??? Did you notice that the guy first mentioning "thought experiment" claimed to be a physicist? Moral high ground? Please tell me what "moral high ground" was involved in Einstein's famous "elevator" thought experiment.
I will grant that there are those who misuse the term, but give him the credit for properly using it.
OTOH, "thought experiments" in the area of psychology are, in my experience, so poorly done that they neither demonstrate nor validly support any argument. Some of them do point in interesting directions, but what people believe they will do in a situation is often very different from what they would actually do, and that renders them of at best questionable value, even when well designed.
As you said, "limited experience". That is one (or a few related) schools of psychology. Others, are much more directional.
OTOH, nobody goes around "laying out a few home truths", because that is counter-productive. (Some psychologists don't seem to do better than random, but they all avoid known bad choices...like "laying out a few home truths".)
As the originator of the term, he had the right to define it. But the definition that he created was based not only on his words, but also on his actions.
Under the control of Mussolini the government tried to use minimal force to get its way (i.e., to satisfy the business interests), but if minimal force wouldn't work, he was quite willing to use more.
N.B.: He also created the term "egghead" to describe intellectuals, because his thugs found it so easy to break their heads.
Sorry, but you are confusing existing systems which are called Socialist with Socialism. It's not an unreasonable argument, but Socialism isn't necessarily a government. Local laws permitting individual factories can be Socialist. And there is no guarantee that such a facotry would provide those benefits.
OTOH, both countries and factories can fail whether they are Socialist or Capitalist. There's no inherent guarantee that one is more likely to fail than the other. The fact that there are few successful Socialist factories reflects their low rate of formation, and their high infant mortality (because they often come into existence only when the original, run on a Capitalist basis, is going bankrupt...so it is sold to the workers).
I don't find much validity in the GP's argument, but neither do I in yours. Public health measures are not an inherently socialist feature, even though they are more common and extensive in governments called Socialist. They should sensibly be considered as "investment to maintain the health of the social body upon which the government subsists". That they are considered socialist is due largely to the work of the American Medical Association, which had a vested interest in not having the government control their wages and prices. Now that those things are instead controlled by the insurance industry that vested interest has evaporated, but the prejudices instilled have not...and the insurance companies are quite happy to keep those prejudices going.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of EITHER socialism or communism. Communism predates Karl Marx. And Stalinism isn't even Marx-Lenninism. (Note the hyphenated designation, as that which Lenin preached and practiced wasn't what Marx preached.) Also neither is Maoism, which also is only one variety of communism. (Stalinism isn't ANY kind of communism. It's just standard totalitarian dictatorship with an unusually brutal and despotic dictator. Only Idi Amin could claim to practice the same kind of government, though Pot Pol had certain similarities.)
Calling yourself something doesn't mean that the label rightfully applies to you. The North Korean government calls itself a "People's Republic", but it doesn't match the conventional meaning of Republic. (Do note, however, that Republics are normally controlled by an Oligarchy of some sort. It's not the "feel good" term that USians are generally taught it is. Not if you really understand what it means and how it operates. And the constitution guarantees that the states will have a Republican [Things of the Public] form of government, not a Demmocratic [i.e., power derives from the people] kind of government. And in both these cases I grossly simplified the meanings of the terms. In fact I'd need to research a bit to determine precisely what each meant, though basically in a Republic power derives from ownership of things, and in a Democracy power derives from being a "person", for some meaning of person. [E.g., slaves were originally considered to be only 2/3 of a person in the US.] Please note that this doesn't mean that the power belongs to the people, but rather that the government allocates power on the basis of people.)
Your aren't talking about ethics or morals, you're talking contract law. And we don't know what the contract amounts to. We do, however, know that MS was treatening to sue people right and left over secret patents, so it's quite reasonable that Samsung may have felt that they were coerced into signing the agreement. If so, then it's quite ethical to look for any escape hole.
Given the history of government, expect the voting mechanism to be bought from a company which has little transparency, and little interest in fixing problems.
The history a voting machines in the US is a history of fraud and probable fraud. If you switch to an on-line voting system, expect it to be vulnerable to fraudulent voting and difficult to check. And illegal to validate. ("That's our proprietary code your'e trying to inspect!")
