We exhale CO2 lets kill some humans off as well since we hurt the atmosphere.
We would eventually have to if human respiration were the only significant source of CO2 emissions. It'd be an ugly option though, kill a few to save many.
Thankfully we have other options available to us, like not burning coal for electricity. That has the added advantage of reducing mercury pollution as well as not being the option where we murder a bunch of people. A win-win.
I propose we build a time machine and all go back in time when CO2 levels were lower. We can pass this problem off onto some future generation, just like prior generations have tried to pass it onto us.
And the halting problem can potentially be solved too.
I believe it has been proven not to be solvable for general cases. As there is a simple example where halting is indeterminate so we know that the general solution doesn't exist.
Tell you what, lets wait until the potential is achieved before assuming that it will be achieved.
You overlooked the hedge word in my statement. Words like potentially, maybe, or might, indicate a lack of commitment by the speaker. In this case it because I feel there is a lack of concrete proof, and not because I'm trying to use weasel words to make vague statements.
Android OS builds run about 300 GB each. And I usually have to track 3 trees. Builds go massively faster if I'm on an SSD, so my most active development goes there. You'd think a Fortune 500 company would buy every developer a massive multi-terabyte SSD, but part of our success is not spending money until we absolutely have to (or so I assume). I managed to get a 512GB drive, and that's how I and most other developers have been functioning for the last 3 years. The difference in built time on HDD and SSD is about 2.5 hours versus 75 minutes. Is developer time worth the price of an SSD? Sure. But I don't sit there doing nothing waiting for my builds to complete, so it's hard to say that the time is really lost. It's more like added latency than wasted time.
Humans are unlikely to improve at driving. Software can potentially be improved on. That's not the same as saying today's software is safer than a human though.
be friendly and patient, be welcoming, be considerate, be respectful, be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others, and when we disagree, try to understand why.
The first 5 of those really conflicts with the traditions of compiler development. My experiences have always been a bunch of very intelligent people screaming at each other and aggressively trying to demonstrate their rightness and technical superiority. (I've never be in the LLVM community, so I don't know how it compares)
It's more than waiving dicks around. It's about showing who has the biggest brain. It's sort of a cross between a meritocracy and Lord of the Flies. It's probably not healthy, nor the most practical way to operate. But I do see the behavior in various degrees in many projects that are technical, specialized, and isolated from the rest of the industry.
if you have a problem with it get elected to Parliament and make them stop.
I do have a problem with it, but it's ridiculous that you think my only option is to somehow take charge charge of another country's political process.
For example, one alternative is I could point out the problems with the situation. Maybe even write an essay or have a rational debate about it. Maybe people could say something insightful about one side or the other.
Or I guess people could crank everything to far extremes, try to dismiss anything that doesn't immediately lead to the desired conclusion, and we can all just collectively fuck off.
Parliament is not a court room. Being summoned to court is not at all the same as being summoned to face UK Parliament or the US Senate. Certainly we use similar words like hearing, trial, discovery, inquriy, testimony, and others in these things. But please don't confuse them as being identical in process and purpose.
and I answered the rest in my earlier post. (I misspoke when I said Directive instead of Act because EU has a similarly named DPD)
Call me a cynic but I feel we're seeing political theater rather than justice at work. And I don't think this is a "mistake" on my part.
The UK Data protection directive is mostly about not transferring inappropriate risk to users and restricts what sort of things are enforcable an in EULA. It's not a comprehensive privacy law. A data breach does not automatically make a business like Facebook liable for damages under UK DPD. If they have taken reasonable security precautions, which can often be argued that they are no worse than others in the industry, then the consequences should be pretty minimal for FB.
What is more applicable is the UK Consumer Rights Act (2015). And Facebook's lack of disclosure is potentially an issue.
it's not like it's been a secret UK legislators have wanted to talk to him.
If they are anything like the US Senate, they wanted to do so on their terms and not his. Much of their behavior is about scoring political points.
Who'd have though being a major figure in an global business would require lots of meetings with people you don't really want to talk to?:rolleyes:
There is a difference between a business obligation, political obligation, and a legal obligation. If I am legally obligated to present myself at the whim of any world government, and doing so means I've violated that government's laws and will be barred from future entry, then that's pretty unreasonable. Certainly within their sovereign power. But it is right? is it fair? Does it accomplish a goddamn thing?
Make some laws. Kill Facebook's business. Maybe Zuckerberg should have volunteered more information up front. I don't really care though. Apply the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to the entire world and or shut up and accept that without legislation businesses will be buying and selling personal information. You can't simply decide you don't like something someone has done and make a bunch of demands. (well you CAN but we shouldn't take you or the UK Parliament seriously)
Your analogy requires some laws to have been broken.
Charge him with a crime. Extradite him. There are real processes in place for criminals that us normal non-rich people endure.
Except this isn't about a crime. This is about political showmanship. Each government that failed to protect its citizenry from businesses Facebook gets to try and save face by summoning Zuck and trying to shift the blame. Fail to regulate your markets properly and suffer from assholes trying to make a buck at your citizenry's expense.
