"settecento" can be read as "seven hundred" in Italian; gramps is proposing to use a more specific word as a tag for Italian art from the 1700s. Of course, 700 is not 1700, hence the "drop 1000 years". The prefix seventeen in Italian is "diciassette-" so perhaps "diciasettecento" would be more accurate for the 1700s. (settecento is shorter, though.)
Hope this clarifies. Not to miss the forest for the trees, to reiterate, the main takeaway is that it may be better to define and use a specific tag to pinpoint a sequence of events in a given period (e.g. settecento) instead of gesturing with something as arbitrary and wide as a century (18th century art).
It is a waste of time to continue to try to develop a power one does not have.
Manipulating (e.g. "people who down vote [sic] refuse to believe"), spreading fear (e.g. "[mind manipulation occurs on] an 'industrial' scale"), and inflating one's own ego (e.g. "I am a renegade of thought control") contribute little to the discussion of this article.
Rational comments can't change a mind driven primarily by emotions, especially negative ones like fear. We humans are not rational beings at the bottom of the things, and our school system does little to fight that.
Thats why elections look like they look, that's why internet is not anymore a beacon of freedom and truth, but rather swamp of lies, manipulation and half-truths that one has to have a dedicated skill to navigate through. A skill many older folks (but not only them) simply don't have and probably never will, this covers ie my parents too.
Folks that will listen to those sweet little and big lies about how everything will be great without great changes and sacrifices, when reality is way more complex.
Accurate and useful information for anyone that has ever overestimated their individual ability to discern all of reality with a mere folklore sense of it.
Every sitting president since George W has had an "introductory" level of awareness with thought control, America's grand extortionist. George W had been indoctrinated since college, during his xxx initiation. Before that, like you they only had a Man's ignorance in themselves.
I think it is time to stop denying the exogenous of thought control. For the sake of world peace and all (your weaponized denial.)
I know you'll call me crazy, that doesn't make it untrue.
"First hand knowledge" is worthless. 350 people saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587#N... fall out of the sky. 50% of those people "saw an explosion" despite that plane falling out of the sky because the vertical stabilizer sheared off. At no point was there even a fire or hell, even a part of the plane being hotter than it should be.
The same thing happened when a 747 blew up after leaving JFK, with many witnesses saying "it was hit by a missile" despite radar evidence proving otherwise.
Anything you "know to be true" is simply whatever your brain cooked up to retroactively explain whatever sensory input it gets. People joke about "Will you believe me or your lying eyes" but YOUR EYES ARE LYING TO YOU 24/7! Pretty much nothing you perceive in your vision accurately represents reality. It is trivial to demonstrate optical illusions, which are merely simple examples of your brain lying to you about reality because it is lazy and incredibly stupid, and doesn't really care about consistency.
Our brains lie to us constantly, and paper over those lies with more lies, and lots of people seem to be utterly unwilling to examine that fact in earnest, and would rather reality fit some obscene TV plot than think that they might not know something that they "know"
Very interesting paper! Proposes (with lower bound of 1.3% chance) that the solar system may have passed through a local interstellar cloud, which would have caused the heliosphere to shrink to smaller than the orbit of the earth (0.22 au) some 2-3 mya. This may have affected the Earth's atmosphere and climate. Scroll down for some cool illustrations of a simulation showing how the heliosphere would have been tiny with an elongated tail in a denser interstellar medium. There's also a map showing the interstellar cloud relative to the trajectory of the solar system.
> This may have affected the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Adding uncertainty to climate forecasting models. Can we detect or predict changes to the interstellar medium in our path through space and improve forecasts with that? Maybe we could at least put an upper bound on the magnitude of the effect.
That's one of those fun astronomy topics that is mind boggling to think of the forces involved to diminish the effect of Sol's solar radiation to that level.
Shipping doesn't use gasoline, it uses bunker fuel, which is currently about $700/ton. There are 4k gallons in a ton of such fuel, so approximately 18c/gallon. So the shipping cost in fuel should be about $20, which amusingly checks out.
