> I think this is because optimization is likely an NP
Optimization of computer programs is a fundamentally uncomputable affair due to Rice's theorem – in the general case you can't check if two programs are equivalent.
Users of practical software would probably not accept the program taking forever, so you could implement a runtime constraint. With a runtime constraint, every TM effectively halts, so making nontrivial observations about them should at least be computable.
If you use a lot of sharing in immutable data it can grow a lot when serializing. A simple pathological example would be a tree that has all left subtrees same as the right ones. It takes O(height) space in memory, but O(2^height) when serialized.
I believe that is addressed in the sentence after the one I quoted.
"Nuclear material means any source or any special fissionable material as defined in Article XX of the Statute. The term source material shall not be interpreted as applying to ore or ore residue."
Thank you. I only read the second, more recent article, not realizing that their was a prior one.
Case seems ridiculous. Judge's ruling, despite no penalty, is embarrassing because he doesn't seem to understand the lack of danger of such small amounts, AND made gratuitous public statement about Lidden's mental health.
That can work, but it can also bring quite a few issues. Mozilla effectively does this; their build process downloads the build toolchain, including a specific clang version, during bootstrap, i.e., setting up the build environment.
This is super nice in theory, but it gets murky if you veer off the "I'm building current mainline Firefox path".
For example, I'm a maintainer of a Firefox fork that often lags a few versions behind. It has substantial changes, and we are only two guys doing the major work, so keeping up with current changes is not feasible. However, this is a research/security testing-focused project, so this is generally okay.
However, coming back to the build issue, apparently, it's costly to host all those buildchain archives. So they get frequently deleted from the remote repository, which leads to the build only working on machines that downloaded the toolchain earlier (i.e., not Github action runner, for example).
Given that there are many more downstream users of effectively a ton of kernel versions, this quickly gets fairly expensive and takes up a ton of effort unless you pin it to some old version and rarely change it.
So, as someone wanting to mess around with open source projects, their supporting more than 1 specific compiler version is actually quite nice.
Conceptually it's no different than any other build dependency. It is not expensive to host many versions. $1 is enough to store over 1000 compiler versions which would be overkill for the needs of the kernel.
Because then, if something that is expected to compile doesn't compile correctly, you know that you should check your compiler version. It is the exact same reason why you don't just specify which library your project depends on but also the libraries' version.
People are usually going to go through `make`, I don't see a reason that couldn't be instrumented to (by default) acquire an upstream GCC vs whatever forked garbage ends up in $PATH
Why would it go wrong, the ABI is stable and independent of compiler? You would hit issues with C++ but not C. I have certainly built kernels using different versions of GCC than what /lib stuff is compiled with, without issue.
You'd think that, but in effect kconfig/kbuild has many cases where they say "if the compiler supports flag X, use it" where X implies an ABI break. Per task stack protectors comes to mind.
While it has more time to become a red giant, it'll become more luminous over time and life on Earth will be impossible much earlier. I've seen estimates of 0.5B to 1.5B years.
That's not the point: if you have capabilities to do stellar lifting, interstellar travel is likely on the table too. Fermi paradox is about the question, why we can't detect any sign of extraterrestrial civilizations out there. One explanation is that while life in general might be relatively abundant, true sentience as in us humans that allows life to spread besides its cradle might be quite unique.
In 500 million years, hopefully humans (or whatever humans have become at that point) will be able to modify the Earth's atmosphere to deal with the increased luminosity of the Sun.
We might be lucky enough to do that, but it could have easily taken intelligence another 500M years to evolve on another planet. First animal fossils are something like 700M years old, so it took 2-3G years to just any animals.
The problem is that there are just so many planets. Sure, another planet could be 500My slower, but with a billion planets, some of them should be 500My faster instead.
It's possible we are absolutely one-in-a-billion uniquely lucky - after all, someone has to be the first and the luckiest. But every year we find indications that our planet is completely typical.
We'll have colonized the galaxy in 10 million years. In 200 million years, I'd expect that some future historical society could undertake a project to clean out the heavy elements in the Sun to keep it going.
Yeah, but if humans exist by the time the sun fails us, they wouldn’t really be the same species as us, and they’d hopefully have progressed to the point that they could escape the Earth.
You're saying we wont maintain tradition and our "humanity"?. I like to be a little more optimistic and believe in us as a species transferring values until the end.
Look at all types of mammal that exist, from us to platypuses to bats to whales. Evolved in a few hundred million years. Modern humans have been here for a few hundred thousand.
In 500 million years absolutely anything could happen (if we survive this century).
The lower end estimate depends on the specifics of the increase in brightness accelerating the weathering of silicates, leading to more CO2 absorbed out of the atmosphere until C3 photosynthesis isn't possible. Some plants use a different method which will continue to work (C4), but consequences of plant life as we know it dying off would be catastrophic for life on this planet - barring of course, whatever adaptations are made.
But it's certainly the mark of "the beginning of the end" for life on this planet - it's a major milestone that we (the species) do need to leave eventually if we want to continue.
Every field of study, subject, or problem, or even business cases, -- all have different ranges.
Why does this one in-particular sound like they don't know what they are talking about? It would be just as accurate for me to say in the range of responses, yours kind of sounds like an anti-science bot. Typical of that type of thinking.
The difference between .5B years and 1.5B (BILLION) years is pretty staggering in a conversation basically focused around the last couple thousand years. Definitely room for the comment.
Your anti-science bot comment however, is very anti-science.
Really? With the age of a star, that is too wide a range for you to accept? To pinpoint something like this. What if I were to say, "really it's 1.3435 Billion on a Tuesday".
Of course, calling someone anti-anti-science. The new 'right'. Using science arguments against science. Yes. Your comment is typical, just spam fud. "look at this huge range, see, scientist don't know what they are doing"
I have seen some projects that require acknowledging certain politically-charged statements before they will allow you to participate, like "you must agree that sovereign country X is at war with aggressor country Y".
reply