grive

Maybe A Deepness in the sky, from this author?

The hero saves the day by hacking old routines lying in the depth of the ship systems.

I think you simply missed my point twice.

> "Some external circumstances could change reducing them to a pile of oxides"

(or some other transformations I guess in case of fire.)

That was precisely not what I was talking about (or put another way if you still require abundant explicitness): not the kind of immortality I was describing. Maybe I was not clear enough.

For example, a star could hypothetically fall into another much larger than it and prolong its life

Well, once again:

> Of course they can still be impacted by external effects, but sustaining their own internal processes does not require such inputs

For the majority of life existence as we know it (meaning, a proton gradient separated by a membrane), living systems were immortal.

Some external circumstances could change reducing them to a pile of oxides, but the systems themselves were perfectly self-perpetuating -- i.e. time-independent, or put another way 'given enough time' is not sufficient.

Of course, before the heat-death of the universe entropy-reducing systems will break down, but that's not an interesting observation.

Some physical processes decrease entropy locally, sometimes by incredible amounts.

I think that's the more interesting observation. How to qualify life beyond only 'local entropy reduction systems'.

My uninformed opinion is that it is both 'entropy-reducing' and 'context-dependent' systems that should be considered 'alive' (not sure though that this is sufficient). Dependence on their context means that those systems will have a feedback-loop with their environment, allowing for example non-linear causality and thus complexity to emerge.

A star radiating away their stored negative entropy is an all give and no take, no dependency, full autonomy system. Of course they can still be impacted by external effects, but sustaining their own internal processes does not require such inputs, they are incidental to them emitting away their stored energy. Once started, their schedule (when they will deplete themselves, collapse, etc) is known and predictable, thus not alive.

Sure, it's definitely not the same. I would not think of someone not believing the most extreme predictions to be a skeptic.

What I call climate change skeptics are people playing into the well-known playbook of industries being attacked by research into the harm to inflict on society: tobacco, "forever chemicals", etc, and today also climate change.

The science behind climate change is generally sound, even if we have unknowns and things yet to research, we know two important things: climate is changing, and human activities are causing it.

Some people however are ideologically biased against questioning the status quo. The industry put into question is at the core of our models, it's impacting every facet of modern life in developed countries.

Some political parties are counting on this, so you have had propaganda for 20 years in the US ridiculing environmental efforts, highlighting the most unhinged voices to disparage the effort as a whole, and people generally well educated that should know better, are following suite. The website posted by the OP of this thread is a literal example of such rhetoric.

I see this on Hacker News at least, so many people seemingly too afraid of words like 'degrowth' not to conjure scary strawmans (going back to the dark ages), instead of asking the tough questions of how we are going to get through this.

I just find ridiculous how so many people are too happy to lean into their bias, I find it cowardly and unreasonable.

This website is a pathetic example of cherry-picked and misrepresented data.

No surprise coming from climate change deniers.

Hacker News always had a pretty high number of such people (and an even higher number of climate change sceptics) amongst its users. I think it's due to a prevalent ideological proximity with the American right, which has been (and still is) the main driver for this propaganda.

I mean yes that's a weird take, why would MacOS be considered first?

I have a Mac provided by my company. None of my development tools are available there, profiling, debugging is a hassle.

The only way I can work on it is by booting up linux VM, or connecting to my servers to compile there.

Mac is just terrible for development. It's barely better than Windows.

Entropy does not drive the creation of life.

Life appears in spite of the 2nd law. The context in which it appears means that life orders its context, so 'feeds off' low entropy. But low entropy environment is not sufficient.

You must have pretty specific causal patterns in the 'primordial soup' for the system to self-organize into 'entropy accelerators' such as life.

Those patterns are feedback loops and heterarchy.

I would tend to agree.

This article conveniently designs its benchmark to be exactly when open addressing would work.

In almost all of the maps implementations I have used so far, chaining was necessary and intrusive linked lists were used.

An open-addressing scheme was however preferable (cuckoo) for a read-mostly map allowing concurrent reads and locked writes.

I would be more interested in an article exploring the compromises involved there, e.g. related to paying the cost of an additional indirection when accessing the value.

Another critic of this article I would add is the many tables throughout referencing different baselines. A single baseline would be much preferable, to keep a sense of scale for each change.

The only art in that room was watching that crowd accept that wretched noise as performance, simply because the person making it happened to be on stage.

You cannot fathom that other people might have different responses to it?

I like noise. Not everyday, but I do go to concerts of it. Next you will reveal to me that the sensations and feelings I get to experience are just a construct and I am inflicting this only because it's on stage?

Will you call all of those people myopic for pursuing a richer life, as well?

Definitely. People living in the US are not the most happy on Earth. Life is not the easiest there. Granted, there is a very successful propaganda at work convincing people that they will have a better chance to succeed. But more and more, this ideal is being questioned.

