So I get it, bitcoin is using massive amounts of energy to power it. But how much energy is used by other currencies?
Compared to bitcoin, money uses negligible power per user. BTC is using a ton of power and its usage is so small it's not even a rounding error.
You're comparing purchases performed by 7B people (money) to purchases performed by a few thousand. In this case it makes more sense to consider the energy used per person, and BTC is horribly inefficient compared to money.
Don't know what you are talking about. Christians did wholesale mass-murder in the crusades, for example, in pretty much the mode you describe. There is no larger religion that has not done atrocities and justified them afterwards.
Because some group of murderous bastards did something 800 years ago you think we shouldn't be denouncing any current group of murderous bastards who does it now?
What most people fail to realise is that multiple and repeated surveys found that the majority of muslims *worldwide* support Sharia law.
When you refer to "moderate muslims" you are still talking about people who would ban gay relationships and use the force of law to punish homosexuals. The number of christians who support those sorts of laws is vanshingly small.
Stop apologising for homophobia. You should examine why you need to go back hundreds of years to find anything comparative in primitiveness to Islam.
How is preventing people from getting out on bond HELPING ANYONE?
Not getting ads for a service doesn't mean you won't get the service. You'll still be able to find bail bond places via Google, but you won't have ads popping up for them when you are searching for other stuff.
Your jailed have internet? Nice planet you live on.
Just move the "sensitivity" slider a little to the left.
Actually, it's kind of terrifying that all that stands between life and death is a sensitivity setting.
There is no "correct" setting for sensitivity because the software is broken. Where it is right now is both "incorrectly classifying a safe situation as dangerous" AS WELL AS "incorrectly classifying a dangerous situation as safe" (probabilities apply).
Which way do you want the slider to move? It's already too far from the correct position for both classifications.
As a matter of fact, I do. A lot more than you, at any rate.
Which version of gcc would you like the bugs for?
You claimed that every new release of GCC brings more codegen bugs:
Every single new release brings more code-generation bugs
So, please, list the codegen bugs you claimed were added between every single release. In other words, for each of the releases listed below, please fill in the new codegen bugs that you found in that release. Since you also claimed that each release has more bugs that the previous one, your list should either grow or contain only bugs that were never fixed in subsequent releases.
So, here is the list; for each one fill in at least one codegen bug that was introduced in that release:
The reason I know that you don't know wht you're talking about is because I actually follow the issues on some of the gcc mailing lists, especially the codegen bugs.
If you don't know what you are doing when using GCC, you're not suddenly going to become competent by switching to LLVM.
You made the claim, now provide the evidence. Consider it an opportunity to show off how well you know your toolchains.
for example are VC++ 6.0,.NET, and the current Visual Studio
Even better, since you're on VC++, let's limit the codegen bugs to those targets that are supported by VC++ too. After all, you can't have been inconvenienced by bugs on a platform you don't use.
I shall be sure to quote this thread back at you every opportunity I get.
"Are you tired of your existing compilers? Want fresh new language features and better optimizations?"
"Then consider ditching gcc and going with LLVM". Is that how the quote ends?
I can't wait for that festing pile of bloat and compiler bugs to finally die, I really can't. Every single new release brings more code-generation bugs that we have to work around in our product, we're slowly working away at The Mgt. to get them to simply require LLVM or some other compiler that doesn't break things on every release, and whose maintainers will actually respond to bug reports rather than closing them all with WONTFIX, "if you squint at the spec from just the right angle and use your imagination then this showstopper bug is actually permitted".
I'm calling you a liar on all of those. The biggest difference is that LLVM is trendy and GCC is not.
very single new release brings more code-generation bugs that we have to work around in our product,
Example? (I know you don't have an example of consecutive releases with different codegen bugs, but asking at least makes it clear to other readers that you don't know what you are talking about).
"Nature" is a shitty model on which to run a compassionate society or government.
We aren't running it on a "Nature" model, are we now? A "Nature" model would have the poor people die, and nowhere did I propose that.
Unless you want slower runners to be eaten for lunch, and I mean literally.
I didn't propose that either - I said that there are limited services available to fill the demand and that it doesn't make sense for society to harm itself by making the contributers wait instead of making the non-contributors wait.
