WebAssembly doesn't make native integration any easier than JS. Neither defines the exact way so called non-web embeddings actually are defined and both can support it. I honestly have no idea the relevance of WebAssembly in this discussion. Could you provide an illustrative example?
Edit: I should clarify that for certain types of apps WebAssembly might be relevant but the discussion seemed to be out UI layer and I don't understand how WebAssembly fills a gap that a native API in JS could also provide along with the same challenges.
I'm sorry, I'm using "native" in an unclear way (that should have been obvious to me). I don't mean it will help with native API integration (JavaScript can do that just fine), I mean as a replacement for machine code on both platforms. iOS of course uses machine code for everything, but on Android it's mostly whittled down to the minimum: things that Java can't do efficiently, or code that isn't Java. That's the role I hope WebAssembly can fill, but it still remains to be seen how usable their solutions for threads, SIMD, etc. are.
A good example is games. Some do manage to use Java, but it's mostly a hindrance; being able to compile languages with a C style ontology to a platform-independent and efficient VM would be very helpful here.
Well, sure. But it's also exactly the contention of its proponents: that the categories represent orthogonal concerns about how we process information, but that our variation across those categories explains the larger trait distribution we experience.
My point wasn't to argue about how well they did that (not particularly), but rather that it's useful to approach issues of understanding personality in those terms at all. That's the real innovation of things like the MBTI: that we should analyze the distribution of personalities in terms of PCA, and that we should probably use a few components, rather than like 1 or 2.
Of course, we could do the actual analysis much better than the MBTI did.
I find it funny that no one yet has called you on your bullshit: Who the fuck is John Haymaker? There was no Haymaker CEO of Alcoa. You quote this person, and you don't even know their first name? Sounds legit.
He was president of ALCOA in the mid-80s -- I cant find him online - but I posted a link to his son's profile page who is an architect. John Haymaker, JR. I also make mention of my dads other best friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Herrington who happens to have a wiki page....
So, I dont know what to say about the fact that John SR doesnt have a page about him online as he was head of ALCOA in ~1985...
not my job to prove shit to the internet.... if you dont like my quote - then move on and dont attack me for it.
Yeah, get bent dude. It sort of is your job to prove who you're quoting or get called out on it. The nearest I can tell is the guy you're talking about is George Haymaker, and if that is who it is, he was CEO of Kaiser, not Alcoa.
But when you do things like this:
"FFS; I am relaying a quote I heard from the head of fucking ALCOA! y'all motherfuckers know what ALCOA is? and how far their reach is...."
That detail mattered because you made it matter. No one attacked you for that.
Hmm... You may be correct - and I apologize for my failing memory! I was freaking twelve when I heard him say this...
George may be correct - I'll have to ask my dad now.
While people have posted the listed CEOs of ALCOA in the 80s - I know that for certain he was head of ALCOA. My dad built his freaking house and I worked on it with John Haymaker (who my dad was required to employ during the build of his house on the Truckee River in Tahoe so his kid (the one who is now an architect) could get some build experience)...
But I stand by my comment... those statements were made.
Here it is:
"Mr. Haymaker was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation from January 1994 through December 1999, and was Non-Executive Chairman of that company from October 2001 until July 2006. Prior to joining Kaiser, he served in executive positions for Alcoa Inc., and Alumax Inc."
Not sure who you're thinking of. Maybe it was a weird childhood memory. But based on Alcoa's history page, nobody with that name was the CEO during the 80's.
>"Mr. Haymaker was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation from January 1994 through December 1999, and was Non-Executive Chairman of that company from October 2001 until July 2006. Prior to joining Kaiser, he served in executive positions for Alcoa Inc., and Alumax Inc."
There is a George T. Haymaker Jr. who "served as an Executive Vice President of Alumax Inc. from 1984 to 1986 and Vice President of International Operations at Alcoa Inc. from 1982 to 1984" [0].
His profile at Genstar Capital includes what seems like a recent photo [1].
No one is attacking you personally. A lot of people read HN for insightful or evidence backed commentary and the voting mechanism is there to maintain this quality. No one can quote your story and retain any credibility -to a third party relating your story sounds like this: "A dude in a web discussion forum claimed that a man who, based on his childhood memories, was a CEO at Alcor, said that...". It has degenerated to a gossip - something that is readily available elswhere. High quality diacussion, on the other hand, is hard to come by.
It's okay to relate anecdotal experience - some these type of comments are really good - but the style in the comment should then reflect the fact that the claim cannot be validated in any concrete way.
No, you did not 'prove' with any value of proof anyone else here would recognize. None of us can know did that conversation happen, if it did, were they serious or joking,etc etc. There is no way any sensible person could integrate this into their theory of the world.
Basically, unless you can provide evidence that is well known/scientifically rigorous/would hold in the court of law, what you wrote, is hearsay.
You can stand by your statement - no one is claiming you to be a liar. But claiming fluoridation of water is just some nefarious big-corp scheme is, to put it mildy, extraordinary. Given the prevalence of anti-vaxxers and other crazies in the mainstream outlets I can only imagine the toleration level for unscientific gossip on public health matters is really low.
Calm down dude, no need to get personal on people.
You're incorrect, especially for the typical reader here. A good chunk (maybe not over 50%, but its gotta be close) of the regular readers on this site use Macs. Most Mac keyboards, including the ones on the Macbook Pro, spell it out. Same for most non IBM/IBM-PC compatible keyboards.
FDIV was really not technically a serious errata in the grand scheme of erratas. The Phenom TLB bug was worse. Intel basically denied/sat on the issue for half a year, stopped just short of slandering Dr. Nicely, etc, they made it into a complete PR disaster. If they came out the week after it was reported and just said, here's a workaround, here's an opt-in replacement program (which they finally did, but then it was too late), you would probably never have heard about the FDIV bug -- like the countless other errata we have software workarounds for.
In retrospect I regret bringing up the Phenom because my argument could've stood without it, and I could realistically argue either way.
But my original intention was pointing out that the failure mode of the Phenom was such that it wasn't exploitable for anything other than potentially denial-of-service; it was just inconvenient, and only affected a subsystem of the CPU which worked fine without it using a firmware workaround.
Though you don't expect your CPU to halt and lock up, I believe it's far more insidious when you feed a device inputs and get the wrong output without any obvious indication that something went wrong, like in the case of rowhammer-vulnerable memory and FDIV.
I think that is the reason for the misunderstanding.. FDIV was not really insidious in the way you describe. It was 100% predictable, certain bit patterns always gave the wrong answer in the quotient on the affected hardware and it had a very straightforward software fix (with a performance effect sure). You could demonstrate it immediately, but it really wasn't severe.
(Q9 and Q10 http://www.trnicely.net/pentbug/pentbug.html)
Rowhammer is a much more complex errata and I don't feel qualified to comment on, especially the safety of the published mitigations, but it is in a class of bugs where the outcomes are not generally predictable due to more variables involved.
My reason for replying initially though, is that I don't think that the line for what types of hardware defects are open to software workarounds is so cut and dry, and I don't think many people outside of kernel/OS dev realize how many errata are on the chips they use everyday with workarounds they don't notice.
Edit: I should clarify that for certain types of apps WebAssembly might be relevant but the discussion seemed to be out UI layer and I don't understand how WebAssembly fills a gap that a native API in JS could also provide along with the same challenges.