The ‘normal’ way to redefine words in forth is a bit of cheating, though. Redefining a word merely introduces a word with a name that shadows that of the old, still existing word.
Words created before the definition still call the old implementation, and, depending on the implementation (a phrase that, I think applies to about any statement about forth) you can still find it when you walk the dictionary and call it.
Smalltalk is missing too, and that’s a bigger omission. When you redefine a function there, it starts getting used everywhere.
I wonder what a blog post written about this 50 years from now will look like. Would it still mention C and lisp? Would readers of said article still mention forth and smalltalk as missing? Also, what reasonably successful languages from the ‘60s/‘70s already are gone from the collective mind?
Being used today to write very popular OSes, I see C still being mentioned, but by then lisp might have fallen into the abyss of history (except for, probably, a few computer historians)
> by then lisp might have fallen into the abyss of history
I don't think so, because being a lisp is a trait of a language rather than a specific language. Scheme is a lisp. Racket is a lisp. Clojure is a lisp.
People keep making new ones because lisp continues to be a useful idea. It keeps not quite going mainstream, the reasons for which have been subject to much speculation. It's most likely that there will be some semi-popular lisp in 50 years.
There are languages which have Lisp in their name for a reason: Emacs Lisp, Visual Lisp, ISLisp, Common Lisp, ... Historically Interlisp (see https://interlisp.org ), Standard Lisp (see REDUCE), and many others.
A great language, I cut some of my programming teeth with GraFORTH on Apple II in 1982/1983 in high school. I wish I still had some of my old floppy disks. I did some floating-horizon for plotting f(x,y) and some basic animations. A friend and I did some demo programs for a couple of local entrepreneurs (Romel and Ludimar in case you're out there) selling Apple II clones, the MicroEngenho, in Brasília. Our work, displayed at a trade show, made it onto the nightly news.
TL;DNR: Through April 5th, they're preventing marketplace vendors from shipping new inventory to Amazon's fulfillment centers that aren't household staples, medical supplies, or otherwise high-demand products. Marketplace vendors that do their own warehousing and customer shipments are unaffected. This may affect the available selection, inventory, and shipment options seen at Amazon, but no restrictions were placed on customer purchases.
The following notice was sent to my Amazon Marketplace account:
Hello from Fulfillment by Amazon,
We are closely monitoring the developments of COVID-19 and its impact on our customers, selling partners, and employees.
We are seeing increased online shopping, and as a result some products such as household staples and medical supplies are out of stock. With this in mind, we are temporarily prioritizing household staples, medical supplies, and other high-demand products coming into our fulfillment centers so that we can more quickly receive, restock, and deliver these products to customers.
For products other than these, we have temporarily disabled shipment creation. We are taking a similar approach with retail vendors.
This will be in effect today through April 5, 2020, and we will let you know once we resume regular operations. Shipments created before today will be received at fulfillment centers.
You can learn more about this on this Help page. Please note that Selling Partner Support does not have further guidance.
We understand this is a change to your business, and we did not take this decision lightly. We are working around the clock to increase capacity and yesterday announced that we are opening 100,000 new full- and part-time positions in our fulfillment centers across the US.
We appreciate your understanding as we prioritize the above products for our customers.
Thank you for your patience, and for participating in FBA.
Doesn't seem to be very helpful - In a multicenter cohort of 302 patients with MERS coronavirus, 92% of patients treated with BiPAP failed this modality and required intubation (Alraddadi 2019)
My number one tip for employees is a simple one: above all else, be responsive. If your company has an instant messenger app, your response time should be in seconds, not minutes. If you're going on a small errand or putting together a snack in the kitchen, it is to your benefit as much as everyone else's to update your status. A simple 'be right back' goes a long ways. When managers can't get ahold of people working from home is when they start to ask questions, run VPN reports, and reign things in.
In reading the comments below, this seems to be wildly unpopular. I can understand where they're coming from. Being available may be very appreciated by others, but it really hurts when you're deeply involved in something. I manage this by marking myself as busy when I know I'm about to dive deep into something, but you can't always see it coming, and I can understand the resistance to this approach.
This destroys deep work. If you are paid for deep work you have to balance responsiveness with getting your work done. Don’t be unavailable, use status messages wisely, and set up an SLA that makes sense for deep work. “Seconds” is not reasonable IMO. Depends on your role, I suppose.
yes, but not everybody has to do deep work all the time.
for example, part of my job is to be available to colleagues for consultation. it might be something to which i can quickly respond "ticket or gtfo" or "busy right now, could you ask me again in 10-15 minutes?". But it could also require me immediate action (some production environment is failing).