If someone has to wait anyway, society is better off by making the non-contributor wait. You are bashing a strawman here, because I did not propose allowing the non-contributors to die and yet you are arguing as if that is what I said.
There are limited services. Allowing contributors to use their money to jump the queue is not the same as preventing non-contributors from receiving healthcare.
If someone has to wait, why should it be the contributor? I'm waiting to hear your argument.
you've been infected with the US idea that wealth == value to society
No, I'm just pointing out how things *are*. If society values teachers then they can pay more and get more teachers. If society wants fewer lawyers, then they can pay less and get fewer lawyers.
What I think about it is irrelevant because that is how things are. Of all the systems that determine how much of each role is needed in society, then one that lets society self-organise seems to work the best. The central planners who decide what's best for everyone, and how they receive it, and how much they receive of it... they have the worst societies that their people are actively running away from.
That $25k/yr teacher? Say she pays 20% effective tax rate. You're left with $20k/yr. Housing? $600/mo or $7200/hr. Down to $12800. Car insurance. $1000/yr, down to $11800. Food, $200/mo or $2400/yr. Down to $9400. Utilities in Arizona, $200/mo, down to $7000. Any student loans? 10% of income, $2500/yr, down to $5500. Car repairs/lease, $2000/yr, down to $3500. Clothing, $1000/yr, down to $2500 for insurance and anything outside of bare necessities. And insurance deductibles in the US aren't zero.
And yet you think that her time off from work (and time off from getting paid) should be equally probable with someone who doesn't provide society with anything! You just pointed out how close the the bone she is living, yet you think it's fine for her to lose a months income because she's behind someone in the queue? Her financial situation worsens with SPH waiting times; it doesn't get better.
The point you keep missing is that society doesn't notice and is not impacted when a non-contributor has to wait for a month. Society is harmed when a contributor has to wait for a month. Placing both contributors and non-contributors in the same queue harms society, so in non-centrally-planned societies, society naturally self-adjusts to minimise harm done to it.
Do the math before you talk how great the US system is.
You should read carefully instead of replying hastily. I never said it is great. I specifically said it has its own problems. I said that I prefer a system that results in a contributor being able to jump the queue, with bigger contributions resulting in larger jumps. Is it perfect? Well, no - society frequently values things highly while I think those things are worthless (sports stars come to mind) and society frequently values things low while I think those things are valuable (teachers come to mind), however for the clear majority of people their value to society is in the form of their paycheck.
For 99 out of every 100 people, increasing their contribution to society increases their ability to jump the queue. You are insisting on setting policies for the 100 based on the single outlier and not on the 99 normals.
No, blaming the driver for not paying attention to the fucking road is common fucking sense.
I really hate it when I accidentally respond to the anti-science crowd. Go read up on all the hundreds studies and trials in determining the correlation between engagement and inattentiveness.
You're toeing the Christian prosperity gospel line
For the decade and more that I've been on slashdot I've always been open about being an atheist. Search my posting history; you'll see it.
I do not get to decide what society values. Seriously, I don't. However (and this is the important point you missed in your rush to virtue signal) placing workers interests ahead of non-workers interests does not mean that you are denying non-workers any health care.
I like having health services delivered in minutes, so I pay for that and the current system allows me to do so. If society values my contribution so little that I could not pay to avoid a 1 month wait while someone who *is* valued more pays so they don't have to wait, whose fault is that?
In your haste to respond you are ignoring the fact that the $25k teacher should be allowed to pay for jumping the queue, and on $25k a health insurance is affordable enough to skip the queue.
This only becomes an issue when you have people with no health insurance nor any productive value to offer society, compete for services with productive people.
It does not make sense to penalise the society by forcing all its productive members into the same queue. Sure, you can point to outliers (sports stars, for example), but the full clear majority of people are working people who provide some sort of value in order to get paid. They aren't sports stars, CEOs and celebrities. If they stopped from providing that value it is society that suffers, whereas if you make a welfare recipient wait a month society won't even notice.
Given your welfare recipient vs active member example, who says the welfare recipient, if they were in better health, won't be able to work and contribute?
I didn't say they wouldn't, I said they aren't. Given a contributing member of society and a non-contributing member of society, it makes sense that the contributors are sent back to work as soon as possible.
Having everyone go into the same queue is inefficient.
