Does this mean that 0 Hz bandwidth leads to the ideal clock?

Yes, since that corresponds to a sine wave with fixed frequency extending forwards and backwards in time infinitely. (NB: it does depend on how you measure it. To truely get this you would also need to measure the clock output for all time).

Fun fact: GB 18030 is a Unicode Transformation Format.

Example: \N{THINKING FACE}\N{FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY}\N{FACE SCREAMING IN FEAR}\N{SMILING FACE WITH SMILING EYES AND THREE HEARTS}\N{PERSON DOING CARTWHEEL}\N{FACE WITH NO GOOD GESTURE}\N{ZERO WIDTH JOINER}\N{FEMALE SIGN}\N{VARIATION SELECTOR-16}\N{EYES}\N{ON WITH EXCLAMATION MARK WITH LEFT RIGHT ARROW ABOVE}\N{SQUARED COOL}\N{VARIATION SELECTOR-16}

In UTF-8:

  00000000: f09f a494 f09f 9882 f09f 98b1 f09f a5b0  ................
  00000010: f09f a4b8 f09f 9985 e280 8de2 9980 efb8  ................
  00000020: 8ff0 9f91 80f0 9f94 9bf0 9f86 92ef b88f  ................

In GB 18030:

  00000000: 9530 cd34 9439 fc38 9530 8335 9530 d636  .0.4.9.8.0.5.0.6
  00000010: 9530 d130 9530 8535 8136 a439 a1e2 8431  .0.0.0.5.6.9...1
  00000020: 8235 9439 cf38 9439 e537 9439 8b32 8431  .5.9.8.9.7.9.2.1
  00000030: 8235                                     .5

Which is carefully designed to work around existing codes that only expect at-most-two-byte-long encoding, e.g. Windows's IsDBCSLeadByte(Ex). Normally a bad design for a new-ish encoding, but a reasonable one given that it's meant to be a superset of GBK---an already bad but widespread encoding.

What is a Unicode transformation format?

It's an encoding that encodes all of Unicode. The "UTF" in UTF-8, etc. stands for Unicode Transformation Format.

I assume this uses thunks not unlike some lazily-evaluated languages?

Doesn't this mean that non-blocking reads from /dev/urandom can now potentially return -EAGAIN (at e.g. very early boot time)? I think that's enough to subtly (nondeterministically) break userspace, in the short time window the entropy pool is not seeded enough, even if (C) and (D) do not hold.

To be fair, it has computed the page at least once at some point...

a truely randall number

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/membarrier.2.html provides a good example of when a processor memory barrier is eliminated but a compiler memory barrier is still required.

> I think that an operating system where you can't rename or delete a file that is open by some process is idiotic beyond words,

This is not an inherent limitation of the VMS or NT architecture; I'd rather argue it's for compatibility.

> even without MS-DOS drive letter names thrown in.

This is also legacy carried over from DOS and OS/2.

If you can't change it without breaking countless unknown appliction programs in the wild, it's part of the architecture.

If you're incorporating uncool quirks from crappy previous operating systems into your new one, don't criticize Unix.

Oh, and don't use its implementation language, and related concepts and techniques.

Are you mad? I didn't even criticize Unix at all!

How about static inline functions?

yes

> it's almost mandated by law that there can't be. FCC regulations require that devices be made resistant to attempts to change their function in an effort to limit people's ability to transmit stuff unintentionally (or intentionally). Modern radio protocols are heavily dependent on SDR (software defined radio), so fixed function is probably infeasible. You could make the firmware unchangeable, but now any bugs discovered in your public source code are now entirely uncorrectable.

1. You can use signed firmwares to make it both compliant and upgradable.

2. You can separate the controller/receiver and the transmitter, and only lock up/restrict the transmitter part. Alternatively, you can implement the restriction at the hardware level if feasible (effectively making it fixed function).

3. Finally, you can sell the parts individually to serve a separate market segment.

> You can separate the controller/receiver and the transmitter, and only lock up/restrict the transmitter part.

Unfortunately this isn't quite enough for compliance, because of stuff like DFS channels/radar detection.

> Alternatively, you can implement the restriction at the hardware level if feasible

Not super feasible, and --- inability to update/fix bugs isn't a feature.

> You can use signed firmwares to make it both compliant and upgradable.

The FSF would not be okay with this though, as it would be a GPLv3 violation to prevent users from replacing the firmware with a modified version.