duncesplayed

I'm a university professor and I often found myself getting stressed/anxious/overwhelmed by email at certain times (especially end-of-semester/final grades). The more emails that started to pile in, the more I would start to avoid them, which then started to snowball when people would send extra emails like "I sent you an email last week and haven't got a response yet...", which turned into a nasty feedback loop.

My solution was to create 10 new email folders, called "1 day", "2 days", "3 days", "4 days", "5 days", "6 days", "7 days", "done", "never" and "TIL", which I use during stressful times of the year. Within minutes of an email coming into my inbox, I move it into one of those folders. "never" is for things that don't require any attention or action by me (mostly emails from the department about upcoming events that don't interest me). "TIL" is for things that don't require an action or have a deadline, but I know I'll be referring to a lot. Those are things like contact information, room assignments, plans for things, policy updates.

The "x days" folders are for self-imposed deadlines. If I want to ensure I respond to an email within 2 days, I put it in the "2 days" folder, for example.

And the "done" folder is for when I have completed dealing with an email. This even includes emails where the matter isn't resolved, but I've replied to it, so it's in the other person's court, so to speak. When they reply, it'll pop out of "done" back into the main inbox for further categorizing, so it's no problem.

So during stressful, email-heavy times of year, I wake up to a small number of emails in my inbox. To avoid getting stressed, I don't even read them fully. I read just enough of them that I can decide if I'll respond to them (later) or not, categorize everything, and my inbox is then perfectly clean.

Then I turn my attention to the "1 day" box, which probably only has about 3 or 4 emails in it. Not so overwhelming to only look at those, and once I get started, I find I can get through them pretty quickly.

The thing I've noticed is that once I get over the initial dread of looking at my emails (which used to be caused by looking at a giant dozens-long list of them), going through them is pretty quick and smooth. The feeling of cleaning out my "1 day" inbox is a bit intoxicating/addictive, so then I'll want to peek into my "2 days" box to get a little ahead of schedule and so on. (And if I don't want to peek ahead that day, hey, no big deal)

Once I'm done with my emails, I readjust them (e.g., move all the "2 days" into "1 day", then all the "3 days" into "2 days", and so on) and completely forget about them guilt-free for the rest of day.

Since implementing this system a year ago, I have never had an email languish for more than a couple weeks, and I don't get anxiety attacks from checking email any more.

Thomas Glexiner of Linutronix (now owned by Intel) has posted 58 patches for review into the Linux kernel, but they're only the beginning! Most of the patches are just first steps at doing more major renovations into what he calls "decrapification". He says:

While working on a sane topology evaluation mechanism, which addresses the short-comings of the existing tragedy held together with duct-tape and hay-wire, I ran into the issue that quite some of this tragedy is deeply embedded in the APIC code and uses an impenetrable maze of callbacks which might or might not be correct at the point where the CPUs are registered via MPPARSE or ACPI/MADT.

So I stopped working on the topology stuff and decided to do an overhaul of the APIC code first. Cleaning up old gunk which dates back to the early SMP days, making the CPU registration halfways understandable and then going through all APIC callbacks to figure out what they actually do and whether they are required at all. There is also quite some overhead through the indirect calls and some of them are actually even pointlessly indirected twice. At some point Peter yelled static_call() at me and that's what I finally ended up implementing.

He also, at one point, (half-heartedly) argues for the removal of 32-bit x86 code entirely, arguing that it would simplify APIC code and reduce the chance for introducing bugs in the future:

Talking about those museums pieces and the related historic maze, I really have to bring up the question again, whether we should finally kill support for the museum CPUs and move on.

Ideally we remove 32bit support alltogether. I know the answer... :(

But what I really want to do is to make x86 SMP only. The amount of #ifdeffery and hacks to keep the UP support alive is amazing. And we do this just for the sake that it runs on some 25+ years old hardware for absolutely zero value. It'd be not the first architecture to go SMP=y.

Yes, we "support" Alpha, PARISC, Itanic and other oddballs too, but that's completely different. They are not getting new hardware every other day and the main impact on the kernel as a whole is mostly static. They are sometimes in the way of generalizing things in the core code. Other than that their architecture code is self contained and they can tinker on it as they see fit or let it slowly bitrot like Itanic.

But x86 is (still) alive and being extended and expanded. That means that any refactoring of common infrastructure has to take the broken hardware museum into account. It's doable, but it's not pretty and of really questionable value. I wouldn't mind if there were a bunch of museum attendants actively working on it with taste, but that's obviously wishful thinking. We are even short of people with taste who work on contemporary hardware support...

While I cursed myself at some point during this work for having merged i386/x86_64 back then, I still think that it was the correct decision at that point in time and saved us a lot of trouble. It admittedly added some trouble which we would not have now, but it avoided the insanity of having to maintain two trees with different bugs and "fixes" for the very same problems. TBH quite some of the horrors which I just removed came out of the x86/64 side. The oddballs of i386 early SMP support are a horror on their own of course.

As we made that decision more than 15 years [!] ago, it's about time to make new decisions.

Linus responded to one of the patches, saying "I'm cheering your patch series", but has obviously diplomatically not acknowledged the plea to remove 32-bit support.

Hey all technology people!

Not my community, but I thought I'd advertise someone else's new lemmy community to see if anyone else is interested.

Head over to [email protected] for BBSes and retrocomputing.

It feels like we have a new privacy threat that's emerged in the past few years, and this year especially. I kind of think of the privacy threats over the past few decades as happening in waves of:

1. First we were concerned about governments spying on us. The way we fought back (and continue to fight back) was through encrypted and secure protocols.
2. Then we were concerned about corporations (Big Tech) taking our data and selling it to advertisers to target us with ads, or otherwise manipulate us. This is still a hard battle being fought, but we're fighting it mostly by avoiding Big Tech ("De-Googling", switching from social media to communities, etc.).
3. Now we're in a new wave. Big Tech is now building massive GPTs (ChatGPT, Google Bard, etc.) and it's all trained on our data. Our reddit posts and Stack Overflow posts and maybe even our Mastodon or Lemmy posts! Unlike with #2, avoiding Big Tech doesn't help, since they can access our posts no matter where we post them.

So for that third one...what do we do? Anything that's online is fair game to be used to train the new crop of GPTs. Is this a battle that you personally care a lot about, or are you okay with GPTs being trained on stuff you've provided? If you do care, do you think there's any reasonable way we can fight back? Can we poison their training data somehow?