Do not support it. Were it an open system, I'd be cautiously supportive, but recent history tells me not to expect that.
Well, yes...but if it's illegal (under Irish law) for the company in Ireland to transmit the data to the US, they they are demanding that the company chartered in Ireland under Irish law comit a crime.
I don't know that that applies in this particular case, but there is much information that the EU forbids export of to any country that doesn't protect the information. And that definitely includes the US, where personal information is seen as a corporate asset over which the individual has no right.
In fact, I find it quite plausible that the demanded information might be illegal for the Irish company to transmit. (This goes contrary to the assertion made earlier that the agent of MS merely needs to push a button located in the US and the information will appear...unless there's criminally sloppy systems design.)
Traitor doesn't fit the definition given in the Constitution. OTOH, they do appear to be guilty of multiple counts of malfeasance and conspiracy to commit malfeasance. So criminal would fit if they were prosecuted.
However, since they have not been formally accused by any prosecutorial authority, I think the best word may be "lying scum".
That's oversimplifying, but it was certainly a big part of it. People are incredibly self-centered...so much so that they don't even notice it. If something isn't affecting them or people that they know directly, most people will just ignore it.
Please note: This is not a criticism of the anti-war movement in the Vietnam era. It was a totally stupid war for no reason that was ever explained... or rather the explanations did not justify it, and were often lies. The ani-war movement was just, moral, and proper. It also woudn't have happened if people who had access to power weren't forced to face what the war might mean to them.
Please note, the current wars in the middle east are much more justifiable, though nobody in government dares to mention the real justification: oil. The wars are a blatant resource grab. (I'm not sure this extends to Afghanistan. I think that may be basically a war to test out the new military toys in a live exercise. But I'm not sure.)
Please also note that the "military toys" currently being developed and debugged are designed to allow a government to attack an armed civilian uprising. And note that simple verstions are being distributed to various police forces all over the US. This may explain what the real purpose of that "war" is.
No. Some agency is necessary. The CIA and the NSA as currently constituted are not.
To claim that they are needed is as silly as claiming that because a limited copyright is good, one that extends forever it needed. It's as silly as claiming that because some patents are needed, a patent on something that everyone has been doing for decades is justifiable, and that allowing it is mandatory.
Scale the NSA back to what it was in the 1950's, and the CIA back to what it was back in 1944, when it had a different name. Those agencies were probably necessary, but that's not at all the same as saying the current agencies are necessary, or even desireable. They are currently SO bad, that we'd be better off just totally abolishing them, even though that's clearly a bad idea except as one stage of a "redo from scratch" operation.
Re:It's better to hear people you might disagree w
on
The CIA Does Las Vegas
·
· Score: 1
Excuse me, but many of us, or at least myself, do believe that they broke actual laws as well as being blatantly immoral. IANAL, so I can't be certain, but I believe that they did.
OTOH, I don't normally condemn people for breaking the laws if I feel the laws are unjust. I'm much more upset that they acted immorally than that they acted illegaly.
Re:It's better to hear people you might disagree w
on
The CIA Does Las Vegas
·
· Score: 1
I understand your stated expectations. This is to be expected of one who blindly trusts authority. However it is worth noting that most of the statements by CIA/NSA/etc. spokesmen cannot be checked by anyone not a member of those organizations. (And this is why the "blindly".)
Just not being able to prove them wrong is not grounds for trusting them, when they (i.e. the organizations collectively) are the reason that those statements cannot be checked.
OTOH, statements from "techno libertarians" aren't always correct, but if they can't be checked, then it's clear that they can't check them either. This is a very significant difference.
I don't know the design, but couldn't you use the charge difference to separate them a bit, and then throw both away in the same direction? This seems implied by the comment that it violates conservation of momentum, because if the virtual pair then recombines momentum would seem to have disappeared.
A question is whether you could do this without using enough energy to stabilize the virtual pair as actual particles. It not then it would be extremely inefficient energetically.
Well, if you threw away both halves of the virtual pair, you would transfer momentum