Like the overnight train that left me in an empty field some distance from the settlement, the process of economic development has for the most part bypassed the two hundred or so families that make up the village of Palanpur. They have remained poor, even by Indian standards: less than a third of the adults are literate, and most have endured the loss of a child to malnutrition or to illnesses that are long forgotten in other parts of the world. But for the occasional wristwatch, bicycle, or irrigation pump, Palanpur appears to be a timeless backwater, untouched by India’s cutting edge software industry and booming agricultural regions. Seeking to understand why, I approached a sharecropper and his three daughters weeding a small plot. The conversation eventually turned to the fact that Palanpur farmers sow their winter crops several weeks after the date at which yields would be maximized. The farmers do not doubt that earlier planting would give them larger harvests, but no one the farmer explained, is willing to be the first to plant, as the seeds on any lone plot would be quickly eaten by birds. I asked if a large group of farmers, perhaps relatives, had ever agreed to sow earlier, all planting on the same day to minimize losses. “If we knew how to do that,” he said, looking up from his hoe at me, “we would not be poor.”
GNU was already operational but ineffective, which was why Linux (which was more focused on something that worked and less on maintaining ideological purity) took off like a rocket shortly after Linus released it.
The whole point of GNU was to make a free UNIX. They logically started with the tools to do this. Editor, then compile tool-chain, standard library, user-land tools, … the kernel was to come eventually. But kernels are _hard_, not necessarily because writing a pre-emptive scheduling system with virtual memory is difficult (it is) but because 50% of the OS is drivers and for that you need hardware documentation. Besides a kernel ideally needs CPU support.
The i386 was the first mass market cheap CPU to provide a large (virtual) addressable space, memory isolation (rings 0..3), and so on. This was when Windows took off if you'll remember and when Novell was able to write a decent networking server, and Xenix, and OS/2, and I even remember buying a book that presented the source code for a 32-bit OS on i386 that I bought and marvelled at and lost somewhere on my travels.
Linus wrote Linux _at the right time_ for the i386, and built upon GNU. He famously said that it was a small project, not big and fancy like GNU -- you can Google the exact quote. Also, Linux uses GPLv2!, the socio-legal hack that Stallman and co. came up with, so Linux was _doubly_ dependent on the fruits of GNU. Why do you think Stallman and many others to this day want us to call our systems GNU/Linux? So I disagree -- though lacking a kernel, GNU provided a hell of a lot so I wouldn't call it ineffective just because they didn't manage to make a kernel.
It is true that Linus is more pragmatic than ideological. Having said that I think it is distro vendors that package the kernel with binary blobs, I'm not sure if blobs come with the kernel but I'm totally open to correction on this front, it's been a very long time since I looked under the hood! But I reckon Linux's success was due more to Linus's engineering skills, social skills, coding skills, taste, building on the work of Intel, PC architecture, and GNU.
Peace out anigbrowl! :)
The great thing about Linux was not just it was accessible and so on, but that it fit on (iirc) 4 1.44mb floppy disks and so you could get it up and running in under an hour.
Background from the Fractint website:
> Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup a computer game which expanded on an abandoned project using contributions from many different coders;
1. how they didn't have pest problems if they planted in fractal patterns
2. but they did have pest problems if they didn't plant at the same time
Could someone kindly explain that in a little more depth?
The strategy is that if there are several fields planted for the same amount of bugs, each field receive less bugs than if it was the only one planted (on the contrary, if they were planted one after an other, the whole bug population would just jump from field to field).
EDIT: I'm actually just learning about fractals, so I'm certainly no expert, but I'm excited to share what I've learned so far.
Look at a line, square, and cube in 1, 2, and 3 dimensions respectively. If you scale down each by 1/2 in all its dimensions, you need to look at how much of the "mass" (for lack of a better term is scaled down
If you cut a line in 1/2, it's mass is scaled by 1/2 as it takes 2 one-half length lines to make the original line.
If you scale a square down 1/2 along all its dimensions, you break into/scale it down into 4 smaller squares, it's mass scaling factor is 1/4....scaling a cube down 1/2 along all its dimensions (1/2)^2 breaks it into 8 smaller cubes...it's scaling factor is 1/8 and you can see the progression here. (1/2)^3. (I imagine a tesseract/hypercube has a scaling of 1/16 as it is the 4D analogue of a cube) The exponent represents the concept of dimension and this is how you can have non-integer dimensions.
So, back to the Sierpenski triangle or triforce example. Let's scale it down 1/2. When we do that, we know we get 1/3 the "mass" of the original since there are 3 triangles contained in the larger triangle at each level. The dimensionality is then (1/2)^x = 1/3 where x is the dimensionality. We rewrite this as log 3 base 2 which gives it a dimensionality of ~1.585.
And that is the definition of a fractal, a shape with a non-integer dimension which gives the shape roughness at every scale. I don't quite understand the more technical definition, but hopefully this helps!
Note, you cannot use length or area as a measurment for a scaling factor, as the length would be infinite and area would be 0. Also, I say mass because the more correct concept is difficult for me to explain without a whiteboard, but basically, it has to do with putting the fractal on a 2d grid, scaling it, and seeing what the ratio of boxes touched is. See, told you I'm bad at explaining it :D
Off topic, but does anyone know how this would affect the Fermi Paradox if aliens produce technology inherently fractal in nature?
And that the fractal dimension is usually equivalent to the mincowski dimension (the limit of the area measured by finite boxes as the size of the boxes grows arbitrarily small) and hausdorf dimension (the limit of the perimeter as measured by an aproximting polygon with equal length sides as the number of sides grows arbitrarily large) along with others.
1) incentivizes unproductive land owners to sell
2) incentivizes productive land owners to seek tenants
3) generates public revenues to offset negative externalities
Could you characterise what is meant by this?
I know that achieving some objective 'X' may not be amenable to regulation which says 'you must do X'; but regulation may (in some circumstances, with sufficient thought) alter the situation's dynamics such that greedy self-interest in that environment just-so-happens to coincide with causing 'X'.
What better alternatives are there to "top down control"; do you mean a "vote with your wallet" sort of 'bottom up' pressure?
p.s. Team of Teams (book) does a great job flying to decentralized flag.
However, we only see the successful emergent phenomenon, not the failed ones. Also, to this day we can not make accurate predictions of inherently chaotic systems.
So, while a bottom up sysytem may optimize, exactly whatt it optimizes is impossible to discern.
Dwarf Fortress doesn't currently have crop pests, but it's reasonable to assume it will within a decade. Tarn plans to spend the rest of his life working on it.
Dwarf Fortress is a game about decentralized, organized planning so once pests are added we'll see pages and pages of discussion about the best way to plan your fractal farm.
Sure, I was being half serious but c'mon people have a sense of humor.
Here's some figures which might help with satellite image searches.
There's a very light book by some modern author that's not terrible: Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software https://www.amazon.com/dp/0684868768/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_3Wxp...
If you want to really dig in though you need some math: Emergence of Dynamical Order: Synchronization Phenomena in Complex Systems (World Scientific Lecture Notes in Complex Systems, Vol. 2) https://www.amazon.com/dp/9812388036/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_.Yxp...
Final suggestion is most of the stuff is online at different professors websites. Warning: the field is full of meaningless fluff too, and there's a lot of qucks mixed in with genuinely interesting science.