I know that this was tongue-in-cheek, but I could imagine living in a world where naming countries as they name themselves is the dominant linguistic convention. Why not call Japan Nippon in a sentence.
I could imagine living in a world where there are 3 sexes and everyone walks on ceilings.
You're free to call Japan Nippon as long as you're fine with people raising eyebrows, sometimes not understanding what you mean, or deciding you're a pretentious twit.
The request that we use a character that doesn't even exist in the English alphabet (ü) is particularly ludicrous.
If there is a mechanism by which the English language can lose letters over time (such as þ or æ), why wouldn't there be one by which it gains it?
It would make even more sense, after all we lose letters because we write those sounds using other letters or letter combinations, however the "ü" in "Türkiye" doesn't have an analogue in the existing alphabet.
Making a joke about something is not necessarily "making light of it". It can be a way for an individual or culture to approach and digest a topic that is too difficult or painful to engage with directly.
First responders and medical professionals famously often have a sense of humor too dark to use around outsiders without causing offence/outrage(like what happened here), but I'm quite sure they are not "making light" of the loss of life and terrible injuries they face and fight.
HN is not an armenian space equivalent to a synagogue, and the original poster did not say nor imply that the armenian genocide "wasn't so bad"(in other words: make light of it). Arguably what they did was a form of spreading awareness, even.
If you're arguing in good faith, you need to take about three steps back and realize what caliber of strawman you're fighting against here.
I am absolutely arguing in good faith, and you should abstain from downplaying the atrocities that have befallen others and who still scar their descendants to this day. An off-colour joke was made and nobody here is calling it out for what it is, everybody is piling on to defend who made it. The joke was crass and insensitive and, if absolutely I must point this out, insofar as the original post was regarding the Armenian language it is highly likely that the original poster is Armenian themselves, making this Armenian-centric dialogue a kind of “Armenian space”.
Like three times in this conversation I've explicitly differentiated between 'making jokes about' and 'downplaying' something, and every time you have failed to engage with my reasoning and instead chosen to simply double down on your two-dimensional accusation.
Just because you state that “making jokes about” is not tantamount to “downplaying” doesn’t mean I have to accept your distinction. They are materially indistinguishable in this context.
No, but not engaging with my argument supporting my position(about the emergency workers, though if your point is about this specific joke and not jokes about taboo topics in general I'll admit that that is moot), and setting up strawmen("about how the Holocaust wasn’t so bad?") means you're not arguing in good faith.
This isn't a discussion, you're just yelling your opinion at me over and over.
Fair enough, you might have a point insofar as we need not agree — the same goes both ways. However I find it hard to label a sequence of words that underplays the magnitude of the ‘issue’ to be worthy of the term ‘joke’. I can see that I might’ve been carried away in making my point, but it still stands when said more placidly: genocide is not a laughing matter.
That jogged me a little:
The magnitude of the issue would be different in the mind of any person: The original poster of the joke and I see more of a historical fact and engage with it fairly casually, while someone very directly affected might still (I maintain, though you don't have to agree) make jokes about it, but a very different kind of joke, one that does include the seriousness of the issue to them.
I'm having a little trouble articulating it, but I think my point is: You were "right" to call out the original joke as coming from a place of not-as-serious-about-the-genocide as, well, you seem to be. But this is a function of us, the people who indeed are not as serious about it as those more closely affected, not of it being a joke.
Ethnic cleansing is what Azerbaijan recently did to ethnic Armenian citizens of Azerbaijan (expelling them and stealing their homes when they fled to Armenia). What Turkey did was straight up genocide (forcibly marching them through the desert where many died)
Only if you didn't read it, and just assign random opinions that you don't like to people who seem to disagree with your characterizations of things. Extremely twitter-brained.
No, saying that the Armenian genocide wasn't just "ethnic cleansing" isn't "a great example of whataboutism."
