corethree

Not as cruel as animal slaughter. Imagine the horror of being sliced into flesh cubes for consumption.

Compared to that this is tame.

Because I enjoy eating the flesh of slaughtered animals. Whenever I do so I feel nothing but absolute pleasure of the taste of cooked flesh. I feel zero guilt. And so does the majority of the human race.

If I were to do the same to a human that would be a big problem.

Why is it like this? I don't know but that's just the way it is. Don't try to rationalize it, it's not supposed to be rational. Our evolutionary quirks and moral instincts are the product of biological evolution not rational thought.

It's not rational, but it is self evident, to everyone. Including you. Your appeal is more of a request to ask for the rationality behind it and hoping that when people see how irrational it is they will side with you.

People aren't rational. There beliefs are based off of instinctual desires and they construct scaffolds of rational logic around their preconceived beliefs.

For example: how do you justify the slaughter and killing of all the plants that cows rip through without a second thought? Are plants less important then animals? It's mind blowing how many plants are literally executed every time those cows chew.

This what I do is a service to justice. I eat the flesh of slaughtered cows to punish plant killers. I balance the scales of justice every time I devour a steak.

This same logic justifies cannibalism of all vegetarians too but I'm unwilling to eat vegans. You'll have to get back to me on that. It takes time to fully rationalize all my instinctual behaviors.

You're describing technology transfer from the US to Taiwan. Which is absolutely true and happened. But the literal fact that the US can't build what Taiwan builds shows it's currently a literal transfer in the Other direction.

What I don't understand, is how thr initial US transfer to Taiwan negates the technology transfer I'm describing here? It doesn't.

I think you lack objectivity. Your American pride is getting in the way. Same with the downvoters I guess.

My comment has nothing to do with whether or not Taiwan or the US deserves or does not deserve to be a participant or victim in this "technology transfer" it's just a statement about reality.

Doesn't change a thing. Convenience doesn't matter. Owning a subscription and then subsequently pirating an illegal version (which I'm positive it's not all you're doing) doesn't mean fuck all. I own it, I want you to obtain said media through one venue. That's my fucking right. Even if that venue makes you jump through 30 hoops doesn't mean shit. You don't jump through the hoops your a fucking thief.

All you need to look at is the law. They'd throw you in jail if it didn't cost so much.

You're wrong about nobody caring. You care. That's why you got angry enough to reply. You feel fucking guilty and you're ashamed of being an ass hole thief. Deep down you know it and your getting angry at me because I'm deconstructing your delicately made fantasy world.

I'm the one who truly doesn't give a shit. How else can I criticize myself? I pirate without guilt. I recognize my crime but someone like you has to make up some fantasy in order to live with himself.

What gets me is when that fantasy not only validates your actions, but condemns the party you fucking stole from. That's a freaking joke. That's the epitome of delusional.

It's technology transfer. And it won't be obtained all through legal means.

Hacking isn't enough the amount of skill involved can't be gleaned from a computer file.

You need US based employees who can be poached who are doing espionage and all that. This is entirely what it's for. CIA and other defense agencies do this worse stuff. What I'm saying isn't out of the blue. And it's also quite obvious. There's really no real difference between manufacturing here or abroad so that is the only reason why they bring it here.

>I think a while back TSMC finally understood that building a factory in the US is just not feasible

TSMC always understood this. This wasn't a realization as the cost benefit analysis is obvious: US workers don't have the skill involved and they demand higher pay. The combination of the two makes the US plant a net loss.

TSMC did what they did because of political pressure. So the plan was always for the US plant to just satisfy that political pressure as much as possible. There was never a plan for the US plant to do anything profitable, it's more of a forced "technology transfer".

No no. If they own shit they have the right to do whatever they want. You have no right to steal their shit. They can charge 10 billion dollars for their stuff it doesn't matter.

You're a thief. Plain and simple. You just need to justify your delusion because you can't face reality.

Just tell them you're not interested and they stop calling. Small price to pay for something that's free.

Personal capital, now empower. I don't think there's a better one that's free as well.

I think a recliner set up could work. In that position you can wear it all day.

I too understand this logic and follow it to the T.

You know that indie filmmaker who spent his lifesaving filming a movie I now get to watch on his dime? Well guess what.

No 4k video and no international subtitles makes that guy deserve not seeing any money come back from his hard work.

I'm not a thief. The indie filmmaker is a thief. He stole my subtitles and 4k video.

In all seriousness, I pirate shit too. But am I going to walk around like a idiot justifying what I do? No. I don't lie to myself. I don't need to twist reality in order to explain human evil which is an intrinsic aspect of all of us.

I'm a bit like a psychopath because one other intrinsic aspect of humanity is that we lie to ourselves in order to justify our sins. I don't need to do that. I can pirate shit, and recognize the sin, and then continue pirating and screwing over that indie filmmaker. An ass hole never recognizes himself as the ass hole.

