Hah, I left actual silicon process engineering a long time ago, but I worked on the early 68020 at 2um and then early submicron in R&D. That was 40 years ago and the process now 1000x smaller (1 million more transistors). It's pretty amazing... even if it does seem like fab investment costs have grown so much that we're nearing the end of profitable scaling.
It's a book about galactic Jihad for God's sake. Of course they are going to "deflavor" it. I'm of the opinion the entire production is to take narrative control over this amazing work of literature. You can not mistake who are the bad guys and who are the good guys :)
Dune and its follow up volumes are visionary fiction.
The conversation in this (overall) thread is dancing around issues of experience,competence, and maturity. And the age ceiling forcefully pushed by people like Paul Graham of this very HN. When your entire engineering team are “senior developers” with 3 years of experience (lol) and most don’t even know what a “linker” does, the fundamental feature of the wunder architecture is obscure and not understood.
Building effective monoliths absolutely demands competent DB experts, schema designers & developers. The problem that microservices solved was the sparsity of this sort of talent when demand overshot supply by orders of magnitude.
(In a way the monoloth vs microservices debates are echoes of the famous impedance mismatch between object graph runtimes and relational tables and DBMSs.)
the thought occurs that Jane was obsessing over such matters as a disempowered member of her society. another thought is that romantic nonsense was a mind virus created by the elite to psychologically knee-cap the middle class.
What a bizarre notion. Which elite exactly do you think are responsible? Love stories are arrested at least as far back as ancient Greece, so clearly romantic nonsense pre-dates any current elites.
plot thickens: the people who own the banks fund the dumb people who borrow from the banks to buy guns from the MIC who the very same people who own the banks and the press also own.
the word you are looking for here is ‘regime change’. it is true that it is unreasonable to bring up ‘historic matter’, that is conduct in the ‘prior regime’, to discuss the merits of the current regime. Germany suffered total defeat in WW2 and so its “1944” prison conditions mean nothing. UK arguably can claim “a win” after the end of USSR (the only possible ‘regime change’ we can consider as relevant matter) and so ‘regime vindicated!’ and thus conduct of UK against Irish resistance is relevant as evidence.
I'd really like to know: You think Margaret Thatcher and Gordon Brown are the same "regime"? Can democracies in this view ever change? Has there been any regime change in England since 1066? (not trolling)
This is an interesting point but imo ignores the facilities afforded by an RDBMS and possibly even misunderstands the notion of fully hosting applications on a RDBMS.
Some sort of check pointing is inevitable for recoverable state-less systems (that naturally react to a stream of data/queries) and that ultimately is delegated to either a streaming/messaging (e.g. kafka) or a database (of some sort).
Components of an application hosted in a RDBMS are tables, indexes, views, and code. The code is stateless — they’re just functions. Application state is in tables. Replication is supposed to handle your more hairy operational concerns. What’s the problem?
> Replication is supposed to handle your more hairy operational concerns. What’s the problem?
Replication is slow, and requires each node to have lot of resources, and generally prefers nodes to be realtively homogenous. But for non-trivial applications replicating the whole application (or some shard of it) to all nodes is simply impractical, and it is useful to be able to scale and adjust different parts of system independently.
For example on AWS Lambda you can scale out up to 1000 new instances per 10 seconds (and scale in at similar rate). Can you imagine any DMBS replication working very effectively at such circumstances?
clearly related to measure (in the abstract sense) and harmonics of natural numbers. what has fascinated me for years has been the sense that we need to rebuild number up using complex numbers and harmonic measures. what we get are still numbers but no longer this monotonic sequence which is a ‘lazy’ or ‘simple minded’ way of ordering N. when ordered by harmonic measures of primes, N itself has structure (beyond a simple incrementing list) but the order is strictly limited to measures provided (rational) with the prime roots of the measure. (an example is the ‘primorial’ harmonic measure of {2, 3, 5} - think rings).
in these harmonic measures, ‘gaps’ between various levels naturally would arise from simple (x) op. For non-relative prime members, the mapping n x n is all over the place but for relative prime members, n x n always results in another relative prime in the ring, so, naturally those ‘lines’ are ‘stable’ and ‘in phase’ so ‘manifested’.
in other words, there is stuff in the R realm — in between ‘quanta’ — but we’re not allowed, capable, ever, of seeing or measureing it.[edit: as in they ‘exist’ in the same realm that (sqrt -1) i exists in — an unseen realm we call ‘imaginary’..]
