Until this day, I miss Optane — I work for a timeseries database company focused on finance, the amount of use cases I have that screams “faster than NVMe, slower than RAM” is insane. And these companies have money to throw at these problems.
Which begs the question, why isn’t anyone else stepping into this gap? Is the technology heavily patented?
Sounds like this feature is based on io_uring which is a Linux feature. I would be surprised if they implemented async io on Windows before they would on Linux given the user/deployment base being very Linux-heavy.
Yeah, surprise Linux had to play catch up to a Windows 1994 release! Same with the scheduler, I'd argue Windows does OOM better than Linux today...
Windows even had the concept of io_uring before, but network only with Registered I/O back in the Windows 8 (8.1?) days.
Linux still lacks the "all I/O is async" NT has.
The underlying kernel and executive of Windows aren't primitive pieces of trash. They're quite advanced, ruined by PMs and the Ads division throwing crap on top.
And yes, Windows' I/O Ring is a near 1:1 copy of the Linux implementation, but IOCP/OVERLAPPED I/O data structure preceded it since NT's first release.
This isn't a pissing match, just we all hope that kernel devs learn from each other and take the best ideas. Sometimes we, IT, don't get to choose the OS we run -- it's dictated by the apps the business requires.
How difficult would it be to completely tear out the Windows desktop experience and just use the system and display drivers without the rest? Has anybody attempted such a feat?
There is Windows Server Core which removes everything but a CLI, but you still have the normal login experience, you still have a "desktop" (no start menu, taskbar, etc), you can still launch normal Win32 apps... for the most part (task manager, notepad, and so on).
Win32 is also responsible for core Services, which means you can't de-Windows-ify Windows and strip it down to an NT API-only. All other personalities (OS/2, POSIX, SFU) have a dependency on Win32, as well.
You're still running the WindowServer of course; it's part of the Executive.
That said, with a bunch of modifications, NTDEV did get Windows 11 down to it's bare minimum, and text only to boot. So I guess it's technically possible, though not useful.
> There is Windows Server Core which removes everything but a CLI, but you still have the normal login experience, you still have a "desktop" (no start menu, taskbar, etc), you can still launch normal Win32 apps... for the most part (task manager, notepad, and so on).
Yep, they've replaced nearly every UI with text (the login window is a TUI), though there's still some shell DLLs and the whole thing still uses a window manager. That's honestly for the best, since it allows you to migrate full installations with some UI-based apps to a Core installation with them intact.
> That said, with a bunch of modifications, NTDEV did get Windows 11 down to it's bare minimum, and text only to boot. So I guess it's technically possible, though not useful.
Windows has had a "text mode" since at least Windows XP IIRC, but it's really not that useful, if at all. Even for rescue operations you're better off with Windows PE.
For a long time ago there have been APIs to do asynchronous file I/O on the books for Linux but they weren't worth using because they didn't really speed anything up.
They sped up things for a long time - but only when using unbuffered IO. The new thing with io_uring is that it also accelerates buffered IO. In the initial version it was all through kernel worker threads, but these days several filesystems have better paths for common cases.
The injecting bleach thing was just loosely worded, but it was technically based on a real study and fine.
Actually, ironically, you end up being wrong here, though in less of an Idiocracy way and more of a Orwellian "news propaganda machine tricked you" way.
Why does American drinking water need fluoride - for the few seconds people brush their teeth? Other developed nations seem to do get by just fine without it (i.e, most of Europe). Does modern tooth paste not contain the components for proper cleaning? I feel like I'm missing something here, because I don't swallow my tooth paste but I drink my tap water. But if fluoride is fine in water that we drink, why not just add all the other vital chemicals to the tap water that our bodies crave, like soma? Because it really smells like peoples opposition to this is not science-based but emotion-based (i.e., anti-RFK and Trump admin).
"For the few seconds people brush their teeth"? That's not how fluoridated drinking water works. Fluoridated water works all of the time, not just when brushing teeth, and it's not a vital chemical that the body craves.
You are missing something. If you're this confused about a topic, you should at a bare minimum read the Wikipedia page.
