No one here comes out looking particularly good, but at the end of the day the issue is still unpatched and OP is doing a good thing spreading that information.

> what do you expect me to do?

Off the top of my head: you could broadcast it more publicly that there is a known issue (particularly important if this is a security issue). You could change code to avoid whatever kernel features trigger the race. You could print a warning if you detect the kernel version is an unpatched one and/or has Kconfig in whatever state exposes the issue.

Commutativity is a much weaker claim because one is totally before or after the other. e.g. AB may commute with C so ABC=CAB but it is not necessarily the case that this equals ACB. With asynchrony you are guaranteed ABC=ACB=CAB. (There may be an exisiting mathematical term for this but I don't know it)

You can prove three-term commutativity from two-term (I did it years ago, I think it looked something like this[1]), so the ordering doesn't matter.

[1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/785576/prove-the-co...

I'm not talking about a universe where all elements commute, I'm talking about a situation in which A, B, and C do not necessarily commute but (AB) and C do. For a rigorous definition: given X and Y from some semigroup G, say X and Y are asynchronous if for any finite decompositions X=Z_{a_1}Z_{a_2}...Z_{a_n} and Y=Z_{b_1}Z_{b_2}...Z_{b_m} (with Z's in G) then for any permutation c_1,...,c_{n+m} of a_1,...,a_n,b_1,...,b_m that preserves the ordering of a's and the ordering of the b's has XY=Z_{c_1}Z_{c_2}...Z_{c_{n+m}}. I make the following claim: if G is commutative then all elements are asynchronous, but for a noncommutative G there can exist elements X and Y that commute (i.e. XY=YX) but X and Y are not asynchronous.

To give a concrete example, matrix multiplication is not commutative in general (AB ≠ BA), but e.g. multiplication with the identity matrix is (AI = IA). So AIB = ABI ≠ BAI.

Or applied to the programming example, the statements:

    1. Server.accept
    2. Client.connect
    3. File.write  # write to completely unrelated file

123 = 312 ≠ 321.

Strictly speaking this also requires associativity.

I agree. T and U async with respect to each other means at least that T and U can be broken down into tasks t1, t2, t3, ... tn and u1, u2, ..., un, such that they can be interleaved in any order, but typically we still require that the t tasks are executed in sequential order. The divisions between the tasks are where they give up control, e.g. as they wait for data to be loaded into memory, or on a network call.

This is still a special case of what we mean by async wrt each other, because depending on the interleaving at each step and e.g. the data loaded into memory, the number of tasks may change, but the idea is that they still eventually terminate in a correct state.

Is there an English translation of the paper where he "rules out" most of the existing theories?

There's an auto-injector mechanism, at least with my brand; you don't need to needle yourself

Ah, auto-injectors, a curious piece of technology. I've always wondered how it is to actually use one since we had these in everyone's medkit in the German army, loaded with nerve agent antidotes. Just slam it on you leg and inject through the pants were the instructions... Kinda grisly, I guess it's less emotionally charged for a weight loss drug!

For drugs like these it isn't that different from a normal injection.

The pen has about 4 doses in it so you twist it to set your dose. You attach a needle tip to the pen and give yourself a poke, press an inject button on the top and a spring loaded ratchet system pumps in the dose amount you set (making a wonderful ticking noise as it progresses). Pull out and toss the needle and put it back in the fridge for next week.

I do manual injection which involves doing the full prep work. It takes about 3x as long to setup but is still only about a 3-5 minute process in total.

Thanks!

These tend to cost more than self-injecting. Maybe your insurance covers it and you don't care.

C++ std::vector<bool>

My guess would be that the users hitting different types of issues are mostly the same; someone who can't view an alternative image format is using an obscure old browser or obscure OS that will inevitably have a ton of other issues too, and fixing only a subset of the issues would not make much difference.

> Having an extensible format and electing never to extend it seems pointless.

So then it was pointless for PNG to be extensible? Not sure what your argument is.

Could one do this directly with transistors or standard cells? Seems very useful for ASICs, particularly structured ASICs which are mapped from FPGA lookup tables of size 4-6.

This isn't quite as useful in practice as it seems, since NOT isn't always free, you almost always can eliminate common subexpressions, and gates with more than two inputs are often cheaper than doing everything with two-input gates.

You can have cells with more than one value with the value above 2048 but below 128K, and I don't think your scheme works much in those cases. It seems like an open question as to whether there are more than 2^64 possible states without the 2048 limit.