• 1 Post
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 28th, 2023

help-circle

  • I think something like the Commodore PET might qualify. Back in the day, I saw it used for everything from cash registers to accountants’ workstations, but rarely for anything else.

    I think that the original IBM PC was conceived and marketed as a business machine and only grew beyond that because of Microsoft’s deep commitment to it as a platform and IBM’s uncharacteristicly open specifications and design.

    If not for that combination, the PC might never have left the office and most of us would have stuck with the companies who were actually breaking new ground, Apple and Commodore.




  • I’m currently using the paid version to host my occasional writing and am very happy with it. It’s not perfect, but what is?

    One thing I like about it is that it’s not just a blogging platform, but it’s own little slice of the web. The home page is a list of blog entries from all the blogs sorted by some combination of “toasts” (likes) and age. (And the trending algorithm is both simple and publicly viewable.) I don’t explicitly subscribe to anyone else’s blog, but enjoy just browsing “trending” and “recent”.




  • Are you sure that rounding was broken? Many systems use “Gaussian” or “banker’s” rounding to reduce accumulation of rounding errors. Instead of always rounding to the next larger absolute value at .5, they round to the nearest even number. Although it introduces a bias toward even numbers in the result set, it reduces accumulation of error when .5 is as likely as as any other fraction and odd/even are equally likely in the source.

    I was taught “banker’s” rounding in school (graduated 1974) and have had to implement it a few times to reduce error accumulation.

    If you are looking for a rabbit hole, Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive article, including an example of how the wrong choice of rounding algorithm led to massive problems at the Vancouver Stock Exchange (Canada).





  • Edit: this comment changed my mind. In a nutshell, if we can’t keep a large instance controlled by “the enemy” from destroying what we’ve got, then we just have to do better next time.

    Yes, I would. Even if they are administered by people that have the best interests everyone at heart, sheer size means that they must be taken into account as the tools and clients evolve over time.

    It’s not that the system itself should be unable to cope with large instances, it’s that the only reason for the system itself to gain that capability is in response to the rise or introduction of large instances. Some of what I’ve seen discussed is the need to change the development roadmap to accommodate the seemingly unexpected rise and possible introduction of very large instances. In other words, those instances are already controlling the direction taken.


  • Edit: this comment changed my mind. In a nutshell, if we can’t keep a large instance controlled by “the enemy” from destroying what we’ve got, then we just have to do better next time.

    I have been making a related point that we should be concerned about any instance capturing too large a fraction of the space. I’m less concerned about the fact that it’s Meta than I am about any one instance having a critical mass that gives them a controlling interest.

    History has shown that those with a controlling interest eventually use that control for their own benefit.

    That’s why I joined a small collection of focused instances and try to subscribe to communities that are hosted in their “natural homes” instead of those on generic instances.