garrybelka

Let's talk about something simpler first - about movies. We know enough about chemistry of photographic film to conclude that movies are simply fantastically complex clockwork automatons, correct?

What you can't say http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

... with its scope extended to any imaginable opinion without exception.

It's a nice example of looking for the keys under the light aka if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

A bit more interesting analogy would be the Big Data craze. We do them because we can. Are the results produced by Big Data as relevant as the dating automation? Do we understand and handle them as effectively as 150 dates with zero involvement? And what do we miss instead? Whose time and place is taken by getting lost in superficial data oceans?

The perpetrators of the recent terrorist attack in Saint Petersburg Metro were using Telegram.

That mathematician is Fomenko. An entertaining read though history and linguistics experts just laugh at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)

1. 2. There were too many fully incompatible dialects of Prolog. I recall Lisp-like Micro-Prolog. Turbo

This is a difference between San Francisco startups and Silicon Valley companies.

The real issue is not an amount of swap but thrashing.

E.g., several large processes sleeping in memory on desktop would be fine if only one or two used at the same time. OTOH, clustered nodes well tuned for a single task may not need a swap.

In any case, it is a metric for thrashing that should be used to initiate culling.