johndoe42377

I am sorry to say this, but it will not fly.

Amateur spaghetti code, even in a good language like Go, will not scale, by definition.

Certain design decisions for achieving scalability should have been adopted from the day one. Basically, it is all the principles behind FP and Erlang - share nothing, in the first place.

Scalability comes from being pure functional. This is the main conclusion from last 30 or 40 years of CS research.

Stateless and share-nothing applies to protocols and services too.

This is why so many failed with so called micro-services - only stateless will work.

Things of the scale of Ethereum require deep CS knowledge. Just being overconfident and too cocky is not enough.

Haskell or Scala - classy, well-researched stuff done right.

  Location: Asia
  Remote: yes
  Willing to relocate: yes, Norway, Sweden or US only
  Technologies: Haskell, Scala 3, Erlang, C++, Rust
  Résumé/CV: https://karma-engineering.com/lab/wiki/Haskell/Vedanta
  Email: johndoe42377@gmail.com

Programming. Serious.

https://karma-engineering.com/lab/wiki/OnlineCourses

Dimension of what? In where?

There is no dimensions outside your head in the first place.

It is a superimposed abstraction, like a coordinate system.

Shows - how so? In a simulation based on some model? Okay.

Knowing right principles spares one from memorising all the details.

Nginx is highly optimized zero-copy sockets-reuse code, while docker's network code is crappy, does NAT and other stuff.

I would classify it as unnecessary, redundant set of abstractions. Definitely for production.

Why, yes, as long as each cloned repo is a copy of some set of revisions, it makes perfect sense to use peer to peer downloads.

Internal hash consistently could be used for verification.

Docker in production nullify all the benefits of nginx (optimisations).

Bullshit. Space-time is just an abstract concept.

A proper philosophy (as contrasted to abstract bullshit) is a systematic attempt to answer just one question: what is?

Philosophy predates sciences and science is just a methodology.

Two idiotic statement put together.

First, probabilities application to a non-discrete systems is undefined bullshit.

Second, there is no way in principle to determine a simulation, the way there is no way to determine an actual wiring of a processor from the level of code, or even that there is a processor.

Well, let's work remotely, the way Linux kernel or LLVM or GHC people do.

But we will have lots of not needed managers? Well, let the chips fall where they may.

Literally doesn't know what it is talking about.

This is yet another, but subtle example of how abstract models are disconnected from reality

Another one is abysmal failure of all simulation based models to be even close and useful.

https://karma-engineering.com/lab/blog/Solved

The advantage of FastCGI protocol is that it is a multiplexed connection.

HTTP/2 and newer are basically the same.

This is a conceptual mess.

Synchronization does not imply time. It implies synchrony, which is a mechanical notion. Electric signals are used everywhere in life for that purpose.

What they called clocks are not clocks. No more than a frequency generator is a clock.

One more time. DNA replication relies only on particular structures and enzimes to transform these. There is no notion of time whatsoever. Only availability of structural elements, and concentration. Everything is decoupled and feedback loops based.

And sequences of actions are maintained by pipelining of physical molecular structures - each enzime recognizes it's own unique patterns. That is it.

In old times this was called principle-guided science.

Understanding of principles spares one from knowing all the details.

DNA replication is a structural pattern matching and has nothing to do with time.

Moreover, it is so stable exactly because it has neither the notion of time nor counting.

Please show any timing at cellular level. Thank you.

I suggest not to assume anything about other people.

I have studied religions among other things, so I know very well what sectarian consensus is and how exactly it works to maintain a high social status.

Humanities and theoretical"sciences" are sects by every possible definition.

I have studied philosophy too.

Time is a concept of the mind, like numbers. It is conditioned by the shared environment (has distinct cycles) in which mind has been evolved.

There is no notion of time in the brain because it is not absolute constraint of the environment.

There is no notion of time at the level of molecular biology, organs, systems, etc.

Generally speaking, humanities was a mistake. These "scientists" memed the main principle of science from scientific evidence to scientific, or more precisely - sectarian consensus.

Peer review is not by any means criterion for even approximation to the truth. The article in question should have been reviewed exactly like I did.

Obviously no.

It is a stupid idea from Jungian and Froidian "psychology" that symbols have been invented once and then propagated everywhere, and that this supposed propagation is an evidence of migration pathways and relationship.

Same stupidity goes with linguistics - if something is called by the same name in the different parts of the world, there must be an infallible evidence of migration and relation.

No, everything related to the constraints of the environment (Nature) has been invented many times independently. Basic symbols based on geometric shapes too.

Really know some Haskell

  Location: Asia
  Remote: only
  Willing to relocate: Norway or  Sweden only
  Technologies: FP, Haskell, Erlang, Scala, Ocaml, C++
  Résumé/CV: https://karma-engineering.com/lab/
  Email: johndoe42377@gmail.com

https://karma-engineering.com/lab/wiki/Haskell/Vedanta

Brain does not count. It updates/alters its structures - the process which humans model with numbers and back propagation.

Numbers do not exist outside of human cultures.

As record slot's value retrieval (I love old lisp terminology) could be viewed as a pure function (given the record as a parameter) it is reasonable to think of .slot as a function.

The old classic languages just create so-called selectors in the global namespace, like defstruct macro does. This is not the best possible solution.

However, the . is used for function composition, so the better alternative could be the -> syntax, reflecting that in Haskell everything is a pointer.

There is, again, principles from real philosophy, which state that there is and always will be a principal gap between an observation (and language) based model and What Is.

The classic example is inability to tell why the sun will rise tomorrow by merely observations of it doing so and any kind of statistics.

The "why" is in understanding of the nature of the process we call Sun and realization that such kind of process cannot be stopt or even change in 24 your.

Another modern illustration of the same principle is the principal, infallible inability to infer the actual wiring if processor from the level of code it excites.

This, by the way, is the very same Upanishadic principle of inability to infer the true nature of Brahman from the level of human intellect, conditioned by a language and experience.

Some things will remain only guesses, models and "scientific", (or rather sectarian) consensus.

There is no science without reproducability. Merely stories, or formalized stories people call models.

Unnecessary, redundant abstractions to impress other people is what plagued Haskell libraries and therefore the whole ecosystem.

Language itself is a miracle of software engineering, and GHC and cabal are decent.

Well, this could be explained in a few meta-principles or just principles of a proper (non-abstract) philosophy.

1. A map is not a territory. Weighted connections are not semantic relations.

2. Environment and its laws and constraints comes first.

3. Language is a tool of describing What Is, not a tool of producing what could be.

4. Like untyped lambda calculus, applying anything to anything produce bullshit.

5. A proper use of a language require a type discipline which reflect the laws and constraints of the environment, and reject sentences with is not type-correct.

Everything else will produce a bullshit. Theoretical physics and other abstraction based fields are thus flawed.