Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

compilation speed

142,231 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

11 Yorum

One Happy Fellow profil fotoğrafı
One Happy Fellow1 yıl önce

meanwhile ocaml

Solar Heavy profil fotoğrafı
Solar Heavy1 yıl önce

take a trip down memory lane

SKY 🦀 profil fotoğrafı
SKY 🦀1 yıl önce

You know the language is good when the main critics are "compile time long" and "the borrow checker fucks my mother".

Павел Аргентов profil fotoğrafı
Павел Аргентов1 yıl önce

OCaml

Tom Miller profil fotoğrafı
Tom Miller1 yıl önce

You should try compiling your C with TCC. It literally starts emitting binary machine code to handle an expression before even fully reading the expression from the C source. Single-pass non-optimizing compiler that's about 20x faster than GCC with -O0.

Prasenjit profil fotoğrafı
Prasenjit1 yıl önce

Imagine py's compilation speed

Prox profil fotoğrafı
Prox1 yıl önce

C compilation is too long in the video 🤓

Yehoslav Rudenco profil fotoğrafı
Yehoslav Rudenco1 yıl önce

What eles can you do when the bolts are *rusty*?

M1chl profil fotoğrafı
M1chl1 yıl önce

In early for those hot takes

ZARKONES profil fotoğrafı
ZARKONES1 yıl önce

True, however, mainly because Go does way less stuff during compile time.

Kai Fall profil fotoğrafı
Kai Fall1 yıl önce

less is more

Benzer Videolar

Oh my word, how is this even possible? There is now additional audio coming to light in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial from 6:03AM on 1/29/22. Karen says, in full, "Can you Google how long for someone to die in cold...hurry --Jen! Jen! Jen!-- hurry!" We'll talk about this, and so much more, on a special towel birthday stream this morning after 8:30AM ET. Watch live, say hello to little towel, ask your questions about the O'Keefe/Read re-trial and be merry! Link - Previously, I reported: I have now found both copies of Karen Read's voicemail (left on John O'Keefe's phone at 6:03AM on 1/29/22) where Karen directs Jen McCabe to Google how long it takes someone to "die in the cold." The statement can also be heard on Jen's 911 call! Find enhanced audio of Voicemail #8 (left by Karen on John's phone) from trial 1 and trial 2, along with enhanced audio of that 911 call (where Karen can clearly be heard, in the background, saying "...to die in cold", exactly as can he heard on the voicemail recordings). Voicemail #8 Trial 1 timestamped link (1st video in the attached compilation clip) - Voicemail #8 Trial 2 timestamped link (2nd video in the attached compilation clip) - Highest quality possible audio of the 911 call, timestamp 1 minute and 45 seconds in the file (3nd video in the attached compilation clip) - Yesterday, I reported; Ladies, gentlemen and fellow towels. I believe the towel friends have found audio proof that Karen Read asked Jen McCabe to Google "how long to die in cold" at 6:23am on 1/29/22. This is huge as the recording went under the radar during Read's first trial. Listen below with enhanced and isolated sound, in both real time and 0.75x speed, and hear Karen clearly saying to Jen: "Use your phone [to search] how long for you to die in the cold," as Jen is on the phone with 911 (the recording is from a voicemail from a different phone that caught Karen speaking to Jen) at the scene where John O'Keefe was found, suffering from a head injury and hypothermia, after Read allegedly struck John with her car --while drunk driving with a BAC 2-4 times over the legal limit-- and left him to die on a lawn at 12:32am that morning. So, in short, Jen McCabe --as multiple digital experts, including from Cellebrite, have confirmed-- Googled how long to die in cold at 6:23am and Karen's defense expert, Richard Green (a man with an arrest history for filing a false police report) simply misread a write ahead log in cell phone data from Jen's WallDB that caused years of unnecessary smears directed at McCabe.

