This is super useful! I've been hacking recently on qdisc classifiers, and trying to set a filter up with BPF, but there's a paucity of documentation on the subject. The tc tools are sorta documented here (https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/tc-bpf.8.html), but it's quite hard to find docs on the underlying syscalls and the behavior of `bpf_prog_type_sched_cls`.
I bought a copy of BPF performance tools to learn more about the BPF interface, and it's really useful but quite focused on performance! I wish there was a resource of similar depth and breath about eBPF for classification/XDP.
Thanks for getting the BPF book. Further references for BPF bits would be the kernel docs (Documentation/bpf), kernel source (kernel/bpf, include/.../bpf), the self tests (tools/testing/selftests/bpf), Cilium's docs (https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/bpf/), and if all else fails, mailing lists like iovisor-dev.
It sounds like there should be a deep book on BPF internals (written by maintainers Alexei & Daniel), but it would be a tough sell: you really do need the maintainers to author it or be heavily involved to do it well, and it's a lot of work for a changing target, and without a large audience (lots of people will use BPF, but few will code it at that level. I'd guess 100 world-wide. Not a great case for a book!) Compare it to my BPF perf tools book: big audience (end users: developers, SREs, perf engineers, etc), and has a long shelf life (the tools are done, and work, and should keep working).
I do wonder whether the electoral college system somewhat insulates the US from election tampering or voter fraud. The current system disaggregates election certification to the state level, which is then made official by a discrete vote of the electoral college. For instance, if Donald Trump wants to claim that the election was rigged or tampered with, it's sort of moot as it's ultimately up to the state electors.
It feels like in the face of this, it's very hard for one candidate to dispute the election, as it's ultimately resolved by electoral vote. If we were to change the system to one based only a national first past the post poll, even one certified by vote totals from individual states, I wonder how you'd ensure an impartial certification of the final result.
They were supposed to be regular people, not politicians. And certainly not the worst people ever conceived: party loyalists. That's The system we use.
It's also not the ultimate decision making body. If the results are disputed, and no candidate gets 270 Electors, House of Representatives chooses the president, one vote per state. Senate choose VP, one vote per senator.
Elections are run by the states, not the federal government. We have — and would still have, since the electors aren’t even bound until after the election — to have 57 separate elections. It’s this separation that adds a level of security, not the EC.
Images (at least now) link to an ArsTechnica article [0] written by Nick Sullivan, the same person who wrote said blog post (the article and CF's blog post are the same thing, with ArsTechnica going up a day later).
Hm.. Is Functional Neurology (the journal in which this published) related in any way to the field of functional neurology? I think the latter is a rebranding of chiropractic neurology, which some would argue purports some less than scientific ideas.
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/12/24/utopian-for-be...