Bring in the big earthmoving equipment, run the concrete plans, all powered by fossil fuels, and build dams.

To continue speaking in your language, run the cost analysis. Find how much more costly it will be to entertain grandiose project just to continue living the same way as before.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a believer of an idealistic natural world where humans should not life, far from it. But as the current pinnacle of life, the greatest achievement on Earth, I consider that it is our duty to sustain ourselves for as long as possible -- and that means for now understanding as much as possible of the biological systems on Earth before changing anything. We should reduce ecological collapses as much as possible, until we have learned everything we can from the species we are disappearing every days. We must be aware of our impact, in the fullest of sense and decide with total knowledge how to proceed.

We'll adapt, or at least I will.

You are describing the exact inverse of 'adapting'. You want to modify the environment as much as necessary, at any cost, for it to fit our current cultural zeitgeist. Our biology trumps any current cultural fact. We should not try to preserve a single society or human colony, we should try to preserve as much life and (DNA) diversity as possible, as this is our best chance to learn and understand more, and find better ways to live, to further reduce our suffering.

Eh. This gets repeated over and over with little evidence.

This is already happening, these last years have already shown a prelude of what is to come.

Rains will be rarer and more intense, leading to periods of drought and floods, as well as reduced retention in our current biomes. I don't know what you watched these last two years but it has already been happening in several regions, I don't know what more evidence you want of what is to come.

It will only become more and more difficult to grow food and keep livestock as the water system become more violent and unstable. Trying to stabilize an increasingly unstable system will prove extremely costly, you will be battling forces that are currently outside our capabilities. You might be optimistic and consider that we will always find solutions to it, but this is unreasonable. No one has shown so far that we will be capable of containing those issues.

Water might be the most problematic issue in the medium term, but wildfires, ocean acidification, tropical storms, ecological collapses have also started to happen, more frequently and more intensely. It will lead to a harder life for everyone. We will be lucky in the US and EU and will live better life for a time, but we will also experience greatly increased migrations, that will completely destroy our current social support systems. Given the latest rise in populism (on the left and right), it is clear to me that in that situation people will vote for any tyrant that will promise to do anything to protect their way of life. That will mean building critical infrastructure to attempt to contain the effects in the best case, but more likely just more self-serving, corrupt assholes and brutal power enforcement, genocide of the millions of people moving. It's only human nature.

Frankly what you describe will only accelerate our downfall. Our best chance of surviving is through knowledge, and your way will make so much of the complexity of life around us disappear, just to fit some myopic conception of how we should live.

And I think they have a point.

They may have a point, that won't change the reality of the situation: letting them do exactly what the developed countries did, will kill them. That's not fair, that's life.

So yes, idealism likely will not solve anything. But it can help make the transition to a sustainable economy.

No, idealism by definition will produce idealistic solutions that won't amount to anything. You are advocating for controlling a system by considering that with enough ingenuity, trust or whatever, we can do it. No, controlling a complex system is done by understanding its baseline or attractors and tweaking its inputs carefully to bring it and maintaining it there.

It means indeed that injecting aerosols in the atmosphere to control the climate is a foolish errand, and the practical approach is energy sobriety. But don't go advocating this position by talking of ideals and fairness, you won't convince anyone.

As a commenter put it so eloquently elsewhere, how do we ensure that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis can live like Texans? Because relieving human suffering is my goal.

Are you prepared to hear that it is simply not possible? We have finite resources. If everyone was living like in developed countries, we would consume the entirety of the resources we are currently capable of extracting from the Earth in a year, in only a few months. And even if we expanded our extraction capabilities, there is only one Earth, of which only finite amount of material will be useful and put to good use for our comfort.

Given that, there is only two possibilities: reduce resource consumption, or expand the amount of available resources.

* Reduce: you can either reduce each individual usage, or reduce the number of individuals. Now you see why everyone is advocating for reduced individual usage, because culling the population is seen as 'not relieving human suffering'.

* Increase: it requires going away from Earth and expanding into at least adjacent bodies with the capability of transforming them into useful stuff. To plan for that, you need to prove first that such solution would be possible before we are all extinct from the ecological collapse of our life support systems.

So now you are back to square one: if 'increasing' the available resources is not available right now, and might not even be available in the future, and reducing the population is frowned upon, then you are forced to find a way to reduce resource consumption.

Which might well mean that for everyone to live like Texans, that means Texans will have to change their lives and live like everyone else.

Once our ecosystem has collapsed, a possibility we see approaching close and closer, then *no one* will live, nevermind with the latest F150 or whathaveyou that Texans might enjoy. If your goal is truly to reduce human suffering, you must also entertain the possibility that we must limit ourselves. Someone living hedonistically, trying to enjoy earthly pleasures as much as possible and dying at age 35 to cardiac and respiratory failure, has not succeeded in enjoying their lives the most.