Treating everyone equally is a good thing -- human life shouldn't be valued on how much money people make. Another example. Should a teacher in Arizona making $25,000/yr be considered less valuable than some roided-up sports star making $10,000,000 a year?
Firstly, what I think about the sports star and the teacher is irrelevant - society currently values the sports star more and that's the way it is. Would you prefer that the $25k teacher be away from work for a month because they're waiting in a queue for health services, or would you rather a welfare recipient wait in a queue for a month?
Secondly, I did not say that human life should be valued according to how much people make, I said that the members of society who hold value should be allowed to use that value to jump the queue. In practice the $25k teacher can afford enough health insurance to jump the queue over the welfare recipient, even if only slightly. The $10m sports star can also jump the queue, but only up to a point because even if every millionaire jumped the queue, there are still more service providers than millionaires so all they would do is push back the service by a day.
The sad fact is that there is a limited number of health services hence there is a queue for those services. How do you schedule who goes first? First come, first served? Urgency? Payment?
For health services we use payment, with urgency overriding it. I think it works fine that way.
A wait of 21 weeks to see the surgeon? In non-SPH country I got an appt for a surgeon the day after I saw the GP.
I spoke to a candian recently who waited two weeks for an MRI. Apparently that is normal. I waited 30 minutes for the MRI after seeing the neurosurgeon, and four days later I had my operation.
Did it cost? Certainly, but that's what my medical insurance is for and they covered it almost fully. The co-pay was small enough that I didn't care about it.
SPH sounds like a good idea on paper. In practice it reduces all patients to the same level of importance to society. While the capitalistic system may have its problems, as long as society finds you important enough to pay you well, you'll get prioritised over those people who cannot afford top-of-the-range insurance.
I prefer it this way. I don't see why an active and contributing member of society should receive equal priority to a welfare recipient. Give them both healthcare services, and let the one with the money jump the queue, because if they have the money then it means that society found them useful enough to give them money.
There *are* problems that must be fixed with this system, but they won't be fixed with single-payer healthcare.
It's not misnamed, regardless of what you want to think. It's very aptly named. As in, it more or less does what the feature it's named after does for airplanes.
You think airplane autopilots need the pilot to take control in a matter of seconds to avoid a crash?
Unless you've been stuck in a vacuuum your entire life, you'd know that simply specifying something as a requirement does not mean that the requirement is any good.
Monotony and tedium leads to less attentiveness. We've known this for literally decades from studies of factory workers. Turning on the autopilot can reduce the drivers attentiveness. Blaming the resulting inattentiveness on the driver is stupid.
In their last month of reported testing ( November 2017 ) Waymo only had 1 disengagement, in 30+k miles of driving, because the car couldn't understand the behaviour of another car.
The average driver averages 1 accident every 250000km and 500000km, not 1 accident every 30000 miles. This includes the pool of all drivers, by the way: those who are drunk, speeding, texting, phoning, etc while driving.
I'm waiting for SDCs performance to be as good as the average driver.
Slashdot Mirror
NBA viewership is near an all-time high.
In absolute numbers or as a percentage of population? Because last I checked sports viewership is at the lowest rate in decades.
You gotta be fucking kidding me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your micronceptions about statistics is so bad I feel you need to get a medal for it. Honestly, it's hard to be more wrong than you are right now.
So I get it, bitcoin is using massive amounts of energy to power it. But how much energy is used by other currencies?
Compared to bitcoin, money uses negligible power per user. BTC is using a ton of power and its usage is so small it's not even a rounding error.
You're comparing purchases performed by 7B people (money) to purchases performed by a few thousand. In this case it makes more sense to consider the energy used per person, and BTC is horribly inefficient compared to money.
Don't know what you are talking about. Christians did wholesale mass-murder in the crusades, for example, in pretty much the mode you describe. There is no larger religion that has not done atrocities and justified them afterwards.
Because some group of murderous bastards did something 800 years ago you think we shouldn't be denouncing any current group of murderous bastards who does it now?
What most people fail to realise is that multiple and repeated surveys found that the majority of muslims *worldwide* support Sharia law.
When you refer to "moderate muslims" you are still talking about people who would ban gay relationships and use the force of law to punish homosexuals. The number of christians who support those sorts of laws is vanshingly small.
Stop apologising for homophobia. You should examine why you need to go back hundreds of years to find anything comparative in primitiveness to Islam.
