jharsman | 22 days ago | on: Two Years of Emacs Solo
jharsman's comments
jharsman | 2 years ago | on: Everyone hates the electronic medical record
1) The people who pay generally do not use the system. This is true for enterprise software in general and leads to vendors prioritizing having all features organizations ask for (regardless if they are a good idea or not) and also prioritizing features management deems important over fundamental workflow, UX and polish in general.
2) EHRs are very large and complex and can almost always gain more customers by gaining even more features and replacing smaller more specialized systems. A typical EHR will have features for ordering tests and viewing results (for clinical chmistry, microbiology, radiology and more special stuff like physiology etc), appointments and resource planning (rooms, equipment, personnel, staffing), clinical notes including computing scores and values based on other values, medication (ordering, administering, sending prescriptions electronically) and administration (admissions, discharge, payment, waiting lists). That is a lot of different stuff!
3) Once a vendor wins a contract and installs their EHR, very little can be gained by improving the lives of users. Contracts and sales cycles are very long, and the vendor gains very little financially by improving the system. So many vendors are focused on charging money for customer specific features or adding new features to win new tenders.
I'm not sure what the solution is, public alternatives have failed spectacularly since they are typically run by public administrators who have even less of a clue how to develop software and what users want than the vendors.
jharsman | 4 years ago | on: Mapping Perlin Noise to Angles
jharsman | 6 years ago | on: A thoroughly modern particle system (2009)
jharsman | 6 years ago | on: Mercurial’s journey to and reflections on Python 3
For example, when I converted our existing Subversion repository to Mercurial I had to rename a couple of files that had non ASCII characters in their names because Mercurial couldn't handle it. At least on Windows file names would either be broken in Explorer or in the command line.
In fact I just checked and it is STILL broken in Mercurial 4.8.2 which I happened to have installed on my work laptop with Windows. Any file with non ASCII characters in the name is shown as garbled in the command line interface on Windows.
I remember some mailing list post way back when where mpm said that it was very important that hg was 8-bit clean since a Makefile might contain some random string of bytes that indicated a file and for that Makefile to work the file in question had to have the exact same string of bytes for a name. Of course, if file names are just strings of bytes instead of text, you can't display them, or send them over the internet to a machine with another file name encoding or do hardly anything useful with them. So basic functionality still seems to be broken to support unix systems with non-ascii filenames that aren't in UTF-8.
jharsman | 6 years ago | on: A History of APL in Fifty Functions (2016)
jharsman | 9 years ago | on: Flickr – A Year Without a Byte
Besides removing information from the file that doesn't affect the rendered image (like EXIF data), lossless recompressors typically replace the huffman coding of DCT coefficients with a more efficient arithmetic coder. So you don't start over from raw pixels, but you replace the type of compression used with a more modern and efficient algorithm. That means ordinary software can't read the JPEG (since you've essentially created a new format) but you can just decompress into standard JPEG whenever someone wants to look at the image.
jharsman | 9 years ago | on: Show HN: WebGL Fire Simulation
jharsman | 9 years ago | on: Show HN: WebGL Fire Simulation
jharsman | 10 years ago | on: Memory and C++ Debugging at Electronic Arts [video]
Thi sisn't strictly true any more, since many TVs now support 72 Hz (to be able to display 24 fps content like film), but my guess is that doesn't have wide enough support to rely on.
jharsman | 10 years ago | on: Why Intel Added Cache Partitioning
jharsman | 10 years ago | on: Why Intel Added Cache Partitioning
> It’s curious that we have low cache hit rates, a lot of time stalled on cache/memory, and low bandwidth utilization.
That's typical for most workloads! Software is almost never compute or bandwidth bound in my experience, but instead spends most of its time waiting on memory in pointer chasing code. This is especially true for code written in managed languages like Java (since everything typically is boxed and allocated all over the heap).
jharsman | 11 years ago | on: Programmer proverbs
But the proverb in the form given is dumb.
jharsman | 13 years ago | on: Parental benefits and paternity leave in Norway
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu...
jharsman | 13 years ago | on: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
And even if you're primarily IO-limited, a single request that consumes too much CPU will cause queuing.
jharsman | 13 years ago | on: Raspberry Pi now with 512MB RAM
This is obviously faster than malloc which is what people compare with when they say allocation is faster with a garbage collector. Collecting the garbage, i.e. de-allocation, can be more expensive though, since it might require scanning large parts of the heap.
Since games generally use region based allocators , the performance gain is probably very small there. If you make lots of calls to malloc, then the gain would be larger.
jharsman | 13 years ago | on: MySQL is bazillion times faster than MemSQL
What if that disk crashes, or the SAN array brakes and kills all the data, or the data center burns down?
jharsman | 14 years ago | on: Raspberry Pi's GPU double the performance of iPhone 4S
jharsman | 14 years ago | on: Why is Windows so slow?
If Linux is still much faster, even with the same filesystem, you have eliminated one variable.
jharsman | 14 years ago | on: Microsoft team submits Redis patch to enable Windows support