tsegratis

"Since 1972, marriage rates in the US have fallen by almost 50%, and are currently at the lowest point in recorded history"

"The share of children born outside of marriage has increased substantially in almost all OECD countries"

https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces

But you are right divorce rates vary, for instance decreasing post covid. I was thinking on the century scale. But also percentage of people entering stable commitment, and so even the possibility of divorce is much lower

wishlist

1) labels as values in standard 2) control over memory position offsets, without linker script

other than that a few more compiler implementations offering things like checked array bounds, and a focus on correctness rather than accepting the occasional compiler bug

the rough edges like switch fallthrough are rough, but easy to work around. They don't need fixing (-pedantic fixes it already, etc)

maybe more control over assembly generation, such as exposing compilation at runtime; but that is into the wishful end of wishlists

Divorce is a massive cause of trauma and increasing in the west

I organized a large group of trauma experts last week (church pastors), and although they were amazing and had clearly overcome trauma; residual selfishness and power grabbing meant a child got ignored

The same last night: a bible study with the homeless. A happy and peaceful place, though one member was throwing trauma bombs

There's not a simple switch, though having lived in war zones and done churches of, for instance Syrian refugees, unconditional love of God, and letting trauma be presented in the middle of that is deeply powerful

Maybe a hard topic? But as balanced and mutually respectful as two sides of a coin

From memory, std::map is comparatively slow because the spec requires pointers to indices to be stable. In practice it is slow; see khash and many others

Personally i don't think this matters too much; you're using c/c++; you're already fast

Question from a dummy: could you list those features?

Would help me a lot. Link to webpages fine too

How about: you are paying Amazon to lie to you by giving them your money

Or: You are validating Amazons actions by saying if they can do that then i can too. The initial premise of doing is business with them is you saying "They can do that"

I don't think saying "If Amazon can do that..." is a good foundation for ethics

As resurrection day is coming, I realize the sinking ship analogy inverts

Nietzsche aimed to save his life. Jesus aimed to give his life

Jesus saves the weak. Nietzsche does not

Apologies for pushing you hard. I think if I had found this foundation of life giving love, I would of treated you better, and found truth -- the one who freely gives his life, freely places truth first; and this is love

Thanks talldayo. I think you're right to challenge me

> Without trying to make anyone ...

Thanks for engaging, and have no fear of that :^)

> I legitimately believe religion as a concept is obsolete

I think this is correct, from your world viewpoint. But the key to our difference is in two viewpoints:

A ship is sinking. Do you dispise the weakness, and strengthen the ship? Or do you say the sinking is inevitable, we must abandon ship?

The first group must dispise the second for giving up. The second is Christian -- this world will end, we cannot hope in our own strength, we must hope in Christ

The first group is Nietzschien. We must throw out the weak and become masters

These two viewpoints are deeply opposed

I have two notes here: One is, I think Nietzschien thought leads to a society you don't want to live in. The second is that science says the universe is a sinking ship: we began in nothing, we end in meaningless heat death. Nietzsche hoped to escape this by becoming the overman, a strong enough master to create his own meaning

A third note, against Christianity, is that the second group must become slaves to Christ, and this is a hard route to take. I believe this is the reason most people choose to join that first group

But anyway, I appreciate your time. For me this has been my second most positive and enlightening conversation on HN, so even if you step away, know that I appreciate you and your forthrightness

Sorry talldayo, and thankyou for your blessing at the end. I was replying to nickpsecurity, rather than you

If you wish to state they have category overlap, which sure, they do, but also the bible is not titled astronomy 101, and in my opinion not even aiming to cover that ground

> Damned if you do, damned if you don't

What I was aiming for was blessed if you do, blessed if you don't. I.e. you may well be completely right on this topic

In anycase, please allow me to reply to one of your other comments

Agreed, in that the crisis of replication[1] show that science is a religion in @talldayo's sense

[1] https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/What-is-the-Repli...

Surely this is due to scientists becoming postmodern since truth becomes "influence of ideology in maintaining political power", so then they loose objectivity, to make themselves look better, and publish whatever does that

@nickpsecurity may like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysEc8SdDLAs Which is by one of the most published scientists in his field, and is great

But my main thought would be that these issues are almost entirely irrelevant to the Christian narrative. Genesis is about our relationship with God. If it was about the early formation of stars, or the universe, then it would be unintelligible and useless information for thousands of years -- how would we then apply it in our lives, even now?