Compliant programs write UTF-8 files with a 3byte BOM (marker) at the beginning of the file.
No. Compliant programs *can* use the byte order mark but it's not required for compliance.
Not getting ads for a service doesn't mean you won't get the service. You'll still be able to find bail bond places via Google, but you won't have ads popping up for them when you are searching for other stuff.
Your jailed have internet? Nice planet you live on.
Didn't many of us call this correctly?
Just move the "sensitivity" slider a little to the left.
Actually, it's kind of terrifying that all that stands between life and death is a sensitivity setting.
There is no "correct" setting for sensitivity because the software is broken. Where it is right now is both "incorrectly classifying a safe situation as dangerous" AS WELL AS "incorrectly classifying a dangerous situation as safe" (probabilities apply).
Which way do you want the slider to move? It's already too far from the correct position for both classifications.
Should you name your self driving car? If so, are Christine and Kitt off limits?
ITYM Karr (Knight Automated Roaming Robot) - that was the evil one. Kitt (Knight Industries Two Thousand) was the good one.
(I feel very old now)
Gosh, you know a lot about this, don't you?
As a matter of fact, I do. A lot more than you, at any rate.
Which version of gcc would you like the bugs for?
You claimed that every new release of GCC brings more codegen bugs:
Every single new release brings more code-generation bugs
So, please, list the codegen bugs you claimed were added between every single release. In other words, for each of the releases listed below, please fill in the new codegen bugs that you found in that release. Since you also claimed that each release has more bugs that the previous one, your list should either grow or contain only bugs that were never fixed in subsequent releases.
So, here is the list; for each one fill in at least one codegen bug that was introduced in that release:
GCC 8.1, GCC 7.3, GCC 5.5, GCC 7.2, GCC 6.4, GCC 7.1, GCC 6.3, GCC 6.2, GCC 4.9.4, GCC 5.4, GCC 6.1, GCC 5.3, GCC 5.2, GCC 4.9.3, GCC 4.8.5, GCC 5.1, GCC 4.8.4, GCC 4.9.2, GCC 4.9.1, GCC 4.7.4, GCC 4.8.3, GCC 4.9.0, GCC 4.8.2, GCC 4.8.1, GCC 4.6.4, GCC 4.7.3, GCC 4.8.0, GCC 4.7.2, GCC 4.5.4, GCC 4.7.1, GCC 4.7.0, GCC 4.4.7, GCC 4.6.3, GCC 4.6.2, GCC 4.6.1, GCC 4.3.6, GCC 4.5.3, GCC 4.4.6, GCC 4.6.0, GCC 4.5.2, GCC 4.4.5, GCC 4.5.1, GCC 4.3.5, GCC 4.4.4, GCC 4.5.0, GCC 4.4.3,
The reason I know that you don't know wht you're talking about is because I actually follow the issues on some of the gcc mailing lists, especially the codegen bugs.
If you don't know what you are doing when using GCC, you're not suddenly going to become competent by switching to LLVM.
You made the claim, now provide the evidence. Consider it an opportunity to show off how well you know your toolchains.
for example are VC++ 6.0, .NET, and the current Visual Studio
Even better, since you're on VC++, let's limit the codegen bugs to those targets that are supported by VC++ too. After all, you can't have been inconvenienced by bugs on a platform you don't use.
I shall be sure to quote this thread back at you every opportunity I get.
"Are you tired of your existing compilers? Want fresh new language features and better optimizations?"
"Then consider ditching gcc and going with LLVM". Is that how the quote ends?
I can't wait for that festing pile of bloat and compiler bugs to finally die, I really can't. Every single new release brings more code-generation bugs that we have to work around in our product, we're slowly working away at The Mgt. to get them to simply require LLVM or some other compiler that doesn't break things on every release, and whose maintainers will actually respond to bug reports rather than closing them all with WONTFIX, "if you squint at the spec from just the right angle and use your imagination then this showstopper bug is actually permitted".
I'm calling you a liar on all of those. The biggest difference is that LLVM is trendy and GCC is not.
very single new release brings more code-generation bugs that we have to work around in our product,
Example? (I know you don't have an example of consecutive releases with different codegen bugs, but asking at least makes it clear to other readers that you don't know what you are talking about).
