strainer

I think this is liable to be an extremely confounding aspect of the venture - that meat naturally grows in the context of a living animals immune system which interfaces with the wider microbial reality. Diverse diseases arise and wane through extremely ancient dynamics which we are not close to having full knowledge or command over. I could not trust commercially driven scientific assurances from the present age, that food of all things can be mass produced safely in such a biologically novel scheme. It is not so long ago since all where shocked by the novel generation and danger of Prions in the food chain, some years later that "Junk DNA" is not in fact Junk, etc...

While some risk of strange new disease would still be chanced - it would be orders of magnitude less extreme if this cell cloning technology concentrated in early days, on mass producing leathers and furs, rather than the very matter we put into our living bodies.

The big image in the article is just an illustration of the subject, alas.

I think it is quite mysterious. Perhaps there are kinds of consciousness which don't suffer, perhaps octopodes are conscious and since after they have mated - they seem to become crazed and unconcerned for their safety - they may then be in a state then where they can only experience thrills? perhaps after mating their capacity to suffer dies, yet some other feeling capacities persist or arise. Maybe Im proposing consciousness is what is required for a thing to feel in any way. Whether memory is required for experiencing feelings or for consciousness is another mysterious avenue.

If we design and implement a program which can render convincing expressions of feeling, or we design systems which themselves calculate networks that output convincing expressions of feeling, what kind of system do we have a duty to be considerate to its own professed and apparent experiences? It is very mysterious but I have never felt that any complexity of calculator or computer can truly beg this consideration, can truly benefit from kindness or mercy. Its seems only childish and fanciful that virtual characters can become real characters no matter the detail of calculation. A plot in a fantasy tale. While the whole subject is full of possibility and unknowns, at least we must keep an anchor on the matter that, consciousness is a thing of special importance.

No, basically consciousness as we know it, entails a capacity to suffer, which is important to acknowledge on moral and health grounds, and that capacity is likely to be an essential part of consciousness. It makes whatever consciousness is or isn't, an important quality which demands consideration, to avoid suffering or to increase fulfillment or wellbeing etc in whatever we believe to be conscious. To 'virtualize' or academically detach that kind of importance of consciousness, as logically illusive or intangible distraction, is pathological. I tried to reply to the notion that consciousness "is just an emergent phenomena of complexity" . The words 'just' 'only' 'simply' can hardly be applied to such a special thing. The idea such a thing arises at a threshold of complexity is quite empty of insight. At a certain level of complexity - an iphone emerges! That's no understanding of what is required to create an iphone or how it works. What is required to emerge consciousness? if it where a matter of complexity then some quantity of iphones should achieve that threshold. But no mountain of iphones can experience suffering.

I would hope most people regard consciousness as something which can beg compassion, tolerance or compromise for other consciousnesses sakes. Common creatures we know express suffering and to be amused or unaffected by suffering of others is most widely considered as pathological or psychotic. Without consciousness there is no suffering, no cause for compassion etc. Something may be incredibly complex, suggesting it has value in a world - perhaps to other creatures or the world itself somehow. But being a complex thing does not suggest that it can suffer or enjoy experiences. An idea that an experiential importance of things simply accompanies sufficient complexity seems 'pie in the sand'

I bow to your superior knowledge

Hate to nit pick but... the Ariston advert used the C64's version of the Robocop theme (slowed down a bit) - not the Speccy's as the article implies. Maybe it was originally composed on the speccy?

I got a cheap Vic20 when I was wee, so I never thought much of the rubber doorstep and was never a fan of Sinclair as he was seemingly some aristocrat who was gifted a commercial niche below the BBC Micro (as bbc/acorn didn't bother making a budget model until the slightly borked Acorn Electron). But in recent years I notice that the Spectrum demo scene has become fantastic, in artistry and possibly superior in code wizardry to the C64s own bedazzling competition. The retro Spectrum scene is producing surprising games and a game capable multicolor mode was even invented a few years back which was truly unimaginable back in the day. More groundbreaking than late c64 inventions. So fair dues neighbor... but come off it, speccy music in a big TV advert?? :}

Ah, I didn't even notice the contention over the word 'disease'. I just found it notable that there are no anti-parasitic drugs for it, according to the WP article.

Your link actually states "There is no medication or vaccine against the disease."

It is stated regarding Btrfs -

> we're writing the entire file each time

This is a super-common misunderstanding of Copy-On-Write. Entire files are not re-written on each write to a file. New blocks are written and then the (btree) metadata is updated to include the updated block in the file. [1] This causes greater fragmentation than writing new blocks over old ones in the files existing structure as non-COW systems can do. Another thing which somewhat slows btrfs is all blocks have checksums calculated, stored in metadata and checked on read. If entire files really did need copied on each edit - it would be a great deal slower !

