I am not sure why nobody talks about the fundamental flaw in the design of the operating systems. Monolithic kernels were chosen at a time when CPU context switching was a serious penalty on the performace.
So IMHO isn't it time to rethink this idea of putting every single shit into the kernel space?
In other words Linus won then, and its now time to think about Tanenbaum too.[0]
There are solutions in monolithic kernels for writing safe kernel space code now too. eBPF has been a thing for a while now (https://ebpf.io/what-is-ebpf/) and while it might not be as safe as microkernel it's available now and it works on both Windows and Linux.
I think a big question is why are things like CrowdStrike still written in raw C++ Kernel code? Is it the limitations of eBPF? Is it stagnations of the tech stack at these companies?
Thanks for the pointer. I will give it a read later on. If I understood correctly, eBPF is a guard rail for writing relatively bug free code. But it will still run in the processor[0] ring 0 which essentially is the same level as the kernel itself.
Probably a bit yeah. But there is an argument that it is hard to store a lot of chemical energy without abundant oxygen in the environment. Oxygen stores a ton of energy, and it's quite difficult to achieve comparable energy density without it. This is the basic reason why gasoline has so much more energy than batteries, and people are developing batteries that use oxygen from the air to increase energy density. I remember reading in a Wikipedia article that Earth's atmosphere before it became oxygenated would likely not have been able to support multicellular life with energy-intensive things like muscles and complex brains.
But without knowing if Europa has any life at all this is probably putting the cart before the horse.
> Oceanic hydrothermal vents teem with anaerobic life which uses a lot of interesting chemistries instead, e.g. based on sulfur.
Yeah, but none of that anaerobic life is "multicellular life with energy-intensive things like muscles and complex brains." It's all bottom of the food chain bacteria.
It’s not that it needs to be, it’s just that—based on our knowledge of the chemical elements—life based on some combination of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen is by far the most likely.
Other forms are certainly possible, it’s just that they are highly highly unlikely to form and remain stable, and develop into complex intelligent life.
So all of that informs where you should focus your efforts on research and searching.
But none of it is intelligent. Anaerobic processes are drastically slower and less efficient than aerobic ones. I wonder if a functioning brain could even work anaerobically. 20% of our oxygen consumption is done by our brain.
If we find any life at all on Europa, intelligent or otherwise, it proves that earth is not the only planet with life. It’s an obvious conclusion but if we find alien life even in our own solar system that says something about the prevalence of alien life.
There are some multicellular anaerobic organisms, such as a few species of Lorificfera. It is worth noting that they all appear to be descended from aerobic ancestors that lost their ability to process oxygen. Multicellularity is very difficult to evolve, and has only happened a few times.
I had to deal with pediatricians and Neurologists for last couple of years. My general experience is that their training is severely deficient in the empathy. I don't think it should be hard to accommodate it in their training plan.
Farmers (and employees certified/licensed to apply sprays) generally only spray in favourable conditions. Eg. Calm conditions where the output doesn’t go beyond a few meters of the intended swath. Given the cost, it makes little financial sense to waste it on non-target plants.
And while nearly any pesticide/herbicide/fungicide will tell you to suit up and use a respirator, it’s usually because of the (often petroleum derived) volatiles used in the mixture to ensure stability and proper spreading rather than the active ingredient itself.
Glyphosate (RoundUp) for example interacts with a biochemical pathway that doesn’t even exist in humans, yet still suffers from the legacy and cultural entrenchment of a paper that has since been refuted and retracted. The infamous “roundup causes cancer” paper where the author used lines of lab rats that were (intentionally, for use in cancer studies) genetically predisposed to developing tumours.
The volatiles evaporate and break down rapidly, which is why a freshly sprayed field will have an odd aroma for several hours after application. Meanwhile these sprays come with a PHI (post harvest interval), whereby if a producer is following laws and regulations, the active ingredient itself is virtually undetectable at the time of harvest due to UV/heat/microbial degradation.
PHIs are determined empirically by testing sprays across environments and conditions for years before certification, then still including a buffer period to account for outlier conditions where a chemical may persist beyond what was observed.
Because people see "wear standard PPE" in an MSDS and think "it's unsafe if you're not wearing a hazmat suit!" and not "this is safe." Here's the MSDS for good old table salt: https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/21105.htm
Quoting the PPE section:
> Personal Protective Equipment
> Eyes: Wear appropriate protective eyeglasses or chemical safety goggles as described by OSHA's eye and face protection regulations in 29 CFR 1910.133 or European Standard EN166.