"Nature" is a shitty model on which to run a compassionate society or government.
We aren't running it on a "Nature" model, are we now? A "Nature" model would have the poor people die, and nowhere did I propose that.
Unless you want slower runners to be eaten for lunch, and I mean literally.
I didn't propose that either - I said that there are limited services available to fill the demand and that it doesn't make sense for society to harm itself by making the contributers wait instead of making the non-contributors wait.
If someone has to wait anyway, society is better off by making the non-contributor wait. You are bashing a strawman here, because I did not propose allowing the non-contributors to die and yet you are arguing as if that is what I said.
There are limited services. Allowing contributors to use their money to jump the queue is not the same as preventing non-contributors from receiving healthcare.
If someone has to wait, why should it be the contributor? I'm waiting to hear your argument.
you've been infected with the US idea that wealth == value to society
No, I'm just pointing out how things *are*. If society values teachers then they can pay more and get more teachers. If society wants fewer lawyers, then they can pay less and get fewer lawyers.
What I think about it is irrelevant because that is how things are. Of all the systems that determine how much of each role is needed in society, then one that lets society self-organise seems to work the best. The central planners who decide what's best for everyone, and how they receive it, and how much they receive of it ... they have the worst societies that their people are actively running away from.
That $25k/yr teacher? Say she pays 20% effective tax rate. You're left with $20k/yr. Housing? $600/mo or $7200/hr. Down to $12800. Car insurance. $1000/yr, down to $11800. Food, $200/mo or $2400/yr. Down to $9400. Utilities in Arizona, $200/mo, down to $7000. Any student loans? 10% of income, $2500/yr, down to $5500. Car repairs/lease, $2000/yr, down to $3500. Clothing, $1000/yr, down to $2500 for insurance and anything outside of bare necessities. And insurance deductibles in the US aren't zero.
And yet you think that her time off from work (and time off from getting paid) should be equally probable with someone who doesn't provide society with anything! You just pointed out how close the the bone she is living, yet you think it's fine for her to lose a months income because she's behind someone in the queue? Her financial situation worsens with SPH waiting times; it doesn't get better.
The point you keep missing is that society doesn't notice and is not impacted when a non-contributor has to wait for a month. Society is harmed when a contributor has to wait for a month. Placing both contributors and non-contributors in the same queue harms society, so in non-centrally-planned societies, society naturally self-adjusts to minimise harm done to it.
Do the math before you talk how great the US system is.
You should read carefully instead of replying hastily. I never said it is great. I specifically said it has its own problems. I said that I prefer a system that results in a contributor being able to jump the queue, with bigger contributions resulting in larger jumps. Is it perfect? Well, no - society frequently values things highly while I think those things are worthless (sports stars come to mind) and society frequently values things low while I think those things are valuable (teachers come to mind), however for the clear majority of people their value to society is in the form of their paycheck.
For 99 out of every 100 people, increasing their contribution to society increases their ability to jump the queue. You are insisting on setting policies for the 100 based on the single outlier and not on the 99 normals.
No, blaming the driver for not paying attention to the fucking road is common fucking sense.
I really hate it when I accidentally respond to the anti-science crowd. Go read up on all the hundreds studies and trials in determining the correlation between engagement and inattentiveness.
You're toeing the Christian prosperity gospel line
For the decade and more that I've been on slashdot I've always been open about being an atheist. Search my posting history; you'll see it.
I do not get to decide what society values. Seriously, I don't. However (and this is the important point you missed in your rush to virtue signal) placing workers interests ahead of non-workers interests does not mean that you are denying non-workers any health care.
I like having health services delivered in minutes, so I pay for that and the current system allows me to do so. If society values my contribution so little that I could not pay to avoid a 1 month wait while someone who *is* valued more pays so they don't have to wait, whose fault is that?
In your haste to respond you are ignoring the fact that the $25k teacher should be allowed to pay for jumping the queue, and on $25k a health insurance is affordable enough to skip the queue.
This only becomes an issue when you have people with no health insurance nor any productive value to offer society, compete for services with productive people.
It does not make sense to penalise the society by forcing all its productive members into the same queue. Sure, you can point to outliers (sports stars, for example), but the full clear majority of people are working people who provide some sort of value in order to get paid. They aren't sports stars, CEOs and celebrities. If they stopped from providing that value it is society that suffers, whereas if you make a welfare recipient wait a month society won't even notice.