Of course the cost in greenhouse gasses is astronomical, which is a big part of the problem.
If you're looking for the same sort of walled-garden corporate-degen vibe, try reddit? They even have nested conversations, like on Hacker News! /s
But seriously, Discourse is good forum software. You can self-host it or pay for a hosted instance. An example instance is IRLO, https://internals.rust-lang.org
There's a big number of things you can search for, but it's a finite number. There are certainly people interested in curating resources for their specific niche in exchange for curated resources in other niches, across the entire internet. Perhaps through a social web of trust. We need a new search engine resistant to sybil attacks. One that takes the social aspect of searching—connecting you with the relevant experts—into account.
It's a challenging problem. The whole of Web 2.0 is built on lowering scaling costs as far as possible. The trust problem is itself very big - if someone makes the modern equivalent of the Yahoo directory, how do they establish trust that they're only incentivized by site quality? If it's a graph of trust, how does one handle the subtle changes in baseline expectations and norms that qualify as "trustworthy", when moving from one part of that graph to a distant part? If such a system goes massive, how does one prevent the member nodes from being overwhelmed by requests, or even from offers to contribute by people more interested in Internet karma than giving quality contributions?
There is one difference. Arch users will tell you, "I use Arch. You should try it." and NixOS users will tell you, "I use NixOS. You should probably not try it. You should try Arch."
My experience is different. I have a Twitter account that I don’t really use, and am a very active GitHub user. One time someone wrote a Twitter mentioning my Twitter handle with a link to my GitHub repo and commented something to the effect of “you should try out nix instead of what you’re doing in this repo.” Since my GitHub and Twitter handles are different, it means that they specifically google my Twitter account and call me out there. Creepy.
For me it's more often than not been the opposite. Although it's not just that you should use nix, you need to use their specific subflavor of nix features and anything else is heresy. It doesn't matter if the way it's documented is a mess, it makes sense to them.
I'm pretty sure that picking a religious denomination is less aggressive than hearing nixos users talk about how superior their system is.
Well, you won't hear this from me. Right now, NixOS is probably not worth the time for the vast majority of people. It's hard to quantify because while the benefits of Nix are immensely clear once you have things working, the amount of effort it takes and the complexity you have to deal with to get there is downright insane. It's not that I think other people are simply incapable of understanding it, not at all; I think people are but I'm not sure if everyone who does will be pleased with how they spent their time.
However... There are people among us who don't care about whether something is "worth it" or not. We want a complete, 100% solution to some of our problems. Not a half-measure, not a hack over the top, a from scratch, 100%, complete solution. What NixOS and GuixSD do solve, they solve very, very completely. The problem is that doing it is very hard, and in my experience Nix sometimes makes things much harder and more complex than it necessarily needs to be. Of course, making things as simple as they possibly can be is hard work, and so I don't blame anyone.
A good example of a system where people are clearly unhappy is kernels, the way kernels are built in NixOS is pretty unsatisfying, and the knock-on effects of it can be pretty confusing to new users who wonder why changing which kernel they use makes it so that none of their kernel options are applied anymore. (Silently! No error, just, your kconfig options stop working!)
This is on top of the fact that the community is split on things like flakes, leaving Nix in a bit of a precarious position, where there are multiple solutions to a problem and yes, people don't agree on which one.
And also, it's built on top of functional programming paradigms, which I contend makes a lot of sense when everything clicks, but that's an additional hurdle for the vast majority of people, even programmers.
Even if Nix was as simple as it could be, what it tries to solve is a very wide problem space that is complex by its nature, and it is harder to hide that complexity the way that many Linux systems try to. So, I don't suspect it will be worth it for most people to bother learning Nix. I think that the people who know they want Nix are probably going to figure out it's what they want eventually. There's a type of person who will invest in solar panels happily without caring much about the break-even; I feel like Nix is a bit like that.