Context: "Sir Frank Whittle, an English engineer, is credited with inventing the jet engine. He patented the design for the turbojet engine in 1930, and his work led to the first operational jet engine in 1937. Independently, Hans von Ohain in Germany developed a similar jet engine, with the first flight powered by his design occurring in 1939. Both are recognized for their pioneering contributions, but Whittle's work laid the foundational concepts."
All modern jet engines are based on Ohain's axial flow design, not Whittle's radial flow one. Ohain's engine first ran in 1937. The Heinkel HE178 was the first flying jet airplane, with Ohain's engine.
The Me262 was the first operational jet fighter, again with Ohain's engine.
> The Me262 was the first operational jet fighter, again with Ohain's engine.
I think "Ohain's engine concept" would be more correct.
Ohain worked at Heinkel and developed the HeS 011 engine. However, the Me 262 was equipped with the Junkers Jumo 004, which was based on Ohain's design, but developed without him. The first test flights were actually done in 1942 with two BMW Typ P 3302 turbines (later called BMW 003).
"Granted a patent for his turbojet engine in 1936, Ohain joined the Heinkel Company in Rostock, Germany. By 1937 he had built a factory-tested demonstration engine and, by 1939, a fully operational jet aircraft, the He 178. Soon after, Ohain directed the construction of the He S.3B, the first fully operational centrifugal-flow turbojet engine. This engine was installed in the He 178 airplane, which made the world's first jet-powered aircraft flight on August 27, 1939."
Axial flow made more demands on metallurgy of the time than centrifugal flow. The Viscount was the first turbine powered civil aircraft using RR Darts with two centrifugal compressor stages.
I enjoyed flying on the Viscount. It offered a much nicer passenger experience than the current crop of sardine cans.
Decades later I got in a lot of time flying the simulator that Air Canada donated to a tech school.
Yeah, we have had two of the same and fancy rats make for really sweet pets. But it left a hole in my heart each time they died and I am not sure I can face it again :/
I've worked in a company that wrote Java code that needed to avoid false cacheing. It was fairly understandable and the tooling made it quite testable for performance regressions.
However, the issue in the Netflix blogpost is in the JVM C++ code. I think it's entirely possible to encounter the problem in any language if you're writing performance-critical code.
It’s often more common! Because the JVM will typically give you ok layouts “for free” and your hand-written native code might be too naive to do the same.
JVM will typically give you ok layouts presumably because almost everything is an object, and when accounting for various headers and instrumentation two distinct objects are more likely to be >= 64 bytes apart even when allocated in succession.
What I find a little odd is why those variables were only on different cache lines 1/8th (12.5%) of the time. What linker behavior or feature would result in randomly shifting those objects while preserving their adjacency? ASLR is the first thing that comes to mind, randomizing the base address of their shared region. But heap allocators on 64-bit architectures usually use 16-byte alignment rather than the random 8-byte alignment that would account for this behavior. Similarly, mmap normally would be page-aligned, even when randomized; or certainly at least 16-byte aligned?
Aiui, it's one object that happens to sometimes be allocated at an offset where two fields in it lie across a cache line boundary. ASLR only affects static offsets, not heap memory.
edit: Pointers will be 8-aligned. Random 16-byte allocation if one pointer is at 8-offset and the next is at 0-offset will sometimes give you a cache-line crossing. Admittedly it should be 25%, not 12%... Maybe Java's allocator is only 8-aligned?
long double on x86-64 Linux is 16 bytes big and therefore malloc implementation, or any other allocation routines for that matter, must return ptr aligned to the multiples of the largest primitive type. Interestingly, x86-64 Windows long double is 8 bytes so malloc on Windows returns ptrs aligned to the multiples of 8.
If only it were the case that we hadn't caused massive climate change by burning fossil fuels, causing a severe drought across Europe, so that there were a shortage of simple cooling fluid for the nuclear power plants. If only we could've done see it coming and something...
Frankly this has more to do with the fetish of building overly large nuclear power plants. They are usually far bigger than coal plants but they get connected to rivers of similar size.
reply