Given your welfare recipient vs active member example, who says the welfare recipient, if they were in better health, won't be able to work and contribute?
I didn't say they wouldn't, I said they aren't. Given a contributing member of society and a non-contributing member of society, it makes sense that the contributors are sent back to work as soon as possible.
Having everyone go into the same queue is inefficient.
Treating everyone equally is a good thing -- human life shouldn't be valued on how much money people make. Another example. Should a teacher in Arizona making $25,000/yr be considered less valuable than some roided-up sports star making $10,000,000 a year?
Firstly, what I think about the sports star and the teacher is irrelevant - society currently values the sports star more and that's the way it is. Would you prefer that the $25k teacher be away from work for a month because they're waiting in a queue for health services, or would you rather a welfare recipient wait in a queue for a month?
Secondly, I did not say that human life should be valued according to how much people make, I said that the members of society who hold value should be allowed to use that value to jump the queue. In practice the $25k teacher can afford enough health insurance to jump the queue over the welfare recipient, even if only slightly. The $10m sports star can also jump the queue, but only up to a point because even if every millionaire jumped the queue, there are still more service providers than millionaires so all they would do is push back the service by a day.
The sad fact is that there is a limited number of health services hence there is a queue for those services. How do you schedule who goes first? First come, first served? Urgency? Payment?
For health services we use payment, with urgency overriding it. I think it works fine that way.
Then on top of that, you'really paying outrageous taxes for everything, and needed surgeries can take literally years to schedge.
I can't mod because I posted. See my post above: my experience
Free healthcare.
The wait times are insane: see this for a 2017 report.
A wait of 21 weeks to see the surgeon? In non-SPH country I got an appt for a surgeon the day after I saw the GP.
I spoke to a candian recently who waited two weeks for an MRI. Apparently that is normal. I waited 30 minutes for the MRI after seeing the neurosurgeon, and four days later I had my operation.
Did it cost? Certainly, but that's what my medical insurance is for and they covered it almost fully. The co-pay was small enough that I didn't care about it.
SPH sounds like a good idea on paper. In practice it reduces all patients to the same level of importance to society. While the capitalistic system may have its problems, as long as society finds you important enough to pay you well, you'll get prioritised over those people who cannot afford top-of-the-range insurance.
I prefer it this way. I don't see why an active and contributing member of society should receive equal priority to a welfare recipient. Give them both healthcare services, and let the one with the money jump the queue, because if they have the money then it means that society found them useful enough to give them money.
There *are* problems that must be fixed with this system, but they won't be fixed with single-payer healthcare.
It's not misnamed, regardless of what you want to think. It's very aptly named. As in, it more or less does what the feature it's named after does for airplanes.
You think airplane autopilots need the pilot to take control in a matter of seconds to avoid a crash?
Autopilot requires the driver to be attentive.
Unless you've been stuck in a vacuuum your entire life, you'd know that simply specifying something as a requirement does not mean that the requirement is any good.
Monotony and tedium leads to less attentiveness. We've known this for literally decades from studies of factory workers. Turning on the autopilot can reduce the drivers attentiveness. Blaming the resulting inattentiveness on the driver is stupid.
Unless the autopilot feature is actively instigating accidents, it's impossible for it not to be safer.
The autopilot is actively encouraging inattentiveness, so yes, it is possible for the addition of autopilot to increase the accident rate.
Anyone else find it hilarious that an anthropologist is complaining that *other* people's jobs are pointless?
A disengagement is the equivalent of my wife warning me about an approaching object before I see it
No. A disengagement is when the car has to be actively prevented from killing someone.
(What makes you think your characterisation is the correct one? A disengagement is basically the car saying "I dunno").
That's fortunate, since it was your wife's fault.
Human drivers routinely avoid accidents that aren't their fault.
In their last month of reported testing ( November 2017 ) Waymo only had 1 disengagement, in 30+k miles of driving, because the car couldn't understand the behaviour of another car.
The average driver averages 1 accident every 250000km and 500000km, not 1 accident every 30000 miles. This includes the pool of all drivers, by the way: those who are drunk, speeding, texting, phoning, etc while driving.
I'm waiting for SDCs performance to be as good as the average driver.