As a company culture it is important to empower people to tell "not now", to educate people to only tell "not now" if you actually can't right now, and to train yourself to write "not now" without losing focus.
I disagree. Respond when you have time not when the micro-manager ask about trivia.
Managers should be looking on results of someone work not what you type or when. This is one of the things that piss me in the tech industry, Incompetent managers using tools like the end of year feedback, number of hours spent in office or culture fit to decide if someone is perfoming well.
I manage a remote team and the first training session I give is on the importance of asynchronous communication. Synchronous communication should be scheduled in advance or for dire emergencies (at least for projects/roles that required extended periods of focus).
On the contrary. Don't be distracted all the time starring at the IM icon. When working, ignore the icon until you are done. Talk it through with managers in case they don't know how focused work works. If there is really something super urgent, they can call you.
If your managers mistrust you so much that they feel the need to check up on you like a child, switch company quickly.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Use the right tool (sync vs async) communication for the right job. Establishing timelines and check-in points, communicating if and when things get off track, and delivering autonomously is how you mitigate this. Much like in real life. How lost do you have to be to conflate results with responsiveness?
I keep my mobile phone on me (and smartwatch) while in the house so I can do other things as a break (wash dishes) but still be responsive if necessary.
I don't send anyone "be right back" messages -- I will set my IM status to unavailable if I intend to be unavailable.
This shouldn’t be done even in the office. Can’t tell you how many times I get interrupted by any member of my team in the office for trivialities or even useful things that can also wait. We have some fires but that’s only about 10% of my interruptions.
The medium of in-person communication is very different from the tools of remote communication. You're trying to force in-person protocols and expectations in a situation that isn't well suited to this medium. This just adds to stress and friction in your team.
I'm glad my manager doesn't expect a response in seconds. Some colleagues do initially, but they learn eventually. If he did, I'd tactfully explain why it's a bad thing
I am not sure how this is supposed to work. Should your team members check the calendar before they ping you? and if they get annoyed by your lack of responsiveness you point them to the calendar?
Blocking time in your calendar will stop incoming meeting invites, and then at those times my IM status is set to DND.
This idea that people at work should always be available is not a good standard that we've set ourselves up in. If you're in support or some job then yeah, this model won't work for you. If you're coding then it makes a big difference.
I think I'm willing to take one of my RTL-SDR dongles, hook it up to the Raspberry Pi, and start giving them a regular feed. If only just to identify a few pesky helicopters that fly over the house that aren't showing up on flightradar24 like everything else. I can appreciate this service.
This was actually how I stumbled upon it. There was a helicopter with a camera gimbal and what appeared to be a radar pod of some sort circling my city. I wanted to see if it was related to our local dystopian-augmented-reality-aerial-imaging-startup and lo and behold, their similarly unlisted cessna caravan covered in camera and weapon pylons was flying nearby...
Yeah I tried it on my Windows PC a while back and could see dozens of planes within quite a large distance! Very cool to "watch" the planes - via direct radio reception - as they follow their route to the airport, etc. !!
Does anyone know if it's possible to tee the data into multiple feeds? I'd like to feed to fr24 just for purposes of getting the better account, but also to this because the info is better. I could run two dongles i guess.
It sounds like you know a lot about this topic, but can you please share what you know in a more informative way? Shallow dismissals and name-calling are against the site guidelines. We're trying for a different sort of discussion in which people can really learn from each other, instead of putting others or their work down.
Just look at the code there. The author goes MIA and bugs are not fixed. There's really no reason to use it at this point - as there are better alternative and modern setups.
Not a different frequency, just a different protocol. Mode-S doesn't transmit position information so location can't be easily determined unless several receivers collaborate.
My receiver was mainly setup for MLAT where no mode-s is usable. Its works fairly well, but at times adsbx has had very bad receivers sending faulty MLAT data corrupting all the nearby tracks. But it seems to work well for now.
> If steroid mimicks testosterone. How is using steroid different than a man having naturally high testosterone level?
If your body perceives that there is too much testosterone, it stops producing its own testosterone. Your testicles will shrink. It may not take a very high dosage for this to start to happen. That won't be happening in a man with naturally high T who isn't supplementing.