[1] https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_design#Files

You are being blind. Those campaigns were fig leafs from the outset and if you are interesting in real action on shutting down single use plastic economy, you should know better than to wag your finger at those who complain about how ridiculous focus on carrier bags and tooth picks has been. Those campaigns only antagonise some consumers against the general concept, and gave others a false sense of inclusion and progress. They could never have achieved any practical impact on the single use plastic economy and this is why they got singled out for attention. Since the 90s a great social fuss has been raised over whether feather-light plastic carrier bags are used to help carry a shopping load (and eventually bin the remains). While since then, essentially everyone has rather been forced to continue to buy products which include ever increasing amounts of plastic packaging, amounts which utterly dwarf a couple of bags or straws or toothpicks or whatever the latest prescribed moral obsession is supposed to be. Ever increasingly, small portions of food are sold in thick plastic packets, every individual snack/bar is contained in plastic, and every pack of bars in another layer. It is even increasingly rare and difficult to source tea bags, tissues, and surprising products like toothpaste without plastics manufactured into them. The dissolution of the un-compostable and practically un-recyclable plastics economy, can not wait until everyone agrees to dutifully avoid the latest convenience item where 'effort' is systematically focused. Every little counts -> LITTLE. And that is what the wider industry counts on when it comes to these campaigns. They are nonsense obsessions promoted to waste attention. I spent last year cleaning up a beach too btw - fishing and shipping garbage overwhelmingly.

I would expect that SSDs do normally clone data internally when copying. Often when given a write operation by the OS the SSD would not be aware of where it already stores that data. Drive read and write performance is commonly benchmarked - I don't recall seeing copy performance tested as a different category which would have much different results if they automatically 'deduplicated' files. I believe SSDs are COW in the respect that they cannot make partial changes to a page so need to write a whole new page at a time, but not that the drives can arrange multiple file handles to point to the same data. That should be a responsibility of the filesystem.

I read it was only mainlined last year following this thread[1] where a kernel dev presented benchmarks and advised "zstd is an improvement on almost all metrics"

Of course zstd somewhat of a portfolio project of facebook developers, and they seem to have integrated it quite nicely into Btrfs to atone for their debt to society - I'll take that :D

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1588791882.08g1378g67.none@loca...

What puzzled me is how you feel layers of particularly COW operations combine to make a dramatic increase in write load. I expect the whole block writing requirement of the SSD would be the major and finally unavoidable multiplier of its write load. Unless its blocks are small. There seems to be only a dramatic increase involved if one of the layers has dramatically larger blocks. There would be a middling chance of doubling writes between layers due to block misalignments and overlap, but that will not occur constantly and doubling is the worst case from misalignment. The most significant write multiplication throughout the layers should be the biggest block size as I imagine it.

Not sure about SSD but filesystem COW doesn't only entail writing and freeing whole blocks, it entails "dont make an actual copy until write"

COW filesystem means you can make (virtual) copies of files /blocks without writing (duplicating) them on the media. They only write metadata for bare copies and delay duplicating data until a virtual duplicate is altered.

Actual writes are written into a free block, then the old block is marked clear. The old block is not copied and then written over. In my understanding that's not what COW characterizes - its refering to how copying data is almost free (only costs metadata changes in COW filesystems) until copies are altered (written to)

gzip would seem to be a surprising runner up as its decompression cpu load is reportedly around 3-4 times as heavy as zstd:1 with a similar compression ratio. I would not rule zstd out, it seems to better every alternative given the right level setting, except lz4 which is the outlier but fixed at a relatively low compression level. As the high performing outlier it tantalisingly suggests room for improvements :]

I just had a little look into these somewhat new zstd options --fast 1 to fast 5. fast 5 does seem almost equivalent to lz4 performance in compression ratio and compression 'speed' (or cpu load) except decompression 'speed' is still almost half of lz4, so at that extreme of zstds options it is squarely beaten by lz4. But in terms of compression ratio - which in most cases should be the more crucial characteristic for any compressor than cpu load - this setting seems to be well under zstd's knee of diminishing returns. --fast 1 has about 15% more cpu load for about 112% of compression performance than --fast5. And then zstds lightest non-fast setting (zstd-1) for 50% more load in compression and decompression, compresses 32% better than --fast5 (and lzo and lz4).

The decompression load is an eye catching feature of lz4, but its compression ratio is not just marginally compromised, it is a much less powerful compressor in that prime characteristic than zstds weakest non-fast setting. I can appreciate why Btrfs is in no hurry to include lz4 while it supports zstd:1 to 15. Although it would be interesting to test if lz4 could have a niche on fast storage combined with slow cpus.

Just many hours of time micro-optimising quirky projects like [1]. I could write a test specifically to demonstrate it... and write a little article... but just commenting here that in my humdrum experience - you might want to look into it yourself. I have tested and never seen any benefit in eg. initializing an array as [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,...] compared to Array(n) for (i=0;i<n; i++) A[i]=0 ... Ymmv. Takes moments to check with a benchmarking package of choice. I recommend avoiding testing it with any functional kind of expressions though, because they can be much slower than the old imperative style and obscure the picture.

