There were effectively no free compilers in the 80s. If you had an expensive UNIX workstation it might come with one, but everyone in the micro world had to pay. Or they wrote in Assembly or a BASIC interpreter.
Granted, some were pretty cheap, at least by the early 90s.
Armstrong literally did not believe in physical excercise though. He thought the human heart had a fixed number of beats and didn't want to "waste" them. Look it up. They guys really did not care about physical fitness back then.
Whether he believed in it or not, he passed rigorous physical tests for the Navy and NASA. They don't let just any slob be a fighter pilot, much less a test pilot or astronaut. If you don't have good cardiovascular fitness, you can't handle high G-forces or maintain good judgement while sleep deprived (those jets didn't fly themselves while the pilot napped like modern ones do).
Maybe he was just naturally fit. Some people are. But he was undoubtedly fit.
Look up those tests and see what they selected for, its not as much as raw physical fitness but rather how their bodies reacted to stress + a host of other pyschological factors + flight training. Yes, it is without a fact that they are no slobs but calling them the most fittest is also hyperbole and paints this image of hyper fit astronauts which wasn't true back then. They also didn't care much about long term effects of space travel on the body back then because missions were very short back then.
Most astronauts were chosen from a decent sized pool of military pilots. Pilots are some of the most expensive assets the military has (moreso than the planes they fly) and they have to be physically fit. People wanting to become astronauts are subjected to rigorous physical testing.
No, they're not Olympic athletes but they're considerably more fit than the average American.
They'd lose a whole lot of users if they killed Java edition, since the modded community is so large. They'd quickly find one of the Minecraft clones reaching feature parity. And there's no good reason for it - it's not like Java is a threat anymore.
Exactly. So why isn't Microsoft doing just that? Isn't that how Microsoft usually handles things? Just look at Xbox. They essentially screwed up everything they could and then some.
We already have to trust that none of the people involved in the official images are foreign (or even domestic) intelligence agents, so it's not that different.
The Bible tells us how to pick godly leaders. It also gives many examples of those doing right and wrong. For both, leaders exist today with similar worldviews. So, it's directly applicable.
Thomas Jefferson took inspiration for our system from Jethro's advice to Moses:
Which character traits in the baove passages do you think lead to good leaders? Which do you reject as wicked? I think, and have seen, that they all lead to good outcomes.
You and I commit sins, too. Should everything we've ever said be disregarded?
If you are sharing opinions, you can't possibly believe that. If you expect people to listen to and weigh your comments, we should consider his as well. Especially since they were part of building a great, adaptable system that we are benefiting from now.
I haven't used Linux as a gateway in years, so I can only compare pf to iptables. The two biggest differences are the way the rules are applied and the logging.
pf rules work a little backwards compared to iptables. A packet traverses the entire ruleset and the last rule to match wins. You can short-circuit this with a "quick" directive. It takes a bit of getting used to coming from iptables.
The logging on pf doesn't integrate with syslog automatically like iptables does. You're expected to set up a logging system for your particular use case. There are several ways to do it, and for production you'd be doing it regardless, but for honelab setups it's an extra thing you need to worry about.
I prefer pf, but I don't recommend it to people new to firewalls.
For most C and C++ software, you use the system packaging which uses libraries that (usually) have stable ABIs. If your program uses one of those problematic libraries, you might need to recompile your program when you update the library, but most of the time there's no problem.
For your company's custom mission critical application where you need total control of the dependencies, then yes you need to manage it yourself.
Ok - it sounds like you’re right, but I think despite your clarification I remain confused. Isn’t the linked post all about how those two things always have a mingling at the boundary? Like, suppose I want to develop and distribute a c++ user-space application in a cross platform way. I want to manage all my dependencies at the language level, and then there’s some collection of system libraries that I may or may not decide to rely on. How do I manage and communicate that surface area in a cross platform and scalable way? And what does this feel like for a developer - do you just run tests for every supported platform in a separate docker container?
Granted, some were pretty cheap, at least by the early 90s.
reply