amount, low amounts of lead cause low amounts of damage. It doesn't change the fact that the ideal exposure is 0 and over 99% of people have about 5 to 10 times the bond lead levels found in remains of our ancestors, and that even relatively low lead exposure levels from breathing lead in the air from just air pollution are linked to dramatically reduced IQ.
it's silly hubris on your part to claim that you know that tetraethyl lead in gasoline was not a net positive for civilization: cheap gas in high compression cars leading to productivity gains? Could things have been better? you, of all people, have no idea.
I'd choose micro plastics vs an equivalent mass dose of lead.
If it was 1000x the amount of micro plastics vs lead it's maybe less obvious which is the less bad poison. I'd have to do some research at that point.
I think framing it this way it's obvious that lead is worse than micro plastics. But when you go from lead soldered copper pipes to PEX I don't know what the doses you get from each are.
Okay what's the safe dose of micro plastics? What's the evidence for that dose being safe? Do we have 100 years of data?
The reason we know there isn't a safe dose of lead is a lot of study.
Every month there's a new study about some crazy micro plastics things where they got found in some new place. We're in the early days of figuring out how bad it is. We don't really know yet.
Sure, but (maybe someone can jump in here) isn't copper pipe + water soluble lead-free flux + lead-free solder better? Copper piping is more expensive--dunno when you'd make your money back over tap filters, but broadly I don't think you have to choose between lead and microplastics in your water from your piping.
For example, considering a sequence like [5, 4, 7, 8, 2]
What is the 4th element? 8, but if I asked what is the "0th element", you would answer 5, but that is the 1st element. The document introduces the terminology of the zerid element (0id element), oneid element (1id), etc. to handle 0-based indexing.
reply