So why do people evangelize NixOS so much, when surely they know it's vastly complicated? I can't say for sure, but I can tell you one thing: when NixOS first started to "click" for me, it felt like I was experiencing a future of operating system design that is still years off. Whether Nix is the future, remains to be seen.
What sold NixOS for me were setting up servers, and I would also recommend people to set up their *servers* with.
It was when I watched someone transfer their server to another disk. It was literally one command to set up everything like it was, with bootloader, all services, ssh keys, user accounts, .... Then reboot, logging in via ssh, set an account password and that's it.
I also started using it on my workstation, but as you mentioned it is a long and tiresome process to convert my current set up to Nix and have everything work.
And another thing that really annoys me is the added time when you want to iterate quickly on a configuration file (e.g. when setting up a new program), as there is always the build process in between and looking up how to use that specific nixos module, and most of the time I need to look at the source code of the nix module to perfectly understand how to use a specific config option. So in the end I need to read the official documentation for that program, then the nix documentian and/or the nixos module definition. I have a powerful machine, but it still takes 20-40 seconds for a one line change, which would normally be 2-3s (editing the config + restarting a service)
> I have a powerful machine, but it still takes 20-40 seconds for a one line change, which would normally be 2-3s (editing the config + restarting a service)
A bit late reply, but by default Nix runs on single core. Have you made it use multi-core and max-jobs?
Okay I looked it up, and the default is max-jobs=auto (uses # of logical cores) and cores=0 (each job can use all threads), so if I have a machine with 16 cores and 32 threads, it may run 32 jobs at the same time, where each job is allowed to use 32 threads.
Thanks for the heads-up, will look into this, I think I tried something with this but didn't see much better performance, but has been a while since I tried that.
I think NixOS users are generally happy with using it but don't want the support burden of explaining it to others on random internet forums when it's much more different from other distros than Arch is
Fala Taelin, nice work! Does HVM2 compile interaction nets to e.g. spirv, or is this an interpreter (like the original HVM) that happens to run on the GPU?
I ask because a while back I was messing around with compiling interaction nets to C after reducing as much of the program as possible (without reducing the inputs), as a form of whole program optimization. Wouldn't be too much harder to target a shader language.
Edit: Oh I see...
> This repository provides a low-level IR language for specifying the HVM2 nets, and a compiler from that language to C and CUDA
HVM
I was talking about traversing an interaction net to recover a lambda-calculus-like term, which can be lowered to C a la lisp in small pieces with minimal runtime overhead.
Honestly the motivation is, you are unlikely to outperform a hand-written GPU kernel for like ML workloads using Bend. In theory, HVM could act as glue, stitching together and parallelizing the dispatch order of compute kernels, but you need a good FFI to do that. Interaction nets are hard to translate across FFI boundaries. But, if you compile nets to C, keeping track of FFI compute kernel nodes embedded in the interaction network, you can recover a sensible FFI with no translation overhead.
The other option is implementing HVM in hardware, which I've been messing around with on a spare FPGA.
It is an interpreter that runs on GPUs, and a compiler to native C and CUDA. We don't target SPIR-V directly, but aim to. Sadly, while the C compiler results in the expected speedups (3x-4x, and much more soon), the CUDA runtime didn't achieve substantial speedups, compared to the non-compiled version. I believe this is due to warp-divergence: with non-compiled procedures, we can actually merge all function calls into a single "generic" interpreted function expander that can be reduced by warp threads without divergence. We'll be researching this more extensively looking forward.
Oh that's cool! Interested to see where your research leads. Could you drop me a link to where the interaction net → cuda compiler resides? I skimmed through the HVM2 repo and just read the .cu runtime file.
Edit: nvm, I read through the rest of the codebase. I see that HVM compiles the inet to a large static term and then links against the runtime.
Hope this clarifies. Not to miss the forest for the trees, to reiterate, the main takeaway is that it may be better to define and use a specific tag to pinpoint a sequence of events in a given period (e.g. settecento) instead of gesturing with something as arbitrary and wide as a century (18th century art).