Yeah, but they usually don't originate from the same location. So instead of matching destination, now you have to match destination and departure location.
This is different. China(ese government) has a much, much stronger incentive and political resolution to reinforce their Internet speech control than crackdown a couple of bitcoin miners.
> Implying bitcoin has nothing to do with free speech.
I'm saying that the result is not going to be so different, as in people will still use shadowsocks to circumvent the firewall and won't get "disappeared" or whatsoever.
> I hope one day I'll live in a country where I have freedom to write any code I like without fearing.
Can the author reach the US by whatever mean and apply for political asylum? That 'fear that they will suffer persecution due to: ... Political opinion'[0] seems legit.
As long as the government doesn't allow unobstructed access to foreign websites that aren't even remotely related to politics I don't see that transition any time soon. </rant>
I'm the last person to be an apologist for the Great Firewall, but how does it preclude the OP's point? The Chinese-language web and Chinese Internet users represent a pretty sizeable chuck, to the point that it's self-sustainable and innovation definitely occurs within this space. The Great Firewall just results in a walled garden; access to Facebook isn't going to magically spur innovation!
(Don't get me wrong: The Great Firewall is not a good thing, but I don't see it being wholly relevant here.)
First of all, that comment is mixed with a bit of rant. But seriously, the issue is so much more than mere access to Facebook. The connection to GitHub, Google Code, or anything via ssh or HTTPS in general is slow, flaky and frustrating. This poses a cost on acquiring latest news and technology, collaborating and deploying. AS for the walled garden, there's a Chinese saying of 闭门造车, which says if you build a cart with a closed door without any exchange of ideas, you can't make much progress. (Though that's not what the phrase originally meant, but the meaning when the phrase evolved)
The difference is between "given this particular hardware and OS setup, the driver will work correctly, guaranteed." vs. "on your (discontinued) Sony laptop with a strange hardware interface running the beta Slackware release the driver will probably work"
It's also the difference between "using our tools implementing our API on our hardware" vs. "trying to figure out the right thing when every component has a slightly different take on the API spec and the applications using the API make mistakes that we have to try to correct for with unreliable heuristics". Developers in the scientific computing world care about correctness a lot more than game developers working under unrealistic deadlines and with no commitment to long-term maintenance.
An OpenGL driver capable of running most commercial games is horrifically more complex than a CUDA driver. An OpenGL driver that merely works according to spec is useless in practice. To achieve any practicality for non-trivial use cases an OpenGL driver has to take an attitude of "do what I mean, not what I say", much like web browsers and Windows' backwards compatibility. CUDA doesn't have those problems. NVidia never has to deal with developers complaining that their broken code worked fine on some other vendor's platform. They don't have to worry about programs relying on some esoteric decades-old feature that NVidia doesn't care about but had to implement anyways for standards compliance. And since CUDA is operating in the professional segment of the market, they can take their time when it comes to compatibility with bleeding-edge versions of other OS components.
I'll take a shot. If I understand it correctly, basically components have dependencies. For example, A depends on B and B depends on C, etc. If you have A depends on B... and somehow along the path you have a cycle, eg. E depends on A, you have a problem because in order to install A, you need to install B, C,... E. But in order to install E you need to install A first. So you have to break the dependency cycle.
Nah, they will just sweep it under the rug in the name of national security. Not even a post-mortem because that would put some highly ranked people whom about to become the advisors of the defense industry on the grilling fire.
But unlike F4, F35 has a main gun, and I think that demonstrates the dogfight doctrine still has its way. Unfortunately that gun has its own problem [1].
I suspect it's similar to my experience with many video-lectures: on one hand, they are almost always filled with enough new information to keep my attention. However, the pace at which this information is fed to me can be just a bit too slow, meaning that my brain has to do too little work to process it. This combination of keeping attention while not activating my own thinking has an ability to put me sleep in a very drastic fashion. As in, trying to pay attention to the lecture and literally falling asleep in the blink of an eye.
The only way to counter this is to download the lectures and play them back at an increased pace - 1.2x to 1.5x, depending on the difficulty of the subject.
Perhaps the novels have the same issue for Kenji: too little stimulation to keep the mind going, even if it keeps your attention.
