vacuity

In the implementation that runs, yes, you have to choose something. However, I think the fundamental design is independent of those options, and probably should be developed independently.

I think writing concurent programs will always be a hard problem, relative to the difficulty of writing non-concurrent programs, and the only "solution" is to isolate, minimize, and regulate contention. The implementation details of TM, locks, monitors, semaphores, actors, message queues, transactions, etc., are at best "distractions", at worst hindrances. I think a good model of a concurrent program, one that lends itself to writing the program simply, will be applicable across many different implementations. Anything that obscures the development of such a model is harmful. Worst of all is the sheer prevalence of shared resources (especially shared memory). Sharing brings contention, so control sharing.

I'm convincing myself that the root of all evils^H^H^H^H^Hpoor thinking and argumentation generally arises due to not thinking further and more critically. Those clichés are just some nicely packaged, ready-made products to induce this.

Why are you singling out Americans? Cognitive biases and hazards abound. I think that everyone is irrational on choice subjects (differing by person), more or less. The idea that humans are rational, always or mostly, seems wrong. Now, I may accept that pure rationality is not necessarily desirable, so I'm willing to discuss tradeoffs.

> The basis is the context, is globalization. In prehistoric times a tribe where the people you'd physically meet. In a globalized world the tribe is much bigger, because of communication, commerce and transportation technologies broke the limitations of physical connections.

Is the difference in setting forceful? If the significant change is in the social environment, principles such as empathy would not be impacted. Or would you say the principles that apply to tribal life are different from those that apply to global life?

> You see, Karl Popper (the "falsiable" guy) wasn't 100% correct. We actually have a lot of stuff in science that is just a convention and isn't "falsiable". E.g. how cold you possible demonstrate to be false the basic geometric elements: a point, a line, a plane. They don't really exist physically, they're just abstractions.

Karl Popper is completely correct. He defines "science" as a narrow art, not the study of truth as a whole. Science is one discipline among many in pursuit of the truth.

> Life just feels better when you treat others the way you want to be treated by them, when you and them share the same rights.

My model is that truth is a matter of consistency, and that truth is related to good. Therefore, what one should do to be good is being consistent to one's beliefs. Beliefs are influenced by perception/experience, manifest in thoughts and actions, can be recorded in statements (accountability!), and so on. In practice, (a variation of) the Golden Rule is derived from this.

> I’m just following your logic. You pointed to empathy as something even animals have. Empathy is a real thing in nature, you can see those feelings in brain scans. But so is tribalism or pack behavior. Why do you privilege one type of feeling or instinct over another? What’s the basis for that distinction?

Please be transparent on your own beliefs too, if you demand this of others. On what basis do you stake your beliefs? Are you being empathetic? Are you being tribal?

> What is the nature of this assertion? Is it a falsifiable scientific fact?

Science alone is insufficient to answer all questions. Do not overextend its powers. None of us in this thread are mainly relying on science, for good reason. If someone poses the question "should humans do [thing]?" as a scientific one, they are a charlatan and a fraud.

I have no problem with housecats hunting, but playing with their prey seems unnecessary (as in gratuitous harm). Still, I won't try housecats in a criminal court, because my understanding of them is too alien to make me confident in my judgement.

I have no problem with humans hunting, or defending themselves, or whatnot. I accept that some degree of violence is necessary, and a lot more can be plausibly justified. However, I draw the line at, say, humans killing each other for bad reason. If it is to be believed that I and these other humans are of the same species, of the same kind, and whatnot, I feel secure in judging them as I would judge myself, and those more familiar to me. Killing indigenous people on the basis of merely not converting to Christianity, and even burning them, is entirely unnecessary. A modern-day analogue would be roundly condemned, or so I should hope.

What makes religious beliefs more legitimate than secular beliefs?

Why are you favoring religious beliefs? What is your basis in doing so?

I agree that religion isn't necessary, but it's not necessarily bad. You're making a big generalization. There are plenty of people who abuse religious beliefs, but I'm more concerned with calling out people who abuse principles from any cut of cloth, and religion is only a part of that.

I think you're being uncharitable towards religion. While I agree that a belief such as "the Earth was made 6000 years ago" is ridiculous, a belief like "God wants us to love our neighbors" is not. I think "good beliefs" (a very loaded term, mind you) get rediscovered constantly, in religious and nonreligious contexts alike. These are beliefs attained through philosophical inquiry. The beliefs provided by science are complementary.

Based on the relative numbers, how would this be possible? People who don't have kids can only turn into people who have kids, and as people grow older, they are more likely to have kids. Surely the parents aren't a minority that are being surrounded and cut off.

I think GP has a fair assessment of the reality today, not a distant extrapolation or hypothesis based on emotions.

Not directly, but people find ways to believe in a manner analogous to religious beliefs. Faith doesn't have to be directed only at traditional theist objects. Religious or not, people can believe things by faith and by logic.

To give an example, science is not a replacement for philosophy, nor is it implemented perfectly, but some people elevate it far beyond its means to answer certain inquiries. That is irrationality, or faith.

I'm making a conservative guess, which is why I said 10 or less (10 or fewer??). So the improvement is at least a hundredfold. I might say 5 or less instead. I think the exact rate is not so important; either way, it's clear that Rust is a boon.

Rust has the twin features of significant technical merits and a powerful hype machine. In truth, it's neither the devil nor the best thing since sliced bread. It has enough traction that the tooling and developer experience are always improving, and appeals to a wide range of uses. Rust was lucky enough to get noticed when it was decent pre 1.0, which motivated the community to make it excellent at 1.0, and it's been making history ever since. I think Rust got critical mass because it had a bold vision and focused on developer experience enough to get buy in on improving its performance and robustness. Ada is wonderful, but it's less pretty, and doesn't make pretensions. In that sense, Rust was built for the hype, but the language has benefitted greatly from all the attention.

I'm very vocal that I don't like Python syntax, but I wouldn't refuse to write Python because of the syntax. If I had reason to write Python, I would grumble a bit but write the Python.

Per million lines of code.

Yes. I would make a guess of 10 or less memory-safety vulnerabilities per MLOC, which is still a hundredfold reduction.

So no business exploits workers to a significant degree? I find this hard to believe.

I'd like to make another standard file descriptor to manage the control plane, like stdin/stdout/stderr, but figuring out which file descriptor it should be is a bit complicated. I'm wondering if the OS could backwards-compatibly integrate it with stderr in the standard file descriptor at index 2.

I think standardizing a file descriptor interface would be ideal. It's ridiculous that the file descriptors are exposed and densely packed. I wonder if a protocol could be made that demultiplexes for stderr and the new file descriptor could be made.

By the way, have you started writing your OS?

I think this will be like the Fish shell, where backwards compatibility is left to existing tools, but a fresh environment is available going forward.

Currently being discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45891772

This is technically true, but not plausible in the social sense.

I wasn't really thinking about the disclosure part, although I probably should have. I was focusing on the patching side of things. I think you're correct that disclosure is good, but in that case, I think it increases the burden of those with resources to collaborate to produce a patch.

From my reading, GP is saying that, if one problem is the main one, it is the problem of billionaires spending money on not-consumption. There was no praise for "excessive consumption".

Both of your comments are rather silly.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/06/partisan-...

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/gop-voters-vaccines...

But if it's a real, serious issue without an easy resolution, who is the burden on? It's not that the maintainers wouldn't fix bugs if they easily could. FFmpeg is provided "as is"[0], so everyone should be responsible for their side of things. It's not like the maintainers dumped their software on every computer and forced people to use it. Google should be responsible for their own security. I'm not adamant that Google should share the patch with others, but it would hardly be an imposition to Google if they did. And yes, I really do intend that you could replace Google with any party, big or small, commercial or noncommercial. It's painful, but no one has any inherent obligations to provide others with software in most circumstances.

[0] More or less. It seems the actual language is shied from. Is there a meaningful difference?