By the way, how are your estrogen levels? Be sure that your doctor is keeping an eye on that. A number of things can cause your body to convert testosterone into estrogen, and you don't want high estrogen (for reasons of appearance as well as behavior). Conversely, there was at least one study some years ago which linked an increased risk of heart disease to men with both high testosterone and low estrogen. After supplementing with testosterone for about seven weeks or so, make sure your ratio of testosterone to estrogen is in check.
Another difference might be in how well you mimic the body's natural daily cycle of testosterone. A male's testosterone level is usually highest around 8am, declining throughout the day and at its lowest just before bedtime. (As it turns out, low levels of testosterone will help you fall asleep faster and sleep more soundly. Never supplement right before bedtime.) Those with low-T using patches, gels, and creams will generally apply them each morning and that does a great job of replicating the natural cycle. Additionally, their testosterone peak and lows are going to be more stable from day-to-day. That's exactly how it should be for a man with naturally high testosterone.
My understanding is that injections will give you a quick initial peak that will steadily decline (and when you're about ready to take your next injection, your testosterone levels may have fallen even further below what you started with). I don't believe that injections will preserve the natural daily cycle of testosterone (high in the morning, low at bedtime). I'm also wondering if the ratio between testosterone and estrogen remains stable throughout the peak and the decline. (My strong assumption: no.) If you're injecting, you'll want to research that and/or check with an expert. If you're already injecting, find an outside resource to confirm what the risks are and what your level of concern should be.
You didn't sound like you're cycling on/off your testosterone. But if you were, that would be another huge difference between yourself and a naturally high-T male.
I'm sure you're already aware that in both cases, high testosterone can have other unwanted effects like back hair, baldness / receding hairline, increased risk (or growth) of prostate cancer, increased anger, etc. You're likely to see at least one or more side-effect, especially when matching the level of a high-T male. Do not rely entirely on your own observations and opinions when monitoring for behavioral changes. Your best choice will be to rely on someone who you spend time with on a regular basis.
You seem to be aware that supplementation for low-T by a primary care physician is going to be substantially different than supplementing for bodybuilding. If you're going to a male health-and-wellness facility which intentionally tries to bring you to a high-T level, the advice which best applies to you is going to be somewhere in the middle of the other two groups. For more answers, you might want to find yourself a good subreddit. You'd be surprised by some of the high-quality answers you're going to be able to get over there. Still, I hope that all of this helps you in some way.
Disclaimer: I and most people here are not medical doctors, but I'm sure you knew that.
Immunity was my exact concern as I read about the children being shielded from TV advertising. Yes, it's more tranquil at home, but I have to wonder if to some degree those children are being robbed of a strong modern-day immunity that they'll need later in life?
Perhaps you case illustrates that it's a broad-spectrum immunity that needs to be developed.
I see that you've worked to raise some good points here and that you're not simply reducing this to whataboutism, right? I find it acceptable that a person focuses on their area of interest and expertise and reports what they find. I don't expect or want him to get into a 360 degree product review. Let's save "electric shock hazards, sharp edges" for someone else, and if they find nothing, that does not diminish his own findings, yes?
After reading his analysis, I'm not sure how much I can trust Wacom's behavior when it comes to data collection. My concerns don't then jump to sharp edges and electrical shocks. I think about data retention. How well do they protect that data? I think about what Wacom might do with that detail of personal behavioral information if approached by a data broker with cash in hand and ready to make a purchase.
Negative, sir. Actually, I was responding to the points you had made. I still trust his investigation and I find it to be significant even if he didn't address all the concerns you raised (which are outside of the area of software engineering). He doesn't need to address outside issues (like the physical safety of the device) to validate his findings or concerns.
Still, since you invited, I'll talk more about my own concerns. Do I trust Wacom as a company, as a whole? I think it depends on how they respond to this, right? Do I still trust them to make a tablet that doesn't have the problems you raised with "electric shock hazards, sharp edges"? Yes. At this moment, do I trust Wacom in the area of data collection? No, that seems to me like a questionable decision. I want to know more. I don't think I want an accessory manufacturer to compile a dossier of what programs I use at what time and from what (partially masked) IP address. More so when they're not being up-front about it (certainly from a layperson's perspective). I'm also not very confident right now that the behavioral data will stay within Wacom's walls and go no further.
In fact, I'm forwarding this to my CISO's office for further evaluation. Is that bad in some way?
