There is a somewhat famous post about this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/qeqn3b/despite_hav...

Essentially stating that Linux users disproportionately care to actually report bugs they encounter rather than ignoring them. I find that very plausible.

> Essentially stating that Linux users disproportionately care to actually report bugs they encounter rather than ignoring them. I find that very plausible.

In my lived experience, this 100% pure unadultered copium. It’s the wishful thinking lie that Linux people tell themselves to support their preferred choice of OS software which is, for some reason, part of their identity.

Supporting “Linux” isn’t too bad in 2025 if all you care about is SteamOS and Ubuntu. But distributing pre-compiled binaries and getting them to run on an unbounded range of system configurations is a nightmare.

Linux users do at least expect to run into problems. So they’re willing to fight through errors for several hours before asking for help. And the Linux gamer community is willing to help each other out to jump through all these hoops.

But none of that changes the fact that supporting Linux is an additional mountain of work. Although in 2025 you should definitely support SteamDeck via either Proton or native.

At this point I think it's reasonable for game devs to just target SteamOS. Other distros can adapt as needed.

This can be alleviated by the gas plant operator selling call options, effectively paying them for being reliable. The relevant keyword is "capacity markets".

What about the worst case? I.e. something like searching for 1000 'a's in a long string of 'a's interspersed with 'b's every 500-1000 steps? Seems accidentally quadradic unfortunately in the absence of some KMP-like fallback

Worst case for these types of search is O(mn), m length of needle, n length of haystack. It is not linear in n.

The absolute worst case is when both the needle and haystack are both composed of the same byte repeated (e.g. all zero).

How is it quadratic? You do 1000 checks every character in the haystack but that's still O(n)

The worst case is that `std.mem.eql`[1] is executed at every position in the haystack, which gives you `O(n*m)` time complexity. Several substring search algorithms are `O(n)`.

[1]: https://github.com/aarol/substr/blob/9392f9557de735929dfb79e...

Something like the following? I am trying and failing to reproduce the issue, even with mutable AST nodes.

  use bumpalo::Bump;
  use std::io::Read;
  fn main() {
      let mut arena = Bump::new();
      loop {
          read_and_process_lines(&mut arena);
          arena.reset();
      }
  }
  #[derive(Debug)]
  enum AstNode<'a> {
      Leaf(&'a str),
      Branch {
          line: &'a str,
          meta: usize,
          cons: &'a mut AstNode<'a>
      },
  }
  fn read_and_process_lines(arena: &Bump) {
      let cap = 40;
      let buf: &mut [u8] = arena.alloc_slice_fill_default(cap);
      let l = std::io::stdin().lock().read(buf).expect("reading stdin");
      let content: &str = str::from_utf8(&buf[..l]).unwrap();
      dbg!(content);

      let mut lines = content.lines();
      let mut latest: &mut AstNode<'_> = arena.alloc(AstNode::Leaf(lines.next().unwrap()));
      for line in lines {
          latest = arena.alloc(AstNode::Branch{line, meta:0, cons: latest});
      }
      println!("{latest:?}");
  }

I checked my repo history and never committed because I failed to get it working. I don’t recall my issues.

If you can get a full JSON parser working then maybe I’m just wrong. Arrays, objects with keys/values, etc.

I’d like to think I’m a decent Rust programmer. Maybe I just need to give it another crack and if I fail again turn it into a blog post…

oxc_parser uses bumpalo (IIRC) to compile an AST into arena from a string. I think the String is outside the arena though, but their lifetimes are "mixed together" into a single 'a, so lifetime-wise it's the same horror to manage. But manage they did.

What?

Agency is the ability to act. If someone dies against their own will, they don’t have agency, which is why we don’t use language like “they committed their own death” to refer to such instances.

It indeed does not make sense to have a market for carbon sequestration that does not also include fossil fuel emissions.

But implementing a comprehensive cap-and-trade system is superior to a fixed carbon price in that the it directly limits emissions without fiddling with the exact price (which instead is discovered by the market), and therefore can be planned long term.

