Comparing to the speed of a direct boolean check is a great way to sensationalize really small numbers.
Nobody's real-world code is being slowed down by 500% because all real world code is doing much more than just checking errors. All I see from these results is a 15-16ns cost to using errors.Is versus an additional boolean.
Even the examples ("GetValue") hint at an extremely common use case: reads from a data store. A case where single-digit milliseconds is considered "all good performance-wise" for the most common SQL databases, clocking in at 100000x the time scale of errors.Is.
I thought this as well, but I also think it depends on how you’ve structured your code. If errors aren’t used by the algorithm (they’re just used for early exit) then yes it won’t make a big difference, but if your algorithm is handling errors nearly as frequently as the happy path then you’ll see a difference using the boolean.
Yeah, of course if you're just running through an in-memory slice and doing a little arithmetic on each item, sentinel errors and errors.Is might dominate your runtime. But the dominant use-cases (e.g. in the standard library) are syscalls, filesystem interactions, network APIs - you know, stuff that takes real time.
This reminds me of "latency numbers every programmer should know". Work with the standard library and other well-conceived go projects and you gain the intuition that error handling and bit-twiddling arithmetic don't belong together. That's the real story here, and OP's article is way wide of the mark.
But while it points out that the evidence for masks being effective is scarce, it does little to identify positive evidence that masks are specifically ineffective. So we just don't know as much as CDC's consistent guidelines seem to suggest, and it makes sense to weigh the risk. That the article neglects to frame it in this light highlights the one-sided nature.
There is plenty of evidence that high quality, well fitted masks (N95 or equivalent) work in the sense of reducing the risk of transmission in any single close contact interaction. But so what? The virus is here to stay and can never be eradicated. Obviously people aren't going to spend the rest of their lives wearing masks. In fact outside the HN bubble in many areas people have already stopped. We're all going to be exposed multiple times throughout our lives no matter what. Masks can only slightly delay that at best.
Instead of fighting a futile battle by trying to prevent exposure we should instead accept that everyone will be exposed and try to maximize their odds of survival. That means encouraging eligible people to get vaccinated, and take other steps to mitigate co-morbid conditions.
[citation needed] Studies that don't use a model or beg the question? The Danish one that shows 3% effectiveness? Or the Bangladesh one that shows 11%?
Also the minor detail that countries with masking cultures - like Japan - have relatively excellent Covid stats with minimal deaths.
Honestly, we're through the looking glass if we're even pretending there's any kind of debate about this.
Masks work for adults. Period. There are tens of papers proving that now. Any good faith web search will find them. For every cherry picked paper "proving" they don't there are ten much better designed studies proving they do.
If masks work for adults, they work for kids - not just to cut spread between kids, but also between kids and adults, and especially between kids and vulnerable adults.
The UK has decided to have an outbreak of political psychosis over this, and there are already significant - double digit - percentages of both teachers and kids off sick with Covid in many schools.
Risks to kids are relatively insignificant compared to the trauma of lost school friends, lost hours from school, lost relatives and - in too many cases - lost parents.
The promotion of irrational and human-hostile anti-masker anti-vaxxer nonsense really needs to stop.
I'm not sure how "we're through the looking glass" because there is still debate on the issue, the Atlantic article lays out pretty strong evidence to suggest there is at the very least still plenty of room for debate. Further I don't understand how debating issues is "human-hostile" as you put it. All public measures should continuously be up for debate.
Facta is modernizing the CFO stack for mid-market companies, starting with accounting's month-end close. Come help us empower some of the most undervalued employees (accounting, controllers, finops teams) with tools that automate away their tedious manual workflows.
We are looking for product managers, designers, sales, and engineers.
Facta is empowering finance and accounting professionals with a suite of modern software tools that work in tandem with general ledger services to speed up monthly close, get their teams out of spreadsheets, and get critical finance data in front of decision makers faster.
actually it could use row-level locking since it uses row-oriented storage and fcntl locks can be applied to a set of bytes within a file. it could also do file-level locking on tempfiles with names derived from the table name and primary key of the row.
anyone with actual knowledge of it care to chime in with what it does do?
I have actual knowledge of it. The product I work on uses it as the production database because we distribute the software as a desktop application (and MySQL has licensing issues).
It COULD do row level locking, but it doesn't. SQLitening is the closest thing to performant SQLite you will get. And it only runs on Windows.
Nobody's real-world code is being slowed down by 500% because all real world code is doing much more than just checking errors. All I see from these results is a 15-16ns cost to using errors.Is versus an additional boolean.
Even the examples ("GetValue") hint at an extremely common use case: reads from a data store. A case where single-digit milliseconds is considered "all good performance-wise" for the most common SQL databases, clocking in at 100000x the time scale of errors.Is.