It remains a possibility, not subject to fascile dismissal, that ‘our world’ is a side-effect of a self reflecting mind. You will note on serious reflection that all you know and experience is ‘image’ and ‘imagination’. Now that there is a ‘correspondence’ to an ‘outside reality’ is only obtained when there are 2 or more of ‘us sentients’ and we compare notes using ‘language’ (with all its limitations and to be understood in its maximal sense & associated limitations, including ‘expression’, ‘communication’ and ‘reading’).
> Biology is applied physics
Not all applications of physical laws result in living forms. Physics can be applied to understand (some aspects) of biological entities given that they are (conceptuallyminimally in part) made of physical stuff subject to governing regime of matter we study as physics.
It’s like love. You fall in love, you fall in love with God. The rest is just garbled mumbling to yourself and others. And like love, it is your experience of it and your view of your beloved that matters, who cares what others think. This is how it is with actual belief. You experience something that shatters the illusion. Once that happens, you belong to God bothered people. And yes, those who have never experienced love also think love is “just chemical processes in the body”. But it’s not, otherwise they’d bottle that chemical process and make a zillion selling it. (They try with drugs but is just ain’t the same thing, you know?)
If falling in love with God conveys truth/reality, then how do you reconcile two people who are both "in love with God" but have incompatible beliefs about God?
I know a person who fell in love with a woman that didn't exist. Person A (my friend) was straight. Person B was gay and fell in love with Person A, and then created Person C (fictitious person) with the hopes that Person A would grow to love Person C, and eventually Person B would tell the truth but that Person A's love was pure enough that he didn't care about the deception and wanted to be with Person B.
Hell of a story, but the reason I mention it is because Person A falling in love with Person C didn't make Person C real. How does that work with God?
you do not have beliefs about the one you love. seeing truth/reality is when you stop cheating on the one you love. so love becomes real when your hearts sees clear. and since this is not “fiction” but rather the Reality of your Subjective Experience that is the only thing you ‘know’ for a ‘near at hand, within sight, felt by heart’. Love always tames Reason. whether imaginal love, temporal love, or divine love. The former are shattered when they are subjected to ‘external reality’.
The acid test of true love for God is that Reality confirms it.
This strikes close to home. Until you've experienced love, you cannot understand it. Doubly so for the purest forms of love, love above human love.
I wager we avoid that kind of love because it boils down to "sacrifice yourself for the good that's outside you". In human terms it's something like parents sacrificing themselves for their children, or friends sacrificing themselves for their friends[1]. Losing something painfully that cannot be replaced in the world. A world where we have all the time, money, internet to distract us from hardship & suffering that brings us closer to goodness.
I personally didn't believe in God until I received a tiny part of his love for myself.
don’t you believe that for a second. God does not deal with tiny graces. it’s just a process and then it becomes overwhelming and all resistance is gone. all of it.
that doesn’t provide the real thing - it is a ‘Fire’ destroys the person. God’s Love is a ‘Light’ builds you up and makes you strong and vital. You really have to experience it - and read Pascal’s wager in the light of his expressing a subjective personal understanding of spiritual experience not a logical formula for converting non-experienced. (Pascal got a hit of Love from God not a hit of opium.)
How would you know without experiencing it? The experience of joy someone else gets from anything- physical activity, their own religion, love, drugs (however fleeting) is as valid as yours.
it’s a matter of duration not external evaluation. i say the “real thing” since that comes to you rather than you affecting a state of mind-body. there is no street corner for someone to deal you that drug. this is the fundamental difference that is discernible from without. you can see the source of one type of bliss (and you can buy it) and the other one is subject to endless debate except by those who are blissed /out!