This investigation was started because the original author was installing the drivers, and was presented with a legal agreement explaining that Wacom wanted to collect some data.
So they are being up front about it, right? I mean, maybe not in layperson-friendly language, but in compliance with regulations and under the guidance, presumably of their legal team.
In the box alongside the tablet, there was also probably a little booklet full of safety notices, warranty indemnifications, compliance statements, and arbitration assertions about the fitness for purpose of the hardware itself - also not written in layperson-friendly language. But the reaction on seeing that was... well, probably to toss it aside and go ahead and plug in the device, not to immediately assume that because the company presented a bunch of dense legalese, they might be trying to get away with something.
You said yourself: you don't trust Wacom not to sell the data to a data broker when presented with enough cash. But all sorts of Wacom business processes had to comply with regulations, be carried out diligently and ethically, and be generally trustworthy for Wacom to have produced an electronic device that you can safely plug into your computer. So I'm just trying to get you to consider:
What is it about their data processing that leads you to all of a sudden question their corporate ethics, diligence, compliance and trustworthiness?
> This is all just another example software devs' parochial belief that because software is eating the world, any problem in software is terrible, while ignoring the whole stack of hardware in meatspace that supports the software in the first place.
Actually, I'm interested in exploring more of your own view here. You seemed to take exception that he limited his findings to his apparent area of expertise and interest (software engineering, security/privacy). Is that still the case, or have your views evolved on this issue?
> What is it about their data processing that leads you to all of a sudden question their corporate ethics, diligence, compliance and trustworthiness?
Your questions for me are really best answered by the author:
1. Apparently, it defied a reasonable expectation that the purchase of such a minor peripheral of this type would lead to the manufacturer's attempt to obtain a regular stream of what applications he launched on his PC (and at what time, and from what partially masked IP address). He was a smart cookie. His tip-off was that it somehow needed a privacy policy. And he had the smarts to launch his own technical investigation.
2. When he finally saw what they were pulling from his PC, once again, he was shocked, because that seemed to conflict with his own understanding of what Wacom said they were doing. He hadn't just casually scrolled through the privacy notice. It looks like he read it quite carefully.
I suspect this might be what he took issue with:
> Information Automatically Collected – Google Analytics When You use the Tablet Driver, certain information as described below may be automatically collected for purposes such as improvement of the Tablet Driver, troubleshooting bugs, providing the functions of the Tablet Driver, managing the services and improving overall performance of the Tablet Driver. Such information includes aggregate usage data, technical session information and information about Your hardware device.
No, I'm not interested in pulling in more sections of text and going back-and-forth in a game of Internet Lawyer. Someone else here might be a more willing partner.
> So they are being up front about it, right?
That's the issue. Was Wacom clear and transparent? Or did Wacom manage to generate a body of text which obfuscates what they are actually doing while still maintaining legal compliance? Or did they overreach? As it turns out, the FTC has a special page to submit complaints regarding privacy policies. I imagine that corporate privacy policies are turning into a hot topic for the FTC right now. I guess there's enough interest here, so I'll go ahead and submit this issue to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and see if they want to help Wacom figure out the answer to your question.
Beyond that, you have some interesting questions about trust. Not my area of expertise, but I'll take a crack at it. Your boss might say that you're someone he trusts. He might give you authority over an application which processes millions or billions in yearly revenue. But he wouldn't trust you to take care of his kids for a week. Trust is not binary (yes/no), and it is not universal (trust in area X must equal overall trust or trust in area Y). That's as much as I've got. If you've got followup questions about trust, they might be better directed towards an online resource which focuses on that issue.
I wasn't aware of this, but it still seems like a thread worth pulling on. You're assuming, right? The reason I ask is that using any third-party company seems inappropriate. Even more so when Google has plenty of domains of its own to test against. Even more so when it is against a media/advertising company. And again, even more so against a company that changed from Google to Bing to power their search function. It seems to be an inappropriate or poor choice, doesn't it?
There's no smoking gun here, but I don't think that concern might be dismissed out of hand. It might be good to see what Yahoo's take on this. This could even evolve into participation by the US Attorney General. I'd like to know more, either way. Like if Yahoo was independently added to the list at a later date, or if it was there from the start?
The functionality is the functionality: it targets the header to Google sites. If there's a legal issue it really stands or falls there, not on the presence of another company's domain in the tests. There's nothing Yahoo-specific about what Chrome is actually doing.