Like seriously the delusions are through the roof. The guy is literally pirating shit, and then calling the party he pirates shit from an "ass hole". If he just didn't buy their content he'd have justification, but he instead pirates the content and still calls them the "arse hole". Wake up. I hate corporations but we are the ones commiting the crime here.

We are the ass holes.

They spent their hard earned money to make shows you rip off for free. I pirate shit too. But I'm not going to say they they took a piss. And deserver the repercussions. That's backwards and illogical and lying to yourself.

We are the ones pissing and shitting on their faces. We are the wrong doers here.

DBMSs do not bypass filesystem. If this was the case, the table names would not be case-insensitive under Windows and case-sensitive under Linux (in MySQL). What they do is to allocate large space on the file system (by the way, the data is still visible as a file / set of files in the underlying operating system) and manage internal data structure. This lower the fragmentation and the overall overhead. In a similar way cache systems works - Varnish allocates entire memory it needs with a single call to operating system, then maintains internal data structure.

>Unless your web app is designed this way (it isn't), you cannot achieve anything close to the throughput of a modern database engine.

Your saying if I write to a section of memory on the heap or stack 4000 times with some different random byte every time it will be slower than doing the same thing to a db? Let's be real.

>Performance is a product of software architecture. Being stateless does not make your software fast in any absolute sense, many stateless in-memory systems have mediocre performance. A disk-backed design with superior architecture can out-perform an in-memory design, both in theory and practice.

Uh fundamental performance of software is absolutely limited by hardware. Stateless removes some fundamental limits. Sure architecture can change things but not not absolutely. Given the best architecture for all cases the best possible performance is in the end determined by which one is stateless. The absolute speed in the end is determined by hardware. SW architecture is changeable and thus NOT absolute.

I would know I work in HPC. We don't have any databases in any of our processing pipelines for obvious reasons.

>Is the wrong way to look at things.

I'm not saying you can write ANY code and code so shitty that it's slower than the database. Heck you can have the handler sleep for a minute before forwarding the request to the DB. I obviously don't mean that.

I'm talking about a specific kind of shitty code in the sense you don't have to worry about move semantics, memory management. You don't have to preallocate memory, you don't have to think about a lot of stuff and optimize for the heap or the stack. That kind of thing.

Just write some trivial non-blocking code don't worry about anything else and you're overall good. I guess "shitty code" is the wrong choice of words here. You don't need to spend time optimizing is more what I mean. If you know what you're doing it's fine... no major effort needed to change things.

It is an intrinsic property of database engines. Database engines access the fs. That is the slowest part of memory in a computer. The web app is stateless, it's never suppose to touch the fs.

Additionally database engines usually exist as separate processes or servers necessitating need for ipc which is another intrinsic bottleneck.

If an AWS vm can support 10 million writes/sec to disk storage then a stateless web app on the same vm should be even faster doing the same reads and writes to in memory storage.

I can agree with your latter statement that io can become the bigger bottleneck these days.

The batch request just eliminated io. It doesn't change the speed of the database overall. It would make that e2e test I mentioned harder to measure as how would you profile the specific query related to the request within that batch? I can imagine an improvement in overall speed, but I don't think this is a common pattern and the time spent in the db will still be slower than the web app for all processing related to the request.

Also for the Cache... Its a hard thing to measure and define right? Because it can live anywhere. It can live in the web app or on another third party app and depending on where it is, there's another io rt cost.

Because of this Usually I don't classify the cache as part of the db for these types of benchmarking. I just classify actual hits to the fs as the db bottleneck.

I mean if everything just hits an in memory cache that's more of bottleneck bypass in my opinion. Definitely important to have cache but measuring time spent in the cache is not equivalent to measuring where the bottleneck of your application lives.

Your measuring io.

Db has to do io too which you likely aren't measuring.

You are prob doing 300k writes with only one io call to indicate 300k was done. Then for the web app your doing 100k io calls. If you want to do an equivalent test on the web app you need to have the web app write to in memory like 300k times on one request. But that's not the best way to test.

The full end to end test is the io call to the web app then processing in the web app then the io call from the web app to the db then processing in the db, then the return trip.

Picture a timeline with different colored bars of different length with the length indicating the amount of time spent in each section of the full e2e tests. You will find that the web app should be fastest section. (It should also be divided into two for the initial request and the return trip with db access in between)

Flamegraph generators can easily create this visualization. Also be sure to handle what the other replier said as well. Make sure the db isn't caching stuff.

I would say a read test here is a good one. The web app parses a request, translates it to SQL, the. The SQL has to join and search through some tables and deliver results back to the user.

I would run the profiling with many simultaneous requests as well. This isn't fully accurate though as write requests lock sections of the db which actually are a big slow down as well which may be too much work to simulate here.

Database is the primary bottleneck of almost all web apps. This is different from solving bottlenecks you may find in other places.

Let me put it this way. If you did everything right, then the slowest part of your web application is usually the database. Now you may find problems in the web application and fix bottlenecks there but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the primary bottleneck.