The Genesis narrative does place the main events and their ordering, in a big bang narrative, which is extremly improbable to occur by chance -- light, darkness separated out, earth, oceans, plant life, other life, humans. Particularly when compared to other creation narratives -- for instance the Aztecs believed the earth was devoured by tigers, then the next earth created by a snail going around the sun too slowly and being hit by other animals

If there was an argument to be had, I would say it should be on why there is such a highly improbable level of similarity between the two narratives

But personaly, I would say, Genesis, on our relationship with God, and the state of mankind, is very succinct and impactful; and to me, moving outside that to generate side issues is an argument that doesn't need to happen

If fossils or old earth are true, then we have an awesome God. If they are not true, then that is fascinating aswell. The bible is not affected

Anyway, thats my two cents

> In fact, God requires each act be done in love or He won’t reward it at all. No showmanship

I think that is key. Too often we try to appear loving, to earn God's favor. We grabbed hold of the pulpit, to prove our ministry value, and in so doing, we quenched the Holy Spirit; to attempt to say it was us who did the work, not He -- since we worked to be loved, rather than accepted the free offer of salvation, and accepted that God loves us not based on our works. Only then will it be no showmanship, and enacted from love

If we don't get that key, (and sometimes we dont), then @talldayo's perspective would be right in saying religion is an empty shell of ideology, grasping to appear loveable, rather than knowning it is loved, and living from that perfect security

I think this was the key to the revival you talked about in Wales, where crime stopped, and on duty police would form choirs to sing carols -- they sang "Here is love, vast as an ocean"

You know the big bang was initially rejected by scientists as being too religious?

https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-jesuit-astronomer-who-...

> age of the Earth

Heavens and the earth are created, and light and dark are separated out before the first day listed in Genesis1.5. So total length of time is unstated. The length of the day is also unspecified, see Hebrews3, which shows that those 7 days are still in effect

"Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as you did in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers tested and tried Me, and for forty years saw My works."

Heb3. An example where day means 40 years, and today means an unspecified period of time longer than 24hours

The bible has no proclamations on the age of the earth or geocentrism. Unless you're Calvinist (and not many people are), God is also not used as an explanation for determinism

Global flooding, I would argue is roughly the same as the issue of "day". If everything was flooded as far as you could see in every direction, you would say everything was flooded. It would be silly to misconstrue that. You know that the Black Sea floor was inhabited and catastrophically flooded around the time of Noah? Noah and vast portions of the bible are supported by archeology

You dismiss examples that many Christians already dismiss. That is corroboration

> Not to get too far off in the weeds

I like the weeds. Just some quick thoughts:

> religious interpretation over logic

Do you know that the best basis we have for logic (set theory) was said by Georg Cantor to be given to him as a revelation by God, to help us understand God better?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

I think the universe cannot provide a foundation for logic without being cycilical. For instance explain axioms, without using axioms. They simply exist, without possible explanation. Quines are possible (uses an external transformer to re-create itself), but a self-explaining system without external help, is as possible as a perpetual motion machine. All systems we have require an external force to exist, including logic

How can you argue postmodernism is more logical? To quote wikipedia "postmodernism ... rejects the certainty of knowledge and stable meaning, and acknowledges the influence of ideology in maintaining political power. The idea of objective claims is dismissed"

In postmodernism you loose stability and objectivity

> a better education than a penitent mindset

Jesus didn't advocate for this, a penitent mindset would hardly be good news. @nickpsecurity explains this well on his website

But thankyou for your comments!

Thankyou @talldayo, it is lovely to hear from you

> promotion of an arbitrary religion

Truth is in short supply. I think in secularism, and the religions as you described, people push their own advantage, rather than an independent truth. But the idea that our ultimate goal is truth -- i.e. truth is God, God is truth: This is the only truly trustable source; since anyone who places something higher than truth, such as life, will sacrifice truth to get that. So considering God, to be truth can be the only fully trustworthy position

This is quite different to your conceptualization

> you might be the least functional of them all

"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied"

1cor15. So Yes :)

> you're dependent on the word of others to interpret reality for you

I really really appreciate your feedback!! However I would attest to many many personal revelations and observed miracles to the point i would consider myself insane not to believe. i.e. It is very much personal choice

I appreciate your other comments too, but my reply is already long

I believe you hit the nail on the head

And your bio reflects my personal experience; it is something so good and so awesome; it is out-of-this-world, and so, out of describable, out of computable, beyond

> He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. john1

It cannot. As a straw cannot receive an ocean

@dang I would say far from offtopic, this is the most ontopic comment...

I feel like im reading advertising blurb reading that article

I wish them every success, but i hope for a more balanced overview of pros and cons rather than gushing praise at every step...

Not to disagree with you, but

> This guy is just a religious believer who is pushing agenda

He seems to be an extremely well published scientist[1], and is saying the issues are basic...

[1]https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YwoecRMAAAAJ&sortb...