Yeah because in Europe we add fluoride and iodine to table salt, as well as to our toothpaste.
Also, we don't have anywhere close to the sugar consumption the US has, which keeps both our diabetes and dental health issues at rates far below the US.
The questions you posed are not questioning fluoride, they're asking what the basic premise even is. If you don't understand that, you are far from the position needed to be evaluating and analyzing the necessity or benefits of it.
The Wikipedia page you mentioned reading also points out that it's not only a US thing. Or even a water-only thing.
When I see an argument with a phrase like "basic premise" I know I'm reading some word mambo jambo, otherwise the author would just give their summary of that "basic premise" instead of deadlinking it (refer to something without actually referring it).
You don't have an argument yourself, you just wanted to share that you are pro some position.
There are clear factual errors in the underlying assumptions of what was stated about water fluoridation. Those are simply table stakes for having a discussion about anything at all. If one thinks that water fluoridation is useful "just for a few seconds," that it's not done outside of the United States, that it's a replacement for toothpaste, that it's a vital chemical, or that we don't fortify other foods, then they do not know enough about the topic to talk about it, let alone hold the opinion that they know better.
If someone came in with a curious mindset, that'd be one thing. But this is someone walking into a room with an agenda (get rid of fluoride) and a shocking lack of knowledge about that agenda.
>If someone came in with a curious mindset, that'd be one thing. But this is someone walking into a room with an agenda (get rid of fluoride) and a shocking lack of knowledge about that agenda.
But since "Internet People Lie About Fluoride,"[0] why are you surprised? And that's nothing new.
Why? I have no idea. Perhaps cpursley[1] could enlighten us?
Yeah, exactly - she made my point. Buy proper toothpaste with fluoride. Brush after ever meal. I understand the chemistry and am an obsessive brusher. If the Danish don't need it in their DRINKING water, nor do we.
Just brush your teeth after every meal, you will be fine like the Finns. And prob a higher IQ like them, as well (without all the unnecessary floride in the water).
PSA: brushing your teeth directly after eating is actually detrimental, because the acids in food soften the enamel on your teeth. That layer needs to harden first (wait 20-30 minutes), otherwise your toothbrush will strip it away: https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/brushing-immediately-aft...
Because just like we have stupid people who don’t vaccinate their children from measles, we have stupid people who don’t make them brush their teeth.
So rather than have them suffer with a lifetime of oral health problems, you can intervene in a transparent and cheap way to prevent these issues altogether.
The introduction of fluoride dramatically improved oral health. NYC has been doing it since the 1960s, so one would think we’d see evidence of the supposed negative effects.
Any actual stats on people not brushing their teeth? It's not 1960 any more... And my entire point was to compare to other nations with similar development levels that don't pump it into their water supply and are doing just fine in terms of oral health.
And by your metric, should we also pump in vitamins and other substances that our bodies crave? Maybe the Fed gov't could just skip that and force drip IV everyone a compliance cocktail after their breakfast of USDA approved and SNAP subsidized Captain Crunch?
> Any actual stats on people not brushing their teeth? It's not 1960 any more... And my entire point was to compare to other nations with similar development levels that don't pump it into their water supply and are doing just fine in terms of oral health.
Something like 30% of people report not brushing their teeth at least once a day. Unclear if that means most of them brush every other day or some even lower frequency, but I’d assume if you report not brushing at least once a day then you likely aren’t brushing consistently every other day or something.
> And by your metric, should we also pump in vitamins and other substances that our bodies crave? Maybe the Fed gov't could just skip that and force drip IV everyone a compliance cocktail after their breakfast of USDA approved and SNAP subsidized Captain Crunch?
We already do this, all the time! Vitamin and mineral fortified foods are everywhere. Iodine is in a lot of salt. It’s a good thing, not something to be mocked. Most vitamins and minerals have minimal cost, no issues with taking “too much” of them, and have significant health benefits if you are deficit on that particular thing.
> Something like 30% of people report not brushing their teeth at least once a day.