In web basically the database is doing all the work the web application is just letting data pass through. The database is so slow that the speed of the web application becomes largely irrelevant. That's why languages like ruby or python can be used for the application, that's why C++ is rarely needed.

This ultimately makes sense logically. The memory hierarchy in terms of speed goes from CPU cache to random access to fs with fs being the slowest.

Web applications primarily use fs as it's all just about manipulating and reading state from the db. while a triple A game primarily runs on random access. Games do use the fs but usually that's buffering done in the background or load screens.

This is why your reply doesn't refute a single thing I said. It doesn't matter if dbs use nvme. FS is still slower than an in memory store by a huge magnitude. Not to mention the ipc or network connection is another bottleneck. Web apps need to only be trivially made magnitudes faster then then the ipc and database and it's fine.

Your batch calls to the db are only optimizations to the db which is still magnitudes slower then ram. Try switching those batch requests to in memory storage on the same process and keep the storage from bleeding pages to the fs and that will be waaay faster.

After you fix that the bottlenecks of most web apps lie in the http calls and parsing and deserializarion of the data. But usually nobody in web cares for that stuff because like I said the db is way slower.

Do you think a game engine can afford to do this stupid extra parsing and serialization step in between the renderer and the world updater? Hell no. That's why web developers can put all kinds of crap in the http handlers, because it doesn't matter.

Though I will say I have seen a bottleneck where parsing was actually slower than access to redis. But that's rare and redis is in-memory so it's mostly the ipc or network connection here.

Its a domain thing. And one domain in the world is expanding. Everyone in the world is becoming a web developer. Actually it already happened. Throw a dart at a group of software developers most likely that dart will hit a web developer.

Web developers can write shitty code because most of the time the bottleneck is in the database. You just need to write code thats faster then the database and you don't need to optimize beyond that.

Now all the optimizations center around pointless refactorings to keep up with the newest technology trend.

His credentials indicate that it may be possible that his arguments are based on data while your credentials and evidence indicate personal, anecdotal experience. Therefore I would trust his reasoning more. Additionally, I personally identify with it.

I mean a git developer finds git easy to use? That's biased data.

I love how both of you dropped your street cred before launching into your reasoning. It just shows how much more credentials convinces people rather then the argument itself. Normally that stuff logically doesn't matter and people are just doing it to grab some "authoritah" but in this case your backgrounds actually contributed to the arguments.

I am not acting like I'm going to a funeral and shouting nowhere near it. That is the comparison he is making and that's fucking evil.

I was at my friends funeral last month and that makes it even worse when I see this guy just casually just compare me to the situation. it's a demonstration of a complete lack of awareness of what it means to cross the fucking line. It is fucking nowhere close to it. Completely uncalled for.

If my comments come off as too cool to care maybe both of you need to just leave. The fucking rules here literally state to assume good intentions. I quote from the rules:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

I wasn't trying to be cool and insulting me is totally uncalled for.

I am not acting like I'm going to a funeral and shouting nowhere near it. That is the comparison he is making and that's fucking evil.

I was at my friends funeral last month and that makes it even worse when I see this guy just casually just compare me to the situation. it's a demonstration of a complete lack of awareness of what it means to cross the fucking line. It is fucking nowhere close to it. Completely uncalled for.

If my comments come off as too cool to care maybe both of you need to assume the best. The fucking rules here literally state to assume good intentions. I quote from the rules:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

I wasn't trying to be cool and insulting me is totally uncalled for even if it comes off that way.

Both

The foundation of simulation theory relies on a quantitative probability argument. It says by extremely high probability we live in a simulation. This is the logic that is hard to dispute. Your arguments here are not addressing that.

Weirdly it sort of relies on moores law. Just look it up. If you want to refute the theory you need to attack the main argument. The main argument sounds wrong but at the same time is hard to logically unjustify.

No read the wikipedia on it. They use probability to prove it's basically true. That is the argument that is hard to argue against and the one Elon goes on about. It sounds wrong but it's logically hard to show why.

In a simulation probability must be itself simulated. With enough simulations the actuality of an accurate version of probability being simulated is low. There are a million different ways and axioms we can use to change and modify probability in a simulation. Thus every reality could have a different probability and you cannot rely on probability to make your conclusions.

Therefore we cannot make any conclusion here about simulations.

A bit of an aside. But I would love a book on the comprehensive history of silicon valley up to and describing the crisis we face today of housing and everyone leaving.

Someone mentioned smart phones in this thread and I thought about it. It's true. Everyone uses smart phones so by probability most people on this thread are hypocritical. Not being fully honest about the reality.

What you say is prob true though. If the shop has sailed wouldn't that be equivalent to not caring?

I didn't think about this. Asymmetry is interesting. So you're pro surveillance as long as it's symmetrical?

Well hold on. I'm not the few. I'm the majority. Most people use smart phones and Gmail and are tracked and surveilled all the time and they don't care. If you're one of those people using tor on a burner phone to reply to me, then you're the minority. So are you? Or are we on the same team?