> Skin: Wear appropriate protective gloves to prevent skin exposure.
> Clothing: Wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent skin exposure.
> Respirators: A respiratory protection program that meets OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.134 and ANSI Z88.2 requirements or European Standard EN 149 must be followed whenever workplace conditions warrant respirator use.
This is table salt. The thing you keep in a salt shaker on your kitchen table. If even this has "wear PPE" in its section on what to wear for PPE, then you can infer that literally every single chemical will at least advise you to wear something.
Because we need to feed billions of people. Because doing that more efficiently not only saves labour and lives of people who would starve otherwise, but also land as we don't need as much of it, so it can be forests and grasslands and steppe [1]. Currently the most efficient way to grow plants on a massive scale requires using herbicides.
As we need herbicides for industrial agriculture, herbicides need to be judged against other herbicides, not in isolation. Glyphosate is fairly benign compared to other herbicides (compare to [2] for example), it's not "shit".
See people complaining about the rising food prices, just due to increasing labor costs. Definitely won’t be politically popular to make farming even more expensive.
> In modern times, most scarcity problems are supply chain not actual exhaustion, diamond mines and gold not withstanding. Rare earths aren't rare. Uranium isn't rare. We aren't running out of lithium. Erlich/Simons explores the reality of abundance in the earths crust.
Everything eventually becomes rare if not used judiciously. This mindset of unlimited supply is flawed. It leads to the eventual destruction. Probably that's why most ancient civilizations had rules to only take what's needed from the nature.
For example in Western Countries, crabs and lobsters were once seen as "poor man's food". They are now a gourmet luxury item.
> For example in Western Countries, crabs and lobsters were once seen as "poor man's food". They are now a gourmet luxury item.
As an aside, I believe this mostly had to do with refrigeration & tank technology. They need to be kept alive all the way to the consumer. Before that was possible they were only really available to the consumer in a preserved form.
Looks as though it may have stalled a bit since 2015. But before that lobster catch definitely grew a lot.
Obviously with things like lobsters there'll be geographical variations, but I don't think there's any reason to suppose that lobsters have become a luxury good due to scarcity.
Evidence of lobster use comprises midden remains, artwork, artefacts, writings about lobsters, and written sources describing the fishing practices of indigenous peoples.
I can't be the only one that loves a massive untouched midden pile.
> Everything eventually becomes rare if not used judiciously.
Who judges what is "judiciously"?
Doomers have been predicting Peak Oil for more than 50 years, but we keep finding more. Malthusians predicted all sorts of awful things, but we keep growing more food, expanding where we build homes, etc.
> This mindset of unlimited supply is flawed. It leads to the eventual destruction.
The mindset that destruction is around the corner is _rarely_ true and more often impedes development which saves lives and improves quality of life.
Nothing is unlimited. But just as we over-fished lobsters and moved onto other food sources, so we will with everything else. Don't panic. Innovate.
> Nothing is unlimited. But just as we over-fished lobsters and moved onto other food sources, so we will with everything else. Don't panic. Innovate.
While it is true that nothing is unlimited and humans have historically adapted their behavior when resources become scarce, the argument of not panicking and relying solely on innovation to solve resource depletion concerns is overly optimistic and potentially dangerous.
Firstly, the comparison to over-fishing lobsters and moving on to other food sources oversimplifies the issue of resource depletion on a global scale. While localized shifts in consumption patterns are possible, the depletion of critical resources like fossil fuels, freshwater, and certain minerals poses more complex challenges. Merely assuming that innovation will provide an easy solution overlooks the significant time, effort, and investment required to develop and implement sustainable alternatives.
Secondly, relying solely on innovation to address resource depletion ignores the urgency of the issue. Natural resources are not infinite, and some of them, once depleted, cannot be easily replaced. Delaying action in the hope that future innovations will come to the rescue can lead to irreparable damage to the environment and exacerbate existing global challenges like climate change.
Additionally, innovation itself can be a double-edged sword. While it has the potential to create more efficient and sustainable solutions, it can also contribute to resource depletion when not guided by responsible practices. For example, the rapid advancement of technology can lead to increased electronic waste, which is already a significant environmental problem.
Rather than dismissing concerns and promoting blind faith in innovation, a more prudent approach would involve a combination of strategies. We should focus on both responsible resource management, such as conservation and sustainable practices, and continuous innovation to find alternative solutions. Emphasizing a diversified approach can help mitigate the risks associated with resource depletion and foster a more balanced and resilient future.