Another question might be: does everyone want to live like Texans in the first place? Are you planning to burn our Earth on faulty ideological or cultural assumptions? Because believe me, when I see how Americans live, I definitely do not wish to join them. You might be culturally conditioned to believe your way is the best, but don't take extreme opinions such as 'climate change is preferable to modifying the status quo' based on such myopic views.

We are supposed to stop designing cities around cars, yes.

Second, no conspiracy would be needed, just hypocrisy of individuals.

To quote your first sentence:

It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility.

Which is definitely conspiratorial. It's not just that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions, no, they have been trained.

Second, the hypocrisy of people benefiting from the status quo, defending a stupid idea to squeeze a few years of carbon emission, and accusing the other side of being ideologically driven is quite striking.

You insult the other side by summoning the idea that they are simple peoples believing in gods and wood spirits, dismiss their opinion by projecting your own ideologically-driven hypocrisy, engage in conspiratorial-adjacent thinking by considering that their opinion is the result of propaganda.

Note how close this is all to the usual climate skeptics rhetorical toolbox. After having to finally conceded that there is an issue, they are trying to justify their insane beliefs by saying that "people were not nice enough when explaining the problem and agreeing with my politics".

Don't claim to advocate for science-based approach by using such rhetorical devices.

Networking stacks are used in two ways: endpoints and forwarders.

Forwarders are usually not doing much with packets, just reading a few fields and choosing an output port. These are very common function in network cores (telcos, datacenters, ...).

DPDK is not well-suited for endpoint application programming, even though here you can still squeeze some additional performance.

But don't dismiss a framework that is currently so widely deployed just because you are not familiar with its most common use-case.

FPGAs are falling out of favor, ASICs are sufficient to implement most network processing.

Funnily, one of the biggest DPDK feature is an API to program smartNICs exactly in that way.

An encoding which varies over time, dependent on previous states does not seem impossible. I don't think this is disqualifying to say that a sufficiently complex system cannot then simulate an abstract machine.

It does not make the article argument valid however, just that the iron bar argument is still worth thinking about.

The article says that consciousness cannot be computing because it requires an observer to derive meaning. Nothing precludes sufficiently complex encodings to themselves be accurate simulations of abstract machines. I think such class of simulations being able to support themselves might be the nature of consciousness. Some physical systems might be better suited to allow the emergence of such recursive simulations.

'General consensus' does not exist.

Take the Covid vaccine: it is clearly shown to reduce the risks compared to getting Covid without it, and still there is no consensus about getting vaccinated, and there never will be. Getting to 100% vaccination rate will be a social trauma.

Another example, climate change: the science is clear and easy to understand. The root cause is known for more than hundred of years, and the effect has been clearly measured since the 1960s. The scale of the issue has been made clearer and clearer these last decades. And yet, even beyond people holding interest in the current status quo, there are still people resisting this consensus, attributing any attempt to make society change there a polarizing and partisan issue.

So no, people would not do it.

I imagine that 200 years from now we might look back at using all these substances as something as dumb as drawing blood with leeches for a migraine or something.

The reason to take those substance is to get a modified state of mind. In that effect, they are successful. It's not comparable to something that was just doing 'nothing' toward its stated goal. The goal is not to live to 120+ years. No one takes coffee thinking 'this will help me live an exceedingly long life'.

On the other hand, it's not so much imagining a society with this list banned that is difficult. It's to imagine a government capable of enforcing such banning.

I think it is infinitely more likely that in 50 years, it will be recognized as a folly to have spent so much money into trying to ban those substance. If the goal is to effectively reduce consumption, outright banning is not the way to go. Also, I have a personal belief that mental health is on the verge of revolution, and psilocybin in particular will be made more available, possibly even for recreational use.

I have not seen a good reason for now to reduce my caffeine consumption. I drink two cups per days, one of which is decaffeinated. I try to read regularly to see if new info arises there, and so far nothing. The only justification I might have to stop this consumption is the work condition for the producers and having to import it from afar.

Indeed! I was working with false assumptions, thanks for correcting them.

When you buy an ISO standard, it is marked by the buyer ID.

To make it publicly available, you need to strip it. That means the file must be modified, and the tampered copy must be stored somewhere.

Sci-hub has a different model: it is decentralized because it lends credentials to download protected articles. It does not store them. It cannot remain decentralized if it stored or cached the content.

I looked into it to write a QR-code tool. Getting the standard was a bullshit process and I wasn't going to pay that much for a side-project. I did not write the tool as a result, even though I'm not happy with the one existing on linux (though, thanks a lot to its author, who did so using the standard at personal cost for public benefit).

