High level languages are sold on the concept that customers' machines are powerful enough that the reduction in performance is worth it for the reduction in development time. For the same reason, it should be worthwhile to give developers powerful machines so they spend less time fixing runtime bugs.
Given that many of the security features did run perfectly fine in 60's hardware, I think they can manage in 21st century machines.
"Many years later we asked our customers whether they wished us to provide an option to switch off these checks in the interests of efficiency on production runs. Unanimously, they urged us not to--they already knew how frequently subscript errors occur on production runs where failure to detect them could be disastrous. I note with fear and horror that even in 1980, language designers and users have not learned this lesson. In any respectable branch of engineering, failure to observe such elementary precautions would have long been against the law."
-- Tony Hoare, "The 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture"
It’s also hella confusing because there’s not a marketing or real protocol name attached beyond the “5G” moniker, at least not that I could easily find.
I can name GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, HSPA, 1xRTT, EVDO, WiMAX, and LTE off the top of my head and tell you what “G” they are associated with (1, 2, 3, 3.5, 2, 3, 4, 4 respectively).
5G is a vaporous term with no real definition right now other than “whatever the fuck the ITU has decided to call 5G”.
EDIT: I guess they’re calling the air interface “5G NR (New Radio)”. How memorable. Guess with everyone finally getting on the same page with LTE in the current generation they felt no need to come up with a real name.
'[X market/stock] slumps as [thing related to X] [does something]'
Yet when you go and look at the long-term graph, it's well within normal variance. There's no evidence they're connected at all. I'm sure it happens with other media providers too.
Why? Because they didn't have the numbers right, or just didn't check at all. Well, if I'd written a statement like that in an essay during my schooling, I'd be marked down for unsubstantiated claims at best or admonished for plagiarism at worst.
I find it irresponsible that the news rarely cites its sources beyond admitting they bought it from AP/Reuters. I believe it should be enough to prevent them being cited as a trustworthy secondary source until they at least have their justifications to a level that would be considered adequate by a high school history class. It's the only reason citogenesis happens on Wikipedia.
The problem is that "Sellers outnumber buyers as equity markets fall" and "Buyers outnumber sellers as equity markets post gains" are not compelling headlines.
As you've noted, financial news is post-hoc analysis. It is narrative-based, and not fact-based. Sometimes the narratives and facts coincide, though.
That’s how financial news has always been reported. They need to sell papers, and technically they’re just mentioning two things that happened to happen at the same time.
I think you're conflating whether or not there's correlation/causation with whether or not the result is significant. If a stock appreciates or depreciates at the same time that something related to that stock happens, a relationship between the two is not an unreasonable hypothesis.
Of course, there's still the matter of actually validating that hypothesis, and examining whether said hypothesis actually holds true or the coincident timing really is just coincidence and nothing more (or, indeed, if the timing really was coincident between the two events, e.g. whether or not the stock move happened before the event that allegedly "caused" it).
And of course, even if the event did cause the stock move, that's still a separate concern from the long term impact of that stock move. It could very well just be a temporary blip, or it could be a harbinger of some more significant change.
> Yet when you go and look at the long-term graph, it's well within normal variance. There's no evidence they're connected at all.
What a completely mathematically and financially illiterate thing to say. Whether or not a market move is within “normal” variance has nothing to do with whether or not it is clearly attributable to a particular economic event. If Jerome Powell says something about rates or Trump tweets something about tariffs and the market moves 1% in the exact minute that happens you can pinpoint the cause of the move with pretty high confidence even if 1% is not significant relative to the long term variance.
I’ve seen this bizarre sentiment propagated on HN before. A lot of people seem to think it’s never possible to identify the causes of market movements (even when obvious market moving news is released).
The radio stations are free from commercial adverts but they're bound by the same logistical problems as other radio stations, meaning a decent proportion of airtime is listening to the same adverts for other BBC radio shows over and over.
They couldn't sell it currently, if the law changes in the future (or if it can be moved to another jurisdiction) then it could be sold for a non-zero value.
You do, it's factoring the fact that something that cannot be sold legally can still has black market value, which is definitely the case for stolen art and antiques, protected species etc...