Innovation is an essential component of addressing the resource depletion. But we must not overlook the severity of the problem and the need for urgent and responsible action. Relying solely on innovation without taking immediate measures to manage resources responsibly can lead to irreversible consequences for the planet and future generations.
Hindu Ayurvedic definitely didn't need to piss in the bottles to not to be fired while enjoying the privilege of working for the greater good of the man[0] in the most democratic country of all countries.
> The eventual abolition of slavery in England was driven directly by Christian beliefs, however much they'd evolved in the ensuing time.
You do need to provide some evidence to support this claim. AFAIK slavery became unnecessary in the industrial era. So it morphed into Indentured servitude. Bible followers didn't hesitate from pillaging the world.
> Women were considered to be "in the image and likeness of God."
Could you quote something from Bible on this topic.
> the Romans didn't care how much you suffered. It was the Roman Empire where Christianity took off first.
Christianity tool off when Roman king understood it's political power and decided to use it. He then forced it down the throats of unorganised pagans who got eliminated brutally.
> But the tendency for many donors to use such legal instruments for self-glorification, personally advantageous politicking, and the conservation of family wealth did little to help larger numbers of the destitute in growing Roman imperial cities.
If that is the case then why GDP of Europe was declining?
> "His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier.
Read any Hindu upnishads especially Bhagwad Gita[0]. Chapter 16 especially defines the code of conduct for good peoples. Here is the opening statement.
श्रीभगवानुवाच |
अभयं सत्त्वसंशुद्धिर्ज्ञानयोगव्यवस्थिति: |
दानं दमश्च यज्ञश्च स्वाध्यायस्तप आर्जवम् || 1||
अहिंसा सत्यमक्रोधस्त्याग: शान्तिरपैशुनम् |
दया भूतेष्वलोलुप्त्वं मार्दवं ह्रीरचापलम् || 2||
तेज: क्षमा धृति: शौचमद्रोहोनातिमानिता |
भवन्ति सम्पदं दैवीमभिजातस्य भारत || 3||
renunciation, peacefulness, restraint from fault-finding, compassion toward all living beings, absence of covetousness, gentleness, modesty, and lack of fickleness; vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, bearing enmity toward none, and absence of vanity.
Bible on the other hand is directed responsibility for the dark ages in which people were tortured for having different beliefs, women were burned for witch craft, believers in other gods were eliminated brutally. Scientists were killed for stating their theories. Remember Bruno was burned on stake for merely saying earth revolves around the sun. World history is filled with divine crimes sanctioned by Bible. There are hundreds of examples to read from history. For example Goa inquisition in which is Indians were tortured to death not because they didn't believe in Jesus. But because they also continued to believe in the gods they used to worship[1].
There are enough references in the Bible. One only needs to read it critically.
I am simply responding to your assertion that world before Christianity was a dog eat dog uncivilized wasteland and Jesus taught it morally.
On the contrary, before the
advent of Christianity Greek and Romans had dialogs on various topics. IFAIK Science and Philosophy came to a stand still for a thousand years till renaissance happened. If you evidence to the contrary, please do share some references.
Bible divided the world in believers and heathen so claiming it promoted universal brotherhood is laughable. World was never a perfect place, Christianity made it worse.
May be this is why Bhagwat Gita suggests living like a Yogi. Dispatch all your duties, do everything but never get attached to anything, not even your kids.
Those steadfast in karm yog, always think, “I am not the doer,” even while engaged in seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, moving, sleeping, breathing, speaking, excreting, grasping, and opening or closing the eyes. With the light of divine knowledge, they see that it is only the material senses that are moving amongst their objects.
Ancient Indians divided the life into 4 phases namely Brahmcharya(learning phase), Grihasth(family life), Sanyas(detachment), Vanprasth(leaving for Jungle).Last phase emphasised on living and dying alone in the Jungle away from family and fame. Modern Indians have lost these messages primarily because they have stopped reading.
I can understand your pain. I too recently lost a loved one who passed away much young. Now I seek refuse in this book. I feel ashamed that I didn't read it despite being a Hindu till I turned 40.
You can refer to the following link. True philosophy begins at shloka number 2.11. However, I will recommend reading from the beginning to understand the context.
So IMHO isn't it time to rethink this idea of putting every single shit into the kernel space?
In other words Linus won then, and its now time to think about Tanenbaum too.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deb...