Gross, but that's their problem, not mine. There's a multitude of bad health habits, if we were actually serious, there'd be no soda or cereal on the shelves. But big ag and big health activity oppose that because they financially benefit from SNAP. Your fortified foods mention is an example of exactly how insane it all is (we subsidize the corn syrup farmers to produce garbage food and then give poor people money to buy it, instead of you know - real food).
> Gross, but that's their problem, not mine. There's a multitude of bad health habits, if we were actually serious, there'd be no soda or cereal on the shelves.
This absolutist mindset is not helpful for making progress. People want tasty, potentially bad for them foods. You can have bad food that’s made up of “real food” just fine. Fortifying bad foods to make them marginally less bad is a good thing. Don’t let great be the enemy of good. Nobody is looking at a bag of chips and saying “well because it’s got added Vitamin A, it’s good for me now!” Instead, it’s just a silent benefit.
Or just address the actually cause instead of the "problem". Get the shit like food coloring and corn syrup out of our food. Other nations do just fine with their food situation without all these made up excuses and nonsense and like "fortified" food. And stop subsidizing the garbage food and cultivation of it via SNAP.
> Or just address the actually cause instead of the "problem".
Again, you’re asking for behavioral change in humans by fiat. Fortification extends well beyond just adding vitamins to chips or junk food. It’s added in many basic building blocks (milk, and most flours and rice) because it literally is solving nutritional deficiencies caused by poverty. Nobody is somehow making purchasing decisions on junk food based on fortification content.
> Get the shit like food coloring and corn syrup out of our food.
Irrelevant to nutritional content, unless you mean overly sugary foods relating to corn syrup. Which, you can have the exact same health outcomes and hyper palatability by just using regular old sugar.
> Other nations do just fine with their food situation without all this made up nonsense and excuses like "fortified" food.
Other nations fortify their food too, including many “first world” countries. I don’t know why you think this is somehow a uniquely American thing.
> Nobody is somehow making purchasing decisions on junk food based on fortification content
They absolutely are. Food marketing and other tricks work, even on edjamahcated people. Think terms like “150% more antioxidants” and “100% natural fruit gummies!”
We do. Table salt is iodized. We add vitamin A & D to milk and bread.
You’re looking for facts to stuff a straw man. There is clear, obvious correlation between fluoridation and improved oral health. They discovered this decades ago where it was observed that oral health was better in regions where groundwater was used and fluoride occurred naturally.
By my metric, we should take reasonable measures to improve public health. I don’t suppose you’re in favor of making dental care affordable to those who can’t afford it?
If you choose to align yourself with the pseudo intellectual descendants of the John Birch society to protect your “precious bodily fluids”, I’m sorry for you.
What a novel suggestion. Sure just do what you’re supposed to do.
What’s your answer when the same idiots campaigning against fluoride decide that toothpaste is a problem? Or that the ADA is a scam and there is no proof that toothbrushing has any effect?
And what’s real food? That is a question that doesn’t have an answer.
> Any actual stats on people not brushing their teeth?
google is free - it's not anyone's responsibility to educate you and answer your naive questions. and if did google and you're still not convinced, well then i'm glad you're not an elected official wherever it is you live (though if you live in the US i guess you probably voted for the current admin)
For now, there is no executive order or anything, so what he means by 'produced in' is anyone guess. Might also be just an announcement that will not end up in anything concrete. Wouldn't be the first time, wouldn't be the last.
There is no rational thought going into Trump's social media output.
I swear he has a set of 6 tiny books just the right size for his hands, each with 6 pages and on each page there are 6 categories of things.
He's rolls a dice 3 times to pick a category then a final one to pick from the list of 6 tariff levels to be applied.
Then when somone wakes up to see whatever unhinged shit he posted "this time" and realises how abjectly stupid it is, the whole things gets unwound. If any journalist dares mention it again then it was just "trolling the fake news media" and was never meant seriously.
Why would it be more expensive to produce it in the US, then? I thought one of the reasons for making the movie "abroad" was to get some subsidies from other countries "if you film it here", kind of.
