Yes this is better than upload the entire photo. Just like virus scan can be done entirely on device, can flagging be local?. If homeomorphic encryption allows similarity matching, does not seem entirely private. Can people be matched?
>> "The caveat to this rule, of course, is that architectural differences are hard to overcome. Shared nothing databases are at a disadvantage vs shared disk, and it took Redshift many years to switch to a primarily shared disk architecture. Lakehouses that rely on persisting metadata to an object store will have a hard time with rapid updates; this is built into the model."
Why don’t you think through the implications of your question? You say outlawed. Ok then, write a hypothetical law that would outlaw this behaviour. Remember, this law should be general enough to apply to advertising or internet advertising in general. The more specific it gets (“search engine advertising firm beginning with G”) the less likely it’ll stand up to judicial scrutiny.
It would only take a second for you to realise that the answer to your question is “it’s not done because it’s hard to formulate a law that’s fair, will pass judicial review, won’t be circumvented, won’t lead to unintended consequences and will achieve the intended effect”.
All that before we get to lobbying. Because even if you formulate this perfect law, there’s still an open question of how you plan to enact this legislation.
The design of the selfie compiler is inspired by the Oberon compiler of Professor Niklaus Wirth from ETH Zurich. RISC-U, the target language of the selfie compiler, is inspired by the RISC-V community around Professor David Patterson from UC Berkeley. The selfie garbage collector is inspired by the conservative garbage collector of Hans Boehm. The design of the selfie microkernel is inspired by microkernels of Professor Jochen Liedtke from University of Karlsruhe.
That's quite the pedigree! This is a very interesting project to dig into, starting with the book.
"Netradyne provides cutting-edge technologies in AI, ML and Edge Computing to help reduce accidents by creating a new safe driving standard for commercial vehicles. Our industry solutions reduce driving incidents and protect against false claims"
Yes some towers are shared, but that would be irrelevant if the targets of vandalism weren't. No other carrier other than Jio and Reliance have made a large noise about damages to their infrastructure. This makes me believe that the other carriers were not affected.
In any case the farmer protests have distanced themselves from such acts of vandalism and openly criticized them.
>>While I am thankful to the Project Zero team for their informing us of the issue quickly, I'm troubled that they went ahead with disclosure before Google crawl team could complete the refresh of their own cache.
>>Strictly saying this is confirming behavior as we don't give any guarantees about scheduler (just like any other language, e.g. C++). This can be explained as "the goroutine is just not scheduled".
Not a GO developer. On a multi-processor machine, how is this a conforming behavior? Is "scheduler cannot give any guarantees" acceptable?
'Is "scheduler cannot give any guarantees" acceptable?'
Most schedulers give far fewer guarantees that you might think. A guarantee to be a guarantee must be true no matter what you do within the boundaries of the language. If you create a goroutine fork bomb
func fork_bomb() {
for {
go fork_bomb()
}
}
Go doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, guarantee that any other goroutine will get any execution time, or guarantee much of anything will happen. Your OS is likely to have similarly weak guarantees for the equivalent process bomb, unless you do something to turn on more guarantees/protection.
You have to go into some relatively special-purpose stuff before you can get schedulers that will guarantee that some process will get scheduled for at least 10ms out of every 100ms or something. And then, once you get that guarantee, you'll pay some other way.
Given the fact that most of our machines are incredibly powerful, and that a lot of them still get upgraded on a fairly routine schedule in a lot of dimensions even if single-core clock speed has stalled out, most of us prefer to work with things that just promise to do their best as long as you don't overload them, because the other prices you have to pay to get guarantees turn out not to be beneficial on our monster machines. Of course one should always have their eyes out for when that may not be the case at some point, but in general we're headed away from rigorous guarantees in favor of shared resources that are cheaper and more scalable and making up the difference in volume, rather than trying to get better guarantees.
An unbuffered channel read is always matched with a corresponding write. Let's call the point at which `point1 <- true` occurs and `<-point1` occurs T1 and the point at which `point2 <- true` occurs and `<-point2` occurs T2. fmt.Println("hello") and time.Sleep(3*time.Second) are both guaranteed to occur between T1 and T2. If we didn't have T2 there's no guarantee fmt.Println("hello") would run before the program exits.
Maybe I'm wrong but this is my understanding of Hoare's and go's concurrency model.