The solution I found was to buy it properly, but go through eastern-Europe countries, to make it cheaper. Still bullshit to have to buy a standard for common tooling necessary to interact with everyday life.

Is that the thanks we get for trying to save their lives?

What kind of 'thanks' would you expect exactly?

They have lived the year at higher risk of contracting dangerous symptom, while you were safer in comparison. Was it fair then? When you were able not to fear too much about your safety?

Frankly, forcing people to stay inside while they have been vaccinated and are at an acceptable level of risk, under the guise of 'fairness' is pretty rich.

You're right to nit-pick! It is rather embarassingly wrong (10G -> 100G should be a pretty obvious 14.88Mpps -> 148.8Mpps...). Unfortunately it seems I cannot edit the comment so I'll leave the error for posterity ^^. Still, thanks!

This patch brings XDP RX to 4.2Mpps which is nice.

In 2015 high-speed networking was targeting 10G line rate, i.e. 14.8Mpps. Today the NICs are 100G (42Mpps), next year it will be 400G.

I'm not sure how the kernel is expected to follow with the pace. Those NICs will offer offloads, so static network functions should be accelerated without involving the CPU. Still, it seems software-based networking will never be able to catch up.

DPDK and userland solutions in general are able to scale better. At least for DPDK, depending on the workload an L2 forwarding function can do 14.8 Mpps on a single core, and supposed to scale linearly (so 4 cores for a 100G L2 fwd?).

However I've yet to see a TCP implementation able to scale linearly. DPDK in used generally for middleboxes, not endpoints, where scaling TCP has different challenges (handling a socket state with a single RSS dispatch vs. two RSS dispatch I guess).

So what does it say about the future of SDN? Will it be able to keep pace with hardware network functions? A pure kernel-based approach would be nice but it seems impossible. On userland side the industry is not there yet in open-source, as far as I know. There are probably proprietary stacks able to do this, but I don't know them.

The only major hedge fund affiliated with a market maker is Citadel.

How many shares of Melvin Capital were bought by Citadel when they injected $2.75B? Is there a way to know how exposed they are?

Isn't there a conflict of interest in them floating a hedge fund losing money due to flow orders they are buying (or, potentially, not buying anymore)?

If it was the answer, then RH could have instead only forbidden margin trades and restricted to cash.

Additionally, other retail brokers selling to Citadel Capital have done the exact same (Schwab comes to mind, but not only).

Other brokers however (fidelity), have not. If the short squeeze is to happen tomorrow, this seems an unlikely coincidence that those retail brokers affiliated with Citadel Capital tool positions that would ultimately deflate the stock.

I don't see how GP can assure that no short sellers is behind those moves.

https://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/

https://phzoe.com/2020/10/05/geothermal-to-the-moon/

https://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-ot...

There are may others. It's all over the place. The author denies the Stefan–Boltzmann law that contradicts her model meant to prove most heating is due to geothermal. She also does not believe in Fusion within the Sun, or that photon are particles (only waves, which is linked to the thermal radiation denial).

Additionally, the author mocks and attacks anyone contradicting her in the comments. Her argumentation revolves around throwing new theories after new theories that could help explain her impossible results, expecting others to provide the contradiction.

All-around extremely exhausting to argue with, bad faith, aggressive and ideologically driven.

Amidst all this, many election fraud allegations on the blog, beyond the subtext implying manipulation in this post article.

Indeed this is the crucial part.

Usually a company will not generate its own energy. Depending on the country, the infrastructure is sometimes publicly owned and managed.

Maybe the physical -> digital touchpoint here could be outside the boundaries of the company. The energy grid should report those numbers as references, to subscribers agreed upon by the company for example. There it could be certified by the government.

Or something like that?

Edit: Well of course now there would be an incentive to burn petrol to run turbines and generate locally, then turn them off to capitalize on a high in the energy efficiency security market...

Would the union help get the game shipped on time?

This is such a weird logic. Since when should the company financial incentives have higher priority over the employees well-being? Arguably, if the existence of the company is threatened by a few delays and that the only solution is to exploit people, it should instead close shop and let people get other jobs that will make them happier.

So no, a union would probably not help the game be shipped in time, and if it did, it would be the shittiest union. And if enforcing humane working conditions against the profits of the employer makes the business unsustainable, this means the business should not exist in the first place.

Usually those lists are intrusive -- their nodes are meant to be part of larger objects. They will be freed in other contexts, e.g. if protected by RCU, memory reclamation is postponed until all threads have quiesced. Or the nodes are allocated by one amongst many allocators (i.e. for performance, or better concurrence), so it is best for the structure itself not to make any assumption about where the memory should be returned to.

So generally, list implementations in C will not free the node, only remove references to it and return it.