They can just get a presidential pardon for now and all future acts. Companies are people. Unkillable people. Unjailable people. They don't sleep. They have a thousand arms, a thousand eyes, a thousand legs, thousand brains. They get better financing, they can walk away from their financing. I can send unlimited money to politicians. They can exist in a thousand places, countries, legal systems at once.
Happens more than you’d think. Happened to me in the past as well in some business conflict. It was baffling how people can just lie in court under oath and get away with it.
The asterisk is that the government has to be able to prove knowledge and intent to lie, and prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. It makes it really hard to successfully charge anybody with perjury.
No, it was their CFO who denied knowing about <something> when he absolutely did. We ended up winning the lawsuit on all accounts, but they were never specifically called out about lying about this.
Yup. Were a database company that needs to be compliant with SOC2, and I’ve had extremely long and tiring arguments with our auditor why we couldn’t adhere to some of these standard WAF rulesets because it broke our site (we allow people to spin up a demo env and trigger queries).
sounds like your security policy is wrong (or doesnt have a provision for exceptions managed by someone with authority to grant them), or your auditor was swerving out of his lane.
As far as I've seen: SOC2 doesn't describe any hard security controls - it just asks to evaluate your policy versus your implemented controls.
You are absolutely correct, which is why we switched auditors. We use a third party to verify compliance of all our cloud resources (SecureFrame), and one of their checks is that specific AWS WAF rulesets are enabled on e.g. CloudFront endpoints. These are managed rulesets by AWS.
We disabled this check, auditor swerved out of his lane, I spent more several hours explaining things he didn’t understand, and things resolved after our CEO had a call with him (you can imagine how the discussion went).
All in all, if the auditor would have been more reasonable it wouldn’t have been an issue, but I’ve always been wary of managed firewall rulesets because of this reason.
Where I currently live, my street has no name, my house has no number. If a package is delivered by mail, my phone number needs to be put on the package, and the local delivery operator calls me to either pick it up, or I send my location through telegram and they deliver it to my house.
It’s almost entirely impossible to order through Amazon et al using this type of system, it’s just not supported at all.
The same goes for my country or origin (in EU), they require my address in order to be able to send important mail. It’s just not possible because of the computer systems not accepting anything without a zipcode, address and house number.
What's preventing some local authority from just naming your street?
And what's preventing you and your neighbors from having a meeting, agreeing on a numbering convention, and putting street numbers on your house? I guess it would be a bit silly/meaningless if you don't have your street name.
Because most of my neighbors are expats and only renting and don’t actually own the property they live in.
Local authority doesn’t care, because it’s a very western problem. Locals rarely have problems with it, and use “go left the second street after the big tree near the market, and then it’s the third house on the right”.
Local people generally don’t use navigation apps like Google Maps, they don’t know how to use it.
A unique characteristic of Carmel-by-the-Sea is that there are no street addresses. Properties are identified, for example, as being on the "west side of San Antonio Street, 3 houses south of 12th Avenue". In addition to this, many owners give their homes a name. The name you choose does not have to be approved or registered with the City.
It’s just not accepted. So I’ll just fill in random numbers at zip code and street names and the delivery companies over here generally know how to deal with it.
I provide an address that looks technically correct, ensure it’s delivered with DHL, and then override DHL to pick up at one of their locations.
Also, there are special delivery companies like CamboQuick that take the whole process out of your hands and use (slow) ships freight to ship stuff from Amazon et al to Cambodia. You’ll have to wait 4-6 weeks, but they handle the custom clearance and everything and deliver it to your house for a $2 fee.
Why don’t you name your road and assign a house number? Either just make it up, or to make it more official contact your local government and propose a name and numbering scheme for it.
I remember a time before Ireland set up postcodes (zip codes) for the whole country. If postcode was mandatory field in an e-commerce address form, you couldn't mail stuff from the UK unless it was in Dublin. Dublin had postcodes.
I managed to find one site that would accept 'null' so the form would submit.
Which begs the question, why isn’t anyone else stepping into this gap? Is the technology heavily patented?
reply