I've just gotten back into Erlang becuase of the lightweight processes and message passing, so far behaviour has been secondary (i.e. just learning about them)!
The project is about bring visual Flow Based Programming(FBP)[1] to Erlang. FBP seems to be made for Erlang and I was surprised there was something already but there does not seem to be.
My goto tool for FBP is Node-RED and hence the basic idea is to bolt a Node-RED frontend on to an Erlang backend and to have every node being a process. Node-REDs frontend is great for modelling message passing between nodes, hence there is a very simply one-to-one mapping to Erlangs processes and messages.
I've implemented some basics and started to create some unit tests as flows to slowly build up functionality. I would really like this to be 100% compatiable to Node-RED the NodeJS backend. For more details, the github repo --> https://github.com/gorenje/erlang-red
Overall Erlang is amazingly well suited to this and astonished that no one else has done anything like this - or have they?
Yes indeed! fbp is, at its core, forward message passing with message being independent of one another. it would be interesting to know how much the creators of erlang knew of fbp.
A social media platform doesn't have the same networking effect when everyone speaks different languages. If you make a social media site in country A, and get everyone to use it there, happened a lot in Europe, but it doesn't spread to neighboring countries since all users spoke a different language.
This means that only really large countries can compete here since they start out with a big userbase and its much more likely for a smaller countries population to migrate to a large app than vice versa.
Where I live it took to after 2010 until American social media was more popular than local ones.
TikTok only succeed because it came from a large country then? A country that doesn't even speak english, nor any european language. Oh, that was because the Chinese government was behind it with much money and influence says the EU.
So Nestle can only succeed because it comes from Switzland? A non-european country within the EU. ARM succeeds because it is British and outside the EU.
Lets face it, the EU cannot create a) global cloud services (aka AWS), b) global search engine (aka google), c) global social media and d) global tech infrastructure (i.e. GPU chips). Only everyone else can do those things because .... well because the EU has so many separate cultures and languages. So cooperation is impossible.
EU can build giant particle accelerators, a space agency and a bureaucracy to stifle any innovation that isn't lead by some large established european consultancy company. EU can organise a huge increase in military spending. The EU can build fences around europe to ensure refugees don't get in.
But the EU cannot build a single search engine of global note. Yeck Google is simply too good. Even DuckDuckGo has managed to become a competitor but the EU? Too hard. Too fucking hard for the EU.
Fuck I'm sick and tired of hearing the poor EU complain about technology. It's been long enough and yet the EU cannot seem to compete. Remember when it came clear that the NSA was spying on European leaders? Well what has happened since? Nothing. Nichts. Rien. Niente. Nada. Nic.
The EU is rapidly becoming a giant open-air mueseum for tourists coming from countries that can do tech.
> TikTok only succeed because it came from a large country then?
And USA is going to buy TikTok, just like they did almost every European tech company. You don't see what is happening here, do you? Bigger tech companies eat smaller ones because software is much more prone to networking effects than other industries.
> Fuck I'm sick and tired of hearing the poor EU complain about technology
You are the one complaining, I just explained why it happened like it happened.
> Lets face it, the EU cannot create d) global tech infrastructure (i.e. GPU chips).
AMSL is European, you are just wrong here, the whole worlds tech industry depends on AMSL. Europe is very strong in many industries, just not software. It is USA that can't do tech hardware, its all made in Europe and Asia now.
At least we Europeans have the tools to build chips ... unfortunately we don't use those tools.
Why is that? Because no EU country has a large enough userbase? Or is because regulation to protect our "environment"? Or did someone forget to click "yes accept all cookies" GDPR banner?
Just look what's happening to the food industry in the US thanks to regulations.
When a loaded guy in the US dies sooner than the low class in Spain, something it's really wrong with your nutrition, healthcare and tons of troubles to be able to walk to a nearby store.
European here. You know nil about Europe. Europe has been using English as the de facto language in tech/science since decades. Sorry if I burst your American bubble.
In all their cities they could see buildings that they did not know how to build. And before that, public services would have broken down. It would have become impossible to find people who knew how to repair your heated floor (if you were rich), etc. The city of Rome declined from 1 million people to something like 20,000. In the late 500s, Pope Gregory the Great thought that the world was ending because of all the trouble (including vicious barbarian invasions). Monks (and presumably anyone educated) had access to a lot of ancient texts, it was only some that got lost in the West. I think they would have had a distinct sense that that past was more advanced.
