• 1 Post
  • 76 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 3rd, 2023

help-circle

  • I haven’t heard of that being what threading is, but that threading is about shared resourcing and memory space and not any special relationship with the scheduler.

    Per the wiki:

    On a multiprocessor or multi-core system, multiple threads can execute in parallel, with every processor or core executing a separate thread simultaneously; on a processor or core with hardware threads, separate software threads can also be executed concurrently by separate hardware threads.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)

    I also think you might be misunderstanding the relationship between concurrency and parallelism; they are not mutually exclusive. Something can be concurrent through parallelism, as the wiki page has (emphasis mine):

    Concurrency refers to the ability of a system to execute multiple tasks through simultaneous execution or time-sharing (context switching), sharing resources and managing interactions.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)



  • If what you said were true, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense for OP to be making a joke about how even if the source includes multi threading, all his extra cores are wasted? And make your original comment suggesting a coding issue instead of a language issue pretty misleading?

    But what you said is not correct. I just did a dumb little test

    import threading 
    import time
    
    def task(name):
      time.sleep(600)
    
    t1 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("1",))
    t2 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("2",))
    t3 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("3",))
    
    t1.start()
    t2.start()
    t3.start()
    

    And then ps -efT | grep python and sure enough that python process has 4 threads. If you want to be even more certain of it you can strace -e clone,clone3 python ./threadtest.py and see that it is making clone3 syscalls.






  • It likely depends on the courthouse, but generally speaking you’ll show up, sign in, someone will give a little talk about how things work, and then you’ll wait in a waiting room for a few hours while various names are called. Then you’ll go into the court room and the actual jurors will get selected from the pool. They’ll ask some questions and depending on the answer some people will get removed (having a family member who’s a police officer is pretty common).

    If you’re not selected, you’ll probably go back to the waiting room to see if you get pulled for another case. If you are, you’ll sit and listen to the details of the case and eventually make a determination. Depending on the case/jurisdiction, you might also be a “backup juror” where you’ll sit through the entirety of the case, but won’t actually be part of the deliberation at the end unless another juror had to drop out for some reason.

    I ended up getting a murder trial, which was pretty interesting. Overall wasn’t a horrible experience, but definitely glad I brought a Steam Deck while I was waiting.


  • I’m not the most up to speed on TPM’s, but does it have the capability to directly do network access in order to pull the key? Otherwise, you’re going to need the regular OS to get it to the TPM somehow, in which case that’s the weak link to pull the key instead of ripping it from the TPM itself.

    And once they have the key once, how do you enforce them having to re-request it? Is there a reason that that point they couldn’t just unplug from the Internet (if even necessary) and copy the entirety of that drive/partition somewhere else?



  • Also made the switch not too long ago, only using Manjaro. Steam’s proton had gotten extremely good at playing Windows games, so there’s a good chance that it could run your old strategy game.

    You might already have this on your set-up, but having wine auto-launch for Windows executables has been fantastic. I regularly pull and run Windows executables without really giving it a second thought, and so far it’s generally “just worked.”







  • Then I would steer away from arguments which are more debatable and stick to ones that are more robust and focus on the present and future than the past, and avoid anything that can get mired in debate. I’d focus on what the specific problem is (we will have fewer artists due to competition with AI) why it’s a problem (cultural stagnation, lack of new inspiration for new ideas) and why alternative solutions to regulation wouldn’t work (would socializing artistic fields work as they’d no longer be subject to market forces).



  • I’ve heard the sentiment that change and convenience are killing society before, and I’m sure I’ll hear it again. I prefer to shop online. I get no sense of community from stores where every interaction has a hanging financial incentive around it, I get it from local organized runs, other frequent visitors of the dog park, etc. To me, that line of reasoning feels almost like lamenting how good the pipes in your house are, because you don’t need to call a plumber and get to interact with them.

    Shopping online gives me more options, more reviews, easier ways to look up additional technical details without feeling weird taking space in an aisle while researching on my phone. It’s also more efficient in terms of total driving; one person making deliveries for everyone in a neighborhood requires less total driving than all those people making individual trips to a store. And it frees up more time for me to do things I actually want with the people I enjoy.