Would be interesting to hear what people here think of this

Nice idea

What if I'm trying to fix a bug, and so testing a file, while someone else's edits are being applied to it. That would be painful

CRDT would be great in many ways, but I think for programming I would most often want to reduce the variables, and not see other people's edits until commit/merge

Would CRDT still be useful in that context?

This is an interesting reply

Note that c/c++ can be made safe, for instance tcc adds runtime bounds checking. Memory could simply be runtime checked. Problem solved

You make a good point as to why we don't. Ada has done exceptionally well at doing what you ask for a very long time. It is not hard. But we don't

Hubris is maybe the right reply

People deliver code without full line and fuzz tests: probability of code being correct; low-to-zero. This is independent of 'seems to work' c/c++ memory safety. It suggests the problem is deeper

We just assume we're safe and correct, and know best; and then live as battered spouses of our own hubris

Alternative POV: we allow sharp knives in kitchens. Kitchens are unsafe as a result. It is maybe unavoidable. Road safety causes more deaths than code safety. We allow it. A lack of safety is inherent in any complex system

Spark, Coq, provers are great. But unbounded systems quickly become unprovable. Unbounded memory allocation is one of those -- whether 'safe' or not

I think this is a major reason missing from the debate. Safety hinders and complete safety is completely impossible

However the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle

Since you are right: computers are fast enough that even 3d games could often have memory safety

In conclusion

The current memory safe languages remove more from the table than I think you expect; and that is why I would suggest most important software has been written in 'unsafe' languages

For instance, servo arguably demonstrates that. A surprizingly small amount of firefox has been replaced by rust, and not due to lack of effort

But also we simply don't care about correctness enough to get closer to it. So I would say it is good you ask for that

But too often, to me, the debate looks like we swap one blindness for another

Allow me to be contrarian

Hard to count, but, excluding webapps, maybe 98% (or more) of generally used software has a basis in c/c++. Your fridge, watch, computer, car, phone. clang, gcc, photoshop, your browser, almost any desktop app, your 3d games. The remaining 2% (or less), is maybe even majority written in assembly, forth, etc, in your calculator and toaster

So to agree with you, I would need an explanation of why such wispy benefits led to such a large effect

Oberon existed, pascal, ada, they are excellent and safe, why then were they not popular?

Note: Easy to disagree with that percentage, but the effect is enormous, and as far as I understand, not explained by the current bandwagon

I found this for NetBSD from 2011 https://2011.eurobsdcon.org/papers/sonnenberger/fossilizing....

TLDR imported cvs2fossil, then fossil to git and mercurial. fossil was less optimized at scale. No dvcs was perfect. At scale things don't always import easily

"The number of artificial commits and conversion glitches could be minimized by cleaning up various issues. This was made easy by exploiting the database and writing small Python scripts calling “rcs” and related programs. Various tests show that the Fossil repository and CVS give exactly the same output for individual revisions. Differences when comparing working copies of specific branches are accounted for.

The performance of Fossil is competitive. Some areas like “fossil pull” need further work, but the majority of the work can shift to improving the user interface."

I like how that is already impossible, and that in only two sentences

> So true.... Become dishonest

Win the second, will loose the first

Would you say the absence of humility always equates with dishonesty

If I can't see my mistakes and failures, I would say I have zero ability to be honest; maybe I'm not 'lying' as such; I'm so far gone I don't even know I'm lying

I will also echo the author of WAForth, and say wow, thanks alot -- I appreciate your direction, but more than that, how you share it

Could you link your advent of code source please?

I like the direction you're heading. Roughly:

1) state machine esque predictable function stack

2) global rather than nested state

3) relational model rather than explicit memory objects

4) serialize to disk as builtin

I think

1) is a goal to aim for for the programmer, but when a stack is needed a stack is useful, so should be provided by the language

2) is a good point, encapsulation is a good support for programmers, but encapsulation in the debugger is unwanted; so hopefully the language provides easy support for this

3) Nice idea. Depends on the application domain. Maybe pointers, maybe relational is more useful depending on the situation. Formal verification, err... An excuse for pointers would be: code a solution close to the problem is best for verifying problem->solution->proof which may mean pointers, although verifying solution->proof is better for relational. A good idea to explore...

4) Unequivocal yes

Since you're giving great answers ;)

What's the problem with multiple entry points anyway? If we're not using computed goto, or dynamically verifying it when we do, aren't all of our jump targets known, and so inherently safe?

What am i missing?

EDIT: is it just a question of speed of jit for register allocation / dominance frontiers?? But the verifier is providing safety right??

Maybe something like signed compilations is an answer -- a trusted source signs and verifies pre-compiled code

Then browsers can skip verification+jit etc if they trust the signature