...also, from a reasoning approach - why would a competitively accelerated language engine create an array full of holes as soon as one is declared? Why would the engine not try to optimally structure the type as it is used? This is something Chromes engines and Firefoxes appear to have done, quite impressively since many years back.

[1] https://github.com/strainer/fencache.js

> Invoking Array(length) or new Array(length) (with a number argument) creates a fully sparse array:

In my experience the common javascript engines are so accelerated that in practice, before anything happens to the array it is uninitialised and the engine uses the length parameter as a future hint. If the array is promptly filled contiguously it will perform as a dense array. The types which the array is filled with and subsequently maintains can have a greater impact on performance. An array that only contains integers performs faster than one containing doubles or strings, and once types are changed or mixed in the array it slows down, generally by a factor of 2 or 3.

oops I deleted my comment by accident, as I replied again to your reply - which has now also gone.

Anyway I do wish you the best with your concerns. I do believe prejudging people as little as humanly possible dis/regarding race, class, everything and in carefully focused anti-discrimination laws. But I feel there is considerable danger to do more harm to human relations and attitudes than good, with laws which prosecute too bluntly or frequently between individuals relationships. I think people should resolve differences through the courts as a last resort, as legal justice is very expensive and prone to error. So that would be why I have not been answering your prompts in the affirmative, though they have been stimulating :)

All the best'

My previous reply > I expect it would often be very hard to tell in practice what the eviction is based on, as a community are unlikely to admit - sometimes even to themselves, that their conflict with the 'evictee is rooted in a particular banned prejudice. A common defense and rebuttal for a group accused of kicking someone out over their race - would be that they were aware of their race when they accepted them into the group (!) Perhaps that's why I'm not so alarmed at the possibility of people being uprooted by racists in these communities that you seem to be - where racism is a problem in them it will hardly result in evictions, it will result in barring entry. When you think cynically about what groups of others are capable of, there is no end to villainous possibilities, but others are capable of being better than we ourselves are, as well as worse.

The channel is actually at number 200 in the youtube playlist.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnQX-jgAF5pTkwtUuVpqS...

I don't know about that - Im not familiar with your current discrimination laws.

I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws, just reminding that they need to be applied carefuly. Do you believe that companies should not be allowed to fire people, because they might do so unfairly ? That clubs should not be allowed to eject people because they might do so unfairly? Its all rather putting the cart before the horse.

It would also be a bug to force people to associate closely with people they do not wish to, for whatever reason. A communal group differs from an open civic group in that people wish to live more intimately with each other than in other collectives. Its a privilege to be in the group not a right. It would also not be straightforward to determine whether particular rejections significantly involved conscious or unconscious prejudices. Not straightforward at all, yet the groups actions may be scrutinized, judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities - but that is a different thing from confining it to remove the possibility of it acting unlawfully.

If every one of your neighbors is prepared to make you leave - for any wrong reason, you are then isolated among them. A capacity to remain there may help somewhat, but doesn't make up for the unfortunate circumstance, that you are surrounded by people who rightly or wrongly reject you.

This little known channel: sudgylacmoe - which doesn't seem present in the list, has the best video by far on Geometric Algebra (imho)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60z_hpEAtD8

> expelled from your home because your neighbors dislike you

The cause of being expelled, would be that everybody thinks you should be expelled - not that no one 'likes' you. Framing the judgement as resting on private preferences, on likeability, diminishes common humanity which should be generally at large and is crucial to the persistence of any group. A viable community group will include members with tolerance and good judgement who would deny a consensus to expel without good cause. If such qualities are absent (completely so! to enable bad consensus) no amount of individual rights will make up for their absence.

This viewpoint just cant be raised. Downvoted to oblivion, piled onto with unmeasured rhetoric or outright deleted. Times we live in.

> if the worst thing you can say about it is that a guy that refuses to say “damn” or “shit” or “fuck,” is morally offended by some of the legal content

But that's not what I described. Its not the content Lunduke had an issue with, it was the marketting decision to promote it with an exclusive spotlight, and then the following unprofessional communications revealing something really dodgy about the company. Conversations about it on reddit have been removed apparently. I found Lunduke has posted an account of it on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBZjUPavvs8

The prominent Linux tech blogger, Bryan Lunduke left and denounced them this summer despite having been an early adopter and supporter. He had made a complaint on how they chose to give an exclusive spotlight to a partiuclarly trashy channel and then recieved a reply from their "Cheif Marketing Officer" which was itself shamelessly vulgar and trashy and boasted that such trash is "the Odysee Brand". Lundukes explaination for leaving seems to be only archived in his subscription/free-to-view social network lunduke.locals.com.

For worthwhile content I hold more hope for rokfin - www.rokfin.com/discover