The privacy laws in the US, UK, CA, and many other first world countries is a joke and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Publicly yelling at Zuckerberg is not going to do much other than coddle the emotions of voters. It's a fine distraction so we don't realize where the failure really lies.
No company can keep its users data safe, as has been proven by the endless parade of personal data leak disclosures that we have been seeing.
If that's true. Then they shouldn't have the data.
The only way to keep the data safe is to delete it.
I think that's what legislature is trying to figure out. If GDPR-like laws can protect people without choking off all commerce. (obviously yes, but I think it's prudent for legislature to do the due diligence).
But let's be realistic here. Someone like Zuck shows up to Parliament it's going to be so politicians can give him a dressing down like some kind of circus act for the masses. "Look at me, I'm your MP and I'm tough on these big rich tech guys. Remember to support me in the next election!"
Zuckerberg et al. don't hesitate to play tax games among all these foreign countries.
Sadly tax games are often quite legal. And in the less reputable countries, discreetly encouraged.
Zuckerberg et al. don't hesitate to cash the checks they earn from the UK and elsewhere.
Same can be said of GlaxoSmithKline, Lloyds Bank, Virgin Atlantic, Dyson, etc. Globalization is current reality and not illegal.
Yet let any of these countries demand Zuckerberg appear before investigators and all the sudden everything is "unrealistic" or "unreasonable."
That's a false equivalence. Something like the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce summoning CEO Tony Hayward to discuss the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster is not equivalent to Facebook doing something that people don't like were there does not yet exist proper legislation or guidelines.
You know what? Fuck Zuckerberg.
The guy is a tool. And his business is a parasite. But I don't see anything obviously illegal. Maybe we should legislate his business out of existence. But we don't really need to summon him to ask his opinion on if we should destroy his business or not.
Does Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden each get a turn summoning a CEO for questions?
It's a big unrealistic to expect someone to visit every country in a timely manner. If they wish to speak with company representatives available in their respective region that's certainly reasonable and I'm sure can be arranged promptly.
Earlier in the thread I already rejected asceticism as a debatable point. Unless I can be convinced that my premise is flawed I won't discuss it further.
Slashdot Mirror
We exhale CO2 lets kill some humans off as well since we hurt the atmosphere.
We would eventually have to if human respiration were the only significant source of CO2 emissions. It'd be an ugly option though, kill a few to save many.
Thankfully we have other options available to us, like not burning coal for electricity. That has the added advantage of reducing mercury pollution as well as not being the option where we murder a bunch of people. A win-win.
I propose we build a time machine and all go back in time when CO2 levels were lower. We can pass this problem off onto some future generation, just like prior generations have tried to pass it onto us.
If this was Stack Overflow, I would have selected this as the best answer.
And the halting problem can potentially be solved too.
I believe it has been proven not to be solvable for general cases. As there is a simple example where halting is indeterminate so we know that the general solution doesn't exist.
Tell you what, lets wait until the potential is achieved before assuming that it will be achieved.
You overlooked the hedge word in my statement. Words like potentially, maybe, or might, indicate a lack of commitment by the speaker. In this case it because I feel there is a lack of concrete proof, and not because I'm trying to use weasel words to make vague statements.
Not much I can do if people choose to ignore the little "say the things we like to hear." part.
Android OS builds run about 300 GB each. And I usually have to track 3 trees. Builds go massively faster if I'm on an SSD, so my most active development goes there. You'd think a Fortune 500 company would buy every developer a massive multi-terabyte SSD, but part of our success is not spending money until we absolutely have to (or so I assume). I managed to get a 512GB drive, and that's how I and most other developers have been functioning for the last 3 years.
The difference in built time on HDD and SSD is about 2.5 hours versus 75 minutes. Is developer time worth the price of an SSD? Sure. But I don't sit there doing nothing waiting for my builds to complete, so it's hard to say that the time is really lost. It's more like added latency than wasted time.
I'll tell you since you clearly don't understand how the system works.
I'm either bad at satire or you don't understand how it works.
In the US we define experts as those who are paid by industry leaders to say the things we like to hear.
Humans are unlikely to improve at driving. Software can potentially be improved on. That's not the same as saying today's software is safer than a human though.
A self-driving car's software has the priority to minimize litigation of its creating company.
I've got at least 100 hours into Klondike solitaire, if I can include the times I've played with physical cards.
It does however have the authority to issue a legal summons
And I never questioned that.
You gave your opinion - fine, but it was wrong.
This has been more about you putting words in my mouth.
Don't try and lecture me on a topic
Seems like your projecting. And on that note I'm out.
be friendly and patient,
be welcoming,
be considerate,
be respectful,
be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others, and
when we disagree, try to understand why.
The first 5 of those really conflicts with the traditions of compiler development. My experiences have always been a bunch of very intelligent people screaming at each other and aggressively trying to demonstrate their rightness and technical superiority. (I've never be in the LLVM community, so I don't know how it compares)
It's more than waiving dicks around. It's about showing who has the biggest brain. It's sort of a cross between a meritocracy and Lord of the Flies. It's probably not healthy, nor the most practical way to operate. But I do see the behavior in various degrees in many projects that are technical, specialized, and isolated from the rest of the industry.