(What should the carbon price be 2050? That depends on inflation and many other factors, but the allowed net emissions should clearly be zero or negative)

I recommend everyone to take a look at the EU ETS which unfortunately is surprisingly unknown

Skimming this I did not really understand the programming model difference from glommio or tokio-uring. Aside from striving to be cross-platform, how is this significantly different?

I think this is what they call a doomsday cult..

My point is, this would leave you in a really bad position if it turns out after 10 years nothing really happened

Well yeah that's why I'm still toiling away in the digital salt mines

The aspect ratio in that fold is 4, the very first step is folding the square down into a ribbon

I am out of the loop, but surely this would be politicized math education? Which is absolutely different from mathematics research and not related to reproducibility.

how does that happen? idk much about what's going on in the US, but the what now? how do you make math political?

What happens is social scientists look at certain outcomes like people who go to Harvard are the top economic winners and people that take advanced courses go to Harvard. So the reasoning is if we can get people of an arbitrary group into Harvard we will “even out” outcomes.

But what this logic fails to consider is that people who graduate from Harvard aren’t successful simply because they went to Harvard. Their success comes from many attributes like their intelligence, etc that advanced courses are designed to separate the cream.

So then they organize and legitimize their power (removing merit and replacing with lotto or affirmation quotas) by claiming the existing system is racist. When you ask for specific examples they respond that it’s “systemic” and although no one can detect it, it’s imbued in everything. The solution is “anti-racism” which means to make up for past discrimination by systematizing present and future discrimination. This is why your HR department probably has a commissar on it now. They might call it DEI Officer or sone other bullshit job title.

This is what social sciences have contributed the last 40 years.

I mean, what I'm pointing to here is critical theory. From CRT going into gender and critical queer theory all the way into fat studies, etc. It can all be grouped under grievance studies and it's a large part of what the social sciences have outputted. It also happens to be political useful and used to cite "the science" as a justification for wielding power and making claims to knowledge.

Anyways - you seem to like to take this line all the time - "where's the evidence". It's everywhere. It isn't my job to keep you informed of the world you occupy. Either willfully or not, your inability to keep up on developments isn't an excise to demand "sources" when you have access to the same search engines as everyone else. This information isn't difficult to find.

I'm torn here.

Yes, some people use "where's the evidence" as a conversational gambit to try to shut down discussion they don't like. (And if you provide evidence, they may say "that's only one source, got any others?") And if they're being dishonest in asking, there's no point supplying the evidence they request; it is useless to try to have a conversation with those who will not listen.

On the other hand... when you make a claim, the burden of evidence is actually on you, not the other person. And if you say "you have access to the same search engines as everyone else", well, that's true. On the other hand, one person writes a post, and ten people read it, or a hundred people, or a thousand. Making the thousand do the searching, instead of having the one writer do it, is really inefficient.

This leaves you at "do the work of providing the evidence, but don't feed the dishonest trolls", which is... well, at best it's not very actionable advice.

I told you I was torn...

so the solution to racism... is being racist against different people?? what even

this has to be a joke, it makes no sense...

It isn't a joke. In fact, mainstream books such as "White Fragility" and "How to be an Anti-Racist" literally advocate for this. We see policy decisions justified by these "studies".

I mean, affirmative action is literally this in practice.

> how do you make math political?

By proposing a math curriculum that requires teaching all students the same material, regardless of their ability, with the aim of increasing social equality.

I'm OK with that aim; but I know from my own experience that trying to teach calculus to someone that's not ready for it isn't just a waste of effort, it's disastrously counter-productive (I totally fell out of love with maths when I was taught integration, failed to "get" it, and my well-regarded teacher didn't get why I didn't get it).

My understanding is that nowadays in UK state schools, maths is largely student-paced, using worksheets; they've given up on trying to get a whole class of students to all understand the same stuff. That's partly because a set of worksheets is much easier to come by than a good maths teacher, of course.

I'm not a maths teacher, and I don't know enough about the California curriculum arguments to have a view.

all students in the same grade learn the same material (atleast till tenth grade, after which they can choose their stream and now add math as an additional even in non stem sections)