posix_me_less

> must respect Mathematica.

Respect a closed-source software which you can't easily check and improve, for academic work? No. It's a tool, not an academic achievement.

Feynman wrote something in the sense Wolfram did invent an interesting way to implement quantum chromodynamics on a computer, so he did something contributory to science.

It's an old reference, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/19/ideas.g2

> makes some predictions and is relativistically correct.

Many of which are obviously wrong. We do not observe 11-dimensional world.

> is this any kind of science?

It's the "new kind of science". /s

> computation systems seem to have hit a fevered pitch in the 2010s

What do you mean?

You're describing generally positive traits, not specific to science. Science was pushed forward by many kinds of people, many of them obnoxious, arrogant, racists, etc. You can't disqualify Wolfram as scientist by pointing to his bad personality characteristics.

From the article:

> "users are more likely from a cost perspective to build a system with one of the more affordable B660, H670, and H610 chipsets and pair that with DDR4 memory"

Yes, that is the logical extension of this agenda. Let's make sure it won't be implemented.

What does resistance to liberalism manifest about being more communal or communist? Is resistance to privatisation a "resistance to liberalism" or "communist"? I don't think so. It is nationalistic, conservative and social democratic.

In theory, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stand%20alon...

In practice, it may be some controlled operation.

Putin's feelings maybe connected to russian nukes' status, so hold your horses and maybe let's not push democracy down his throat and be badly surprised later.

> rule of law based justice

What other kinds of justice are there? In Russia they do not have law based justice?

Yeah. Russians aren't stupid to send most of their punch in the beginning. Russian actions are perhaps of lower success than expected, but strategically they are correct. First there has to be the phase of measurement and taking out the most dangerous elements, preparing ground for the majority of troups. When roads are safe, the real invasion will come in.

It all depends on the situation. Why did they obliterate Katowice in the first place? Was is it an error, was is a retaliation, was it nonsensical move of a madman? Hopefully at some point both sides will realize that neither the other side wants to continue and they would all stop at some point. Like in the movie By dawn's early light.

> Any nuclear attack by Russia on a NATO state guarantees the utter destruction of Russia.

I hope this is not how nuclear strategy and tactics is prepared. If sane people are in charge, retaliations will be proportional and exchange will be limited.

This seemed far fetched to me, but I am starting to think this is the only rational strategy behind Western actions... poor Ukrainians, they did not deserve this.

Why would they get out and let Ukrainians to recover and then continue active military opposition? It takes so much effort and money to even get in. Invasion shows commitment, Russians are going to stay just like Warsaw pact did in Czechoslovakia after 1968. They will attempt to install new puppet government and start draining out Ukraine's economic output.

True they have lots of nukes but simulations seem to favor US slightly in nuclear exchange. And definitely US by a large margin in a non-nuclear one.

Maybe there was a chance for a solution without invasion. But it seems West did not believe/want this. Either this was because West not wanting to look weak or they have a secret plan and wanted Russia to invade... Either way, Western actions leading to this weren't in Ukraine's best interest.

Yeah but it's symbolic. It won't stop Russians, just prolong the suffering of people.

I have trouble understanding your point of view. What are you suggesting? I hope not that US starts nuclear war with Russia over disagreement about Ukraine?

> I don't understand the reasons for the invasion of Ukraine.

I think I do.

It seems to be the same as the reason for invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine also started a transformation, slipping away from Russia's influence and opening to West. Russia's rulers (whether that is Putin or whomever) understandably got pissed by this loss of influence "in their backyard" and they decided they have to do something.

It was clear to Russians for a long time now that NATO was fractured on Ukraine and that even the hawkish Western powers won't go into direct war with Russians because of Ukraine. It's not that important to anybody in the West.

Considering the fact West won't fight in Ukraine, and it did not provide any real concessions to Russia's demands, it is not surprising that Russia has taken initiative. It makes perfect sense, for Russians it is the only way to make sure NATO/EU won't happen and also win control and resources in Ukraine at the same time (which may be a substantial reason as well, despite the fact Putin does not talk about it).

Considering the disproportion in military powers, I think now it would be best for Ukrainians to capitulate, admit defeat and avoid unnecessary deaths. Also, the West bears some responsibility for this misery in Ukraine. Even from western point of view, West should have never started this overture process with false promises and predictable bad results. Unless the Russian invasion was actually a desired result in some secret mastermind plan made in the West... which does not seem likely.

Are you sure? Now Iran suddenly seems more likeable partner for oil trade than Russia. And Europe always wanted the JCPOA deal.

Since when people and governments are guaranteed to behave rationally? We should account for every possibility.

Mortgage means somebody is going to pay somebody else regularly for 30 years, or bank gets a valuable property. That is more reliable wealth guarrantee than NFTs are.

File formats have compression for a very good reason - network transfer of these files. If compression was done only on the FS level, web servers would uncompress files when reading them and then immediately after that compressing them again to send them over the network to clients, thus wasting computing resources. It's better when large files (image and video files) are stored and transferred in the same compressed format.

Why would one need thousands of snapshots, in practice?

The licensing scare is overblown. You only need to worry if you want to distribute software that includes both ZFS and Linux, like Canonical does (and they decided it's worth the small risk). If you just use ZFS and Linux on your machines, there is no licensing issue whatsoever.

Spot on on the layering. It is the easiest thing to criticize on ZFS, but it is an ideological point, not a very substantive one. Creating a reliable and performant storage system is possible both with well distinguished layering (LVM2+XFS) and also without it (ZFS). What ZFS lost in ideological purity, it gained in functionality and performance (fast rebuilds and send/receive, in case of corruption, more information on which files are affected).