The term is polycrisis, and it is quite widely used. It's not multiple crises happening in parallel, but fanning each other. Such as climate change putting additional strain on supply chains, that are already strained by global conflicts.
If/When it becomes a real crisis, I'm sure other countries with nascent space industries will then be asked to limit their launches to avoid space debris and when they occasionally launch a satellite you can bet there will be debates and articles about how they are the ones contributing to space debris.
The greatest one is the meta-crisis of mans permanent disability to handle his technological archievments and come to reasonable terms with the limitations imposed by what is essence a mental wheel chair.
Instead we have either the total idealisation, of a utopist - all will be good, all obstacles can be overcome, just more of the same approaches, disasters be damned. The education will fix it. 6 billion, in remedial school, forever.
The other is basically naturalism, snuggling to your emotions is the only thing left, fall back to natural behaviour, no matter how disastrous the consequences and disjunct the circumstances. Ignore all those societies who walked down that road into disaster.
There is almost nobody out in the open in the middle ground. Cataloguing the disabilities, the side-effects and what we still can and cant do, planning moderate dreams and longterm projects that are realistic, even with the roof of the planet coming down.
Surely we must rid ourselves from a story with any finality, as it stands, we reach for something, but we've no idea what.
For most people, a better life is a life where their children are healthy, nourished, well-educated and living in peace (technology be damned). More importantly, for most people, a better life for themselves is one of extremely little, basic food, peace, community, movement.
All those children grow up to find what makes them happy is less, not more. We all know it. It's the intangibles, not the material. It's the people, our pets, the sun shining and a bird singing.
The end isn't worth the means, maybe instead of looking for some quant to see it all, we could just see ourselves and move forward slowly with what we know to be good and true, without falling on our face trying to punch a baby.
I was thinking more along the lines that "crisis crisis" which would describe a situation where the world didn't have enough crisises. A situation described as being a crisis lack of crisises. ;)
EU peace is assured by inter-locking trade within the block. Countries within the EU are gently encouraged to trade essential goods with one another instead of producing them themselves.
This policy dates back to the end of WW2 as an attempt to prevent one country getting too aggressive and hence starting another war.
Since the fall of the wall, Russia was seen as a legitimate trading partner for the block and, in the long term (just as Türkiye), as member of the block.
Hence sourcing fertiliser from Russia was taken to be a strategic positive since it tired Russia to Europe.
I think we should be aware of history, that does not imply acceptance nor agreement.
Instead had I said this ten years ago, the majority of politicians in the EU would have been d’accord. What does that imply about our political systems?
There have been a bunch of alliances in Europe over the centuries, none have been permanent.
It was a rational and logical thing to do, assuming Russia wants prosperity. Sadly, it turns out people with power in Russia don't really care about that for regular people.
So... I think it was a good thing after all. It could've worked out, and bring us peace. A moonshot with great payoff but some chance of failing is often a risk worth taking, HN should know that :)
That is called trained helplessness. You could be on a flight today if you want. You could be donating to relief in minutes without leaving your computer chair.
You can banned for a longish time and then have to do an "idiot" test (as they call it) to get your license back. In addition you have to supply hair samples so that you prove you've not been taking any further substance (in recent history).
Generally you have to do a lot to get banned for life - remember Germany is run by car lobbies, they are not interested in banning people from driving,
is off-putting. It makes it sound like my work should become a product to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. But not everything can become a product and not everyone wants to be creating products all day, every day. Especially since once something becomes a product, the focus is on profit and no longer the actual idea - profit begins to drive development of that idea.
But then I read the article and realised that the title has nothing to do with the message:
> "Selling" to a scientist is an awkward thing to do. It's very ugly; you shouldn't have to do it. The world is supposed to be waiting, and when you do something great, they should rush out and welcome it. But the fact is everyone is busy with their own work. You must present it so well that they will set aside what they are doing, look at what you've done, read it, and come back and say, "Yes, that was good."
The author, IMHO, is talking of promotion and not selling. Which is fair enough.
Without promotion, your ideas won't reach a broader audience. But that may be fine for some people and sometimes for me. I choose not to promote my half-baked ideas - fine. That's a different feeling than to think that I can't sell my ideas or that I've wasted my time because I won't be making a profit.
Of course, "selling yourself" and "promoting yourself" is the same thing in some places on this planet, for me though, there is a fine line between the two.
On a side note, whatever happened to hobbies? Whatever happens to exploring and experimenting with ideas? If everything I do has to eventually turn a profit then I need reconsider how often I go to the toilet - is that a profitable activity?
reply