Z80 is 100% immune. Time to dust off the old TRS-80.
I thought I accidentally went to Reddit.
if you have a problem with it get elected to Parliament and make them stop.
I do have a problem with it, but it's ridiculous that you think my only option is to somehow take charge charge of another country's political process.
For example, one alternative is I could point out the problems with the situation. Maybe even write an essay or have a rational debate about it. Maybe people could say something insightful about one side or the other.
Or I guess people could crank everything to far extremes, try to dismiss anything that doesn't immediately lead to the desired conclusion, and we can all just collectively fuck off.
And my point is that my house is already in order.
Parliament is not a court room. Being summoned to court is not at all the same as being summoned to face UK Parliament or the US Senate. Certainly we use similar words like hearing, trial, discovery, inquriy, testimony, and others in these things. But please don't confuse them as being identical in process and purpose.
and I answered the rest in my earlier post. (I misspoke when I said Directive instead of Act because EU has a similarly named DPD)
Call me a cynic but I feel we're seeing political theater rather than justice at work. And I don't think this is a "mistake" on my part.
Just a layperson's 2 cents,
The UK Data protection directive is mostly about not transferring inappropriate risk to users and restricts what sort of things are enforcable an in EULA. It's not a comprehensive privacy law. A data breach does not automatically make a business like Facebook liable for damages under UK DPD. If they have taken reasonable security precautions, which can often be argued that they are no worse than others in the industry, then the consequences should be pretty minimal for FB.
What is more applicable is the UK Consumer Rights Act (2015). And Facebook's lack of disclosure is potentially an issue.
it's not like it's been a secret UK legislators have wanted to talk to him.
If they are anything like the US Senate, they wanted to do so on their terms and not his. Much of their behavior is about scoring political points.
Who'd have though being a major figure in an global business would require lots of meetings with people you don't really want to talk to? :rolleyes:
There is a difference between a business obligation, political obligation, and a legal obligation. If I am legally obligated to present myself at the whim of any world government, and doing so means I've violated that government's laws and will be barred from future entry, then that's pretty unreasonable. Certainly within their sovereign power. But it is right? is it fair? Does it accomplish a goddamn thing?
Make some laws. Kill Facebook's business. Maybe Zuckerberg should have volunteered more information up front. I don't really care though. Apply the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to the entire world and or shut up and accept that without legislation businesses will be buying and selling personal information. You can't simply decide you don't like something someone has done and make a bunch of demands. (well you CAN but we shouldn't take you or the UK Parliament seriously)
Your analogy requires some laws to have been broken.
Charge him with a crime. Extradite him. There are real processes in place for criminals that us normal non-rich people endure.
Except this isn't about a crime. This is about political showmanship. Each government that failed to protect its citizenry from businesses Facebook gets to try and save face by summoning Zuck and trying to shift the blame. Fail to regulate your markets properly and suffer from assholes trying to make a buck at your citizenry's expense.
The privacy laws in the US, UK, CA, and many other first world countries is a joke and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Publicly yelling at Zuckerberg is not going to do much other than coddle the emotions of voters. It's a fine distraction so we don't realize where the failure really lies.
No company can keep its users data safe, as has been proven by the endless parade of personal data leak disclosures that we have been seeing.
If that's true. Then they shouldn't have the data.
The only way to keep the data safe is to delete it.
I think that's what legislature is trying to figure out. If GDPR-like laws can protect people without choking off all commerce. (obviously yes, but I think it's prudent for legislature to do the due diligence).
But let's be realistic here. Someone like Zuck shows up to Parliament it's going to be so politicians can give him a dressing down like some kind of circus act for the masses. "Look at me, I'm your MP and I'm tough on these big rich tech guys. Remember to support me in the next election!"
Zuckerberg et al. don't hesitate to play tax games among all these foreign countries.
Sadly tax games are often quite legal. And in the less reputable countries, discreetly encouraged.
Zuckerberg et al. don't hesitate to cash the checks they earn from the UK and elsewhere.
Same can be said of GlaxoSmithKline, Lloyds Bank, Virgin Atlantic, Dyson, etc. Globalization is current reality and not illegal.
Yet let any of these countries demand Zuckerberg appear before investigators and all the sudden everything is "unrealistic" or "unreasonable."
That's a false equivalence. Something like the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce summoning CEO Tony Hayward to discuss the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster is not equivalent to Facebook doing something that people don't like were there does not yet exist proper legislation or guidelines.
You know what? Fuck Zuckerberg.
The guy is a tool. And his business is a parasite. But I don't see anything obviously illegal. Maybe we should legislate his business out of existence. But we don't really need to summon him to ask his opinion on if we should destroy his business or not.
What's that? They haven't?
Perhaps the commonwealth countries know how to queue.
Does Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden each get a turn summoning a CEO for questions?
It's a big unrealistic to expect someone to visit every country in a timely manner. If they wish to speak with company representatives available in their respective region that's certainly reasonable and I'm sure can be arranged promptly.
Earlier in the thread I already rejected asceticism as a debatable point. Unless I can be convinced that my premise is flawed I won't discuss it further.