Grant Smith Ellis

32,695 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The plot thickens! I have now found both copies of Karen Read's voicemail (left on John O'Keefe's phone at 6:03AM on 1/29/22) where Karen directs Jen McCabe to Google how long it takes someone to "die in the cold." The statement can also be heard on Jen's 911 call! Find enhanced audio of Voicemail #8 (left by Karen on John's phone) from trial 1 and trial 2, along with enhanced audio of that 911 call (where Karen can clearly be heard, in the background, saying "...to die in cold", exactly as can he heard on the voicemail recordings). Voicemail #8 Trial 1 timestamped link (1st video in the attached compilation clip) - Voicemail #8 Trial 2 timestamped link (2nd video in the attached compilation clip) - Highest quality possible audio of the 911 call, timestamp 1 minute and 45 seconds in the file (3nd video in the attached compilation clip) - Yesterday, I reported; Ladies, gentlemen and fellow towels. I believe the towel friends have found audio proof that Karen Read asked Jen McCabe to Google "how long to die in cold" at 6:23am on 1/29/22. This is huge as the recording went under the radar during Read's first trial. Listen below with enhanced and isolated sound, in both real time and 0.75x speed, and hear Karen clearly saying to Jen: "Use your phone [to search] how long for you to die in the cold," as Jen is on the phone with 911 (the recording is from a voicemail from a different phone that caught Karen speaking to Jen) at the scene where John O'Keefe was found, suffering from a head injury and hypothermia, after Read allegedly struck John with her car --while drunk driving with a BAC 2-4 times over the legal limit-- and left him to die on a lawn at 12:32am that morning. So, in short, Jen McCabe --as multiple digital experts, including from Cellebrite, have confirmed-- Googled how long to die in cold at 6:23am and Karen's defense expert, Richard Green (a man with an arrest history for filing a false police report) simply misread a write ahead log in cell phone data from Jen's WallDB that caused years of unnecessary smears directed at McCabe. This was a joint project involving myself, MrrderByMaestro and Old Made New Creations. Please follow MBM here - Shout out to Old Made New Creations for figuring this out. Please support their channel here - Join me, and the towel friends, as we discuss this audio (and so much more) during today's catch-up stream (court is off in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial until Tuesday, May 27, 2025, at 9AM ET) here -

Grant Smith Ellis

44,987 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The Telegram channel “Byt Ili” conducted a detailed analysis of the performance of Russian air defense during yesterday’s Ukrainian drone raid on Moscow. It was the first time that the operation of Russian air defense could be observed almost in real time. Key conclusions from the analysis: “Perhaps the most surprising thing for me in today’s strike on the Moscow oil refinery is the number of missed interceptions by Russian air defense systems against Ukrainian UAVs. In this compilation, I’ve specifically cut together the misses by ‘Pantsirs’. The selection is not complete. For the first time, we were able to observe in real time how Russian air defense operates during large-scale drone raids. And I have no rational explanation for why it performs THIS poorly. Yan Matveev described it most succinctly: ‘Air defense systems were deployed right in the city, missiles are flying chaotically in all directions and missing their targets; the threat from them is no less (and perhaps even greater) than from the drones themselves.’ But this still doesn’t answer the question: why is it like this? After all, these are UAVs flying at low speed — not cruise missiles, and certainly not ballistic ones. This can hardly even be described as a combined strike designed to overwhelm air defenses. The only fast-moving targets here were a few jet-powered UAVs like “Bars,” and there were very few of them. This is nowhere near the level of overload seen in Ukrainian air defenses during Russian combined missile strikes. And yet, even a strike of this scale creates chaos and confusion for Russian air defenses. It also leads to the conclusion that ‘Pantsir’ systems perform rather poorly against UAVs. Now it becomes clear why there is such a shortage of Pantsir missiles — because even slow Ukrainian drones sometimes cannot be shot down with two missiles. This is shown in videos 1 and 2 — two misses by a Pantsir against a single UAV, which ultimately hits its target. In video 3, a Pantsir misses the first UAV, misses the second, and only the third missile manages to shoot down the second UAV.” 1/

𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱△ 🇬🇪🇺🇦🇺🇲🇬🇷

67,005 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce