HourglassFR

The argument is pretty straightforward. Kilo, Mega, Giga, etc. are already well defined prefixes and it is simply confusing if we start to redefine them in some context.

I agree that clearly hardware manifacturer are taking advantage of this confusion to inflate their marketed memory size, but again they are using the proper meaning of the prefixes. Maybe the solution would be to require them using KiB, MiB or GiB, but certainly not to change the meaning of Kilo.

Now I might be wrong, maybe the isolasionist mentality is more profound than that. An historical argument to show how this is stance is not new is the refusal for the US to enter WWII until Japan basically forced their hand on the issue.

While it is certainly true that the USA is loosing it's status as the world's only superpower, it is still very much the most powerfull country and will probably stay, if not number 1, at least in the top 3 for at least the rest of our lifetime. I wouldn't call that irrelevant.

I cannnot believe that those types of claim and the advance of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program is entirely a coincidence.

Of course, the situation will slowing evolve for decades before anything concrete comes out of it. And I do think the "common heritage" claim, even if doomed to fail eventually, tend to slow down the conquest by national powers. The situation in Antarctica is illuminating in this regard.

The anomaly descibed here is that there exist some access patterns that will increase the number of page faults if you increase the number of page the memory can hold (using a FIFO page replacement strategy). Very counter-intuitive, hence the term 'anomaly'.

Edit: thinking about it, I think what you describe is a clever trick to simulate an effective MRU policy when the actual hardware uses LRU (see oso2k first link for the definition of those acronyms).

Still, this is not how humans usually interact. I trust there is no poison in my food without analysing it, I trust people to no shot me as I walk in the street, I trust the shopkeeper to accept that I have paid if the card reader says so… As ethno points out [1], some social work is needed here for our collective trust no to be misguided. Crucially, if the social work to buy trust does no exist, it entirely falls on you.

I consider myself that trusting the Echo (or other home assistance devices) is too much work for the meager benefit it provides.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25747404

Either way, the earth system will regulate, it would be nice if civilisation managed to survive the transition. I'm pretty sure there will still be humans around, happy humans I'm not so sure.

In a sense, Gucci and Vitton are what low class people think rich people wear. Kind of like Trump thinks being rich is shitting in gold toilets.

Of course, this contempt of "tacky luxury" is in itself a form of signaling among a certain class.

To be clear, I am not saying we should trust Amazon & Co, I'm saying that if that's the level of trust we have with home assistance devices, why even bother with the stuff ?

I guess what I'm saying is that the network effect is just too damn strong (for me at least).

Will we then organize with other workers to create better working conditions for everyone or will there be fewer and fewer developers working with ever more powerful technology chasing richer than ever VCs?

>I have debunked this in another comment [1]. Energy intensity of GDP has been falling for decades. The carbon intensity of our economy is falling faster.

Both can be true, energy intensity of GDP has been falling even worldwide. But GDP and energy consumption is still correlated, i.e. you can plot a nice regression line in this plot:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-capita-vs-...

There is some debate as to the direction of the causal link, it's probably dynamic and context dependant, but the correlation is definitely here.

And again the data we have shows that GPD is positively correlated with energy consumption. I take your point that it does not have to be this way though, let's just say I am not convinced.

>Blaming capitalism for our ecological problem is a cop out.

Ok I deserved that, it is true that blaming capitalism is a bit of my go to card. But to be fair lets not act like our system of production has no impact on how we consume ressources. You have a point though: ressource over-use is not strictly a problem of capitalism, a thing to keep in mind for the proponent of the fully automated luxury communism utopia.

And of course, the data has to be world-wide since the economy is globalized [1].

[1]: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption...

> The universe of digital goods and services, for one.

Digital goods consume energy, more and more of it. For now gain in efficiency almost (not quite though) offset the growth [2], and that is discarding all the energy and ressources needed to build the servers and chips in the first place.

[2]: https://www.iea.org/reports/digitalisation-and-energy#energy...

That would be wonderful, alas the data we have suggest otherwise. But if you have ideas of how that decoupling between ressource extraction and growth could work I would glad to hear/read them (for real, I would like to be more positive on those matters).

From the labour of the worker. Notice that does not depend on where the money comes from in the first place. In our economic models, value always come from human labour (or capital, which is crystallized labour).

But of course those models are lacking, crucially they implicitly consider natural ressources as infinite, a fine assumption to make in the 19th century but is now quite ludicrous.

https://joinmobilizon.org/en/faq/#facebook

And even more broadly, the whole point of Framasoft is to offer tools to use the internet in a decentralized way. This is not limited to this particular tool, they have many other project. All offering an inferior user experience than the existing solutions by the usual FAANG giants of course but again the point is decentralization and freedom.

https://joinmobilizon.org/en/faq/

> Here we report superconductivity in a photochemically transformed carbonaceous sulfur hydride system, starting from elemental precursors, with a maximum superconducting transition temperature of 287.7 ± 1.2 kelvin (about 15 degrees Celsius) achieved at 267 ± 10 gigapascals.

I think it's pretty disingenuous to present those two takes as being equally bad. Yes we don't know everything and leaving room for extraordinary things to happen is healthy, but I have yet to see evidences that aliens have cause a UAP. On the other hand we have good empirical evidence that sighting of unusal phenomenas with perfectly mundane explanations can, and do, create testimonies of so called "alien visitations". We even have pretty good psycho-sociological explanations for why this happens.

So without even looking at the specific details of a particular UAP sighting, coming at it from the angle of "people probably saw weird stuff and their brains filled the gap" is the right approach in my opinion. That doesn't mean we have to stop here of course, but it is a sensible default position.

So the only argument you have to suggest it might be an intentionally introduced bug is that it doesn't look like one… I understand the sentiment but this is clearly a ridiculous line of reasoning.

I have not expressed myself clearly: the auto-generated documentation is severly lacking. The API of the standard library is clunky. To be fair, both those points are getting better. And yes, the language is very young and I understand that there are more pressing issues with the core language itself.

> I personally like that Zig doesn't bother with "strings" at a language level at all and just considers everything as arrays of bytes. String handling is a complexity nightmare and I feel that Zig wisely chooses to be simple instead.

It is definitely simpler, alas not everything is ASCII and arguing it should be to make life easy for programers is hardly a reasonable stance.

Also, maybe it is not clear in my comments but I actually enjoy Zig.

Now you may argue that this can be handled nicely in the standard library without changing the language. This is correct, but there will be some frictions with string litterals.

- It's a very low level language. Having written mostly Python for the past few years, it is quite the contrast. I had to force myself to think in C to get the train going

- Getting my head around the error handling took more time than I'm willing to admit. In the end, it's like having exception but being more explicit about it. It feels nice when you get the hang of it

- The documentation of the standard library is severly lacking, to be fair the language is still very young. More worrysome, it feels very cluncky.

- No proper string support. It is sad that a modern language still goes down that route after Python has shown that correcting this is both definitely worthwhile and a word of pain.

- I have the feeling that optional and error union types are a bit redundant, but I have not written enough Zig to have a real intuition on that. Maybe it is just that I understand monads now.

I don't doubt we will find more frugal hardware energy wise, but calling it greener is somewhat dishonest.

> The economic incentives are very powerful: […]

Precisely, a technology is not green in itself, it depends on its use within society, and as you pointed out, we are talking about a race here. So the solution is not merely technological, there is some policy and/or societal change to make this greener. Otherwise we are just going to red-queen ourselves into Jevons paradox.

Of course one should assume something about the acccuracy from the number of displayed digits. It's a pretty fundamental concept in physics or even engineering. You can argue that it is just a convention but then again so are numbers in the first place. When writing down a number you will have to make a choice on how many digits to write down (even if its just zeroes), so we might as well use that to convey some meaning. Yes it does not always suffice and so we can use a more elaborate notation when needed, but by default it is a useful convention.

> Not rounding values after conversion has an advantage that it does not change the meaning of the claim, while rounding requires evaulating assumptions of the original claim to ensure it is done properly.

In other words, don't try to understand the claim and just compute. It can make sense in some context but I don't generally think it is the right approach.

"You can't do much carpentry with your bare hands, and you can't do much thinking with your bare brain". — Bo Dahlbom

I don't think we have any intuition about this at all, we are however fairly accustomed to this idea with old creation myths that still loudly resonates throughout culture, and of course now that it has been the scientific orthodoxy for 50 years or so.

But yeah I definitly agree with you on the "curve fit" thing. I would not be surprised that, if one day we do find a comprehensive theory of everything (assuming this is even possible or even have a meaning at all), it would be possible to express it in this very general framework of hyper-graph re-writing itself according to some rule. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to so.

And in any case, at the end of the day, like everything else humans do, science is a social process. The goal is to get closer to truth (whatever that means), but you won't get there by ignoring any input, and insist that everyone should drop whatever they are doing and come admire/help you on your work.