ganafagol

That's not how special relativity works.

You may be confusing it with red shift.

Also, check out the article this thread is about. It discusses a few reasons.

That's the spoiler of a 1973 movie about a green flavor food product.

Your personal ethics are at odds with those of most people I know.

If those who can afford it would do it, like the well-off people frequenting hacker news, that would be a start. That would drive up demand, make it worth for more farmers to do this sustainably, eventually driving those costs down, and thus making it more affordable for lesser income people. And it's not black and white, in each iteration more people can afford it. Similar to electric cars.

It's easy to armchair-philosophise those things away with "oh but poor people wont ever have the money, so screw it". With that attitude we'd never hav gotten electric cars. Or solar power.

A farmer with 20-30 cows tends to have a quite close connection with their animals. They often have a small plot of land they can use as pasture and the barn is not super-optimized to squeeze out the last square centimeter for effiency since there are no scale effects where it would have any noticeable effect. Each animal is a being they have often times have a connection with, and empathy for. Most small farmers I know can describe to me quite vividly the personality of each individual of their animals. They care.

Big dairy industry looks different. A big farm with 1000 milking cows is hyper-optimized for maximum profit. There is not enough pasture to go round, so depending on regulations of the country, the animals may never go outside ever. If you can save 1% on buying in cheaper food, even if it comes from half a continent away, you do it since that's easily a six-figure savings. If you can increase stocking density withing law limits, you do it. If you need to use less sand or can get away with cleaning their water bins less often, you do it. Each animal is a number that turns food expenses into milk profits, that's it.

A forum mostly frequented by us overpaid workers doing little-more-than-if-any work that society actually needs is not the right place to discuss unions. Of course people in our industry, no matter devs or ops or founders or "founders", despise unions as they get in their way with demands of some basic workers rights. But there are industries where unions are desperately needed to keep workers sane, safe and overall dignified. With little first hand experience it's just too easy to dismiss that.

The "coherent whole" is more in demand than ever before. Just look at the Android and iOS ecosystems with super hard rules how things have to behave and look in order to be admitted. They just put the burden on the app dev instead of a crew of distro maintainers.

The burden of providing a convincing argument for a claim tends to lie with the one making that claim.

You could provide evidence or other kinds of arguments to bring that claim from the realm of beliefs into the realm of facts.

> if women bring up salary issues, then that is seen as very negative

I have a hard time believing that this is actually the case, at least more than for men.

Not sure how optics would help. If your wire has some kind of side channel, optics can have it too. If you want to detect stray mysterious photons then you could do the same with electrons.

But in any case, this is not really the level of concern here. It's equipment that tampers with the device. The only way to be sure is to roll your own. Which holds for both sides. So the perfect systems needs to be created by two adverse parties, which means it's impossible to do. Qed.

(In the real world with physical proof this is different since tampering is much harder and it's a problem worked on for centuries. It's not bullet proof either but much more mature.)

And that may not be a good thing. Now we won't just hear the occasional lying about WMD in far-away-country, which is bad, but if your government wants to trick you, they'll succeed nonetheless. Now it can easily be the idiot neighbor who fakes some nonsense about you and can damage your reputation for life with the right tools, until the general public has caught up and understands that a video can't be trusted anymore.

Your two paragraphs are contradicting each other.

The mere possibility that a "clown show" of that magnitude can exist is evidence for the lack of a solution to the problem of digital forensics.

For this to work, FBI Bob and EFF Alice need to trust each other. Otherwise, if FBI Bob gets to connect to the hard drive first, the imaging process could tamper with the contents before EFF Alice has a chance to do the hashing. And if instead EFF Alice connects first, she could be wiping the incriminating data before taking her hash and FBI Bob imaging anything.

If course, if they already trust each other (including all the used tools), then the whole excercise is moot.

"Destroyed" may be a too strong word. It may currently be a little hidden below the layer of all the crap out there, but good journalism is not dead and once reasonable payment models have beeb worked out, it can easily come back.

Mind you that this has not been going on for that long. 15-20 years maybe. In the bigger picture, that's nothing.

The article is not clear about whether this is in the companies interest or in the work forces interest. In some parts it sounds like it's better for the company, but an actual argument for that is missing. Most of the article demands it though so that women, people of color and other disadvantaged groups are less disadvantaged. It would have been more honest to be clear about it.

And it's not really honest either to just put the blame on the company. "I’m unlikely to bring up the topic of salary with a potential boss." Well, then change that. Before demanding something from a company that you would like to work for, start demanding something from yourself. It's basically the attitude "I have a problem, I could directly contribute to the solution, but I prefer ranting about that somebody else is not doing that for me."

> That said, I do like the idea of reducing abstraction layers, getting closer to the hardware,

Abstraction is THE tool to curb complexity. It's a feature that allows us to design, reason about, build, debug, maintain and extend systems with the complexity of todays computers. Reducing abstraction is in itself not a desirable goal.

What could be useful is to reduce the overhead introduced by abstraction. Doing that by removing the abstraction itself is only one such way and a quite costly alternative.

I have no idea what the author is trying to say.

Given that they "just recently" learned about microcode, I'd not hold my breath expecting a profound insight about computer architecture or anything computer science though.

There is a certain risk that women could find your statement offensive.

You may want to look up the works of Dr. Josef Mengele and then re-evaluate your first sentence.

Things can't be further detached from reality. Once you ever spend a few days with a herd of cows, you get a feeling for their personalities, their joy, their pain. Comparing to a group of humans, be it kids on a playground or some factory worker, you really start to wonder why in one case we allow ownership, life-long suffering and death under excruciating pain, while in the other case those things are punished by lifelong imprisonment or even the death penalty.

You can't claim "but we don't know what conciousness is" to justify how we treat animals while at the same time have the strongest protections for fellow human beings. Well, usually only those of your own backyard, since we westerners also tend to treat third world country populations like sh*.

> We need a better understanding of consciousness and awareness before trying such things,

We do have quite a good understanding of those things in animals. Yet, nobody cares and people make fun of the "animal welfare" concept. Even in this thread. But suddenly a few human cells are involved for a few days and people start screaming.

There are vegetarians who eat fish "because they don't have feelings". As long as society accepts this nonsensical hypocrisy, your line of reasoning goes nowhere.

Isn't that insanely inconvenient? It takes so much more space, needs so much more fuel, is so much more bulky to drive .. is that bit of "status" actually worth it?

Besides, even if you haul sth bigger 2x a year, renting a little trailer of the right size is really a no-brainer. That's what I do.

This article does not actually get anywhere with the "formal verification" part. The authors dumps it into a bounded model checker, observes that it does not work and then does some crude manual bounded loop unrolling. Does this increase confidence in the algorithm? Not sure.

The real world is larger than your desktop PC.

To me, this is a classic and timeless piece of real computer science.

Such an eye opener when I learned about it the first time! And a reminder that we really stand on the shoulder of giants.

Have you found any information on how it's actually produced?

Look up "New Kind Of Science" and the Wolfram Physics project and you are in for a ride.

As a warning, that stuff is a little controversial, to say the least.

I'm arguing that OP did not build an OS. They built a program that needs a quite heavyweight runtime and loader in form of a system emulator.