Correct me if I am wrong: redis scalars are limited to strings and this seems to support integers and booleans. The query language is also different.
So, I must conclude that something else is going on. Slashdot, is it you?.
Fortunately, I don't see this as a big issue in Go so far because I have used it for small components connected by zeromq or http. In a way, Go is also enforcing distributed/microservice style of development since a huge monolithical/business-rules program with it seems like nightmare material.
I am a bit confused, lets suppose that TLS is broken in haskell libraries, or there is some kind of thing haskell has no libraries for and you don't want to lose time implementing it; what stops you from making a service for that task in another language?. I fail to picture a big system that is not distributed, maybe the problem of this startup required a monolithic system, or is it that a monolith project is in some ways easier to manage?.
The sense of self or the "I" is part of that stream of thoughts, that is why you can't stop thoughts except by fully concentrating in something; the intention of stoping thoughts and the self that wants to achieve something are thoughts themselves.
An approach that I have found very powerful is to direct atention to nervous system activity which is an objective form of conciousness, something like the sense of touch but extended to the inside of the body (it is called kayotsarga in jainism), besides gaining the ability to fully relax at will all parts of the body it brings awareness to a whole new level.
Let's start by defining architect. Where the business model is charging for hours(consultancy) or bureaucracy is the rule; the architect is like a ming dinasty china jar next in usefulness to the scrum master. He can't really apply the principles of software quality since attributes like conceptual integrity, reusability, modularity, loose coupling and maintainability are not aligned with "picking the fad framework that average joe can be productive with and charge the client for those 20 reports instead of a reporting engine that can be parameterized, lets then use unit tests and code reviews to cheat ourselves into believing we're making quality stuff". Its different when the team is developing a product that is also the business model where resources are never enough and there is no room for bullshit, then the architect is the guy that can sketch that reporting engine that will be nurtured and improved by the team, therefore he both codes and shares knowledge.
To be clear: I was NOT speaking of the first one :-). As for the second one:
> the architect is the guy that can sketch that reporting engine that will be nurtured and improved by the team,
Yes (in fact, I LOVE this definition ;-)).
> therefore he both codes and shares knowledge.
Not necessarily, and that's the whole point. Initial development (as noted in the article) is one of the exceptions - but "sketching a thing that will be improved" (which I agree with) is VERY different from "working day in and day out on improving it" (which I do NOT like). And this difference is the whole point of the article.
Bureaucracy wants to live forever as technocracy. And maybe the ones selling genetically modified food and intra-flesh GPS want to make it more acceptable.
Consciousness wants to live forever because it can't conceive of a world in which it doesn't exist - the thought is unthinkable and the idea is frightening. Brain uploading seems like a solution to that problem, until you realize there's no reason to assume that the uploaded copy once made is me any more, and any number of excellent reasons to assume it isn't.
How do you know that you are not now, a simulation? In fact, once we have the technology to produce such a simulation, logically speaking, then, it is an overwhelming probability that we are a simulation, given that, you have at most one 'original' creature, and each subsequent creature can (eventually) create an artificial universe with artificial beings, for some definition of artificial. Thus you have (n-1)/n chances of being a simulation, which over time, as n-> infinity, means a certainty.
Even our reasons for thinking we are 'real' are flimsy. We say we have our senses! We open our eyes and see a blue sky and green grass. We reach down and touch each individual blade of grass, surely not a simulation.
But even that is bogus. There is no such thing as a blue sky, or green grass. That's all in your head. It's (at most) just different frequencies of energy. Same goes for this 'touching' bit. You don't touch anything, you just (again at most) have energy interactions.
I suspect people who believe in the "life is a simulation" have little experience in running molecular dynamics simulations. Even simulating a single protein for a few microseconds takes a Linux cluster hours. The size of a computer that could simulate every protein on earth (let alone every other type of molecule) would be literally astronomical (as in larger than a planet; and no, plausible improvements in technology really wouldn't shrink that by much). Simulations of things like cities work because all the details of molecules and cells aren't simulated. But we can measure all these things, so either the simulation we are in is really that detailed, or, more plausibly, we aren't in a simulation.
Modern video game engines vary the detail with which objects are rendered depending on distance, throwing away imperceptible details of faraway objects in order to free up processing resource which can be used to increase detail for things near enough to show the difference. In the newest generation, the transitions between various levels of detail are effectively imperceptible. So what if the details of molecules and cells are only simulated when we're paying attention?
"Life as a simulation" theory doesn't really concern itself with plausible technology, any more than space opera does, and yet there are people who take both seriously and in at least some part model themselves on that basis. Plausibility doesn't really seem to be their major concern.
how feasible something is, is irrelevant to this post. Ok, not feasible now. I'll come back in 100,000 years. Is it feasible then? If so then the logic still holds.
I'm talking feasibility ever. The absolute minimum hardware needed even in 100,000 years to simulate an atom in all its complexity would be more than one atom. So it would as infeasible as making a map larger than the territory.
Whether "I" runs on a Baudrilliard machine is orthogonal to whether a copy of "I" is still "I" to "I" - and why would
it be, with no shared sensorium? - which is the point I'm making.
Elementary indistinguishability is orthogonal and I'd like to say it's kinda basic for the level at which this conversation is operating, but there's so many unexamined assumptions and so much consciousness chauvinism flying around in here, who knows what's too basic to be worth mentioning.
Jeron Lanier has an interesting essay. He started with MIDI files, they are digital representation of music, which is mostly good enough for our ears, but not identical to the real music. Even HD audio can only sample at some KHz, so it is still discrete and not analog. How will computer representations of the brain be the same as the human brain, and how will it differ?
Subsidies were indeed popular and probably anything chavez did. Then, popular and orwellian totalitarian are not contradictory.
But lets first understand that "the poor" are not created by the rich in latin america as socialists love to say, its been more than half a century of socialist/socialdemocrat rule and its obvious that they create the poor by making them dependant on the governments' favour. The famous barrios, fabellas and asentamientos are the creation of a socialist elite that uses the filantropy masquerade to get easy money through corruption, currency exchanges, inflation, etc.
I was addressing the comment's point about "checks on government". Specifically:
>>In a socialist country, it is possible for the government to be governed by law and have limits placed on its power. That is not what's been going in in [Venezuela].
My point is, there were in fact limits, and they went through the democratic process to have exceptions made to those limits. That's not totalitarianism, which would be "some figure saw the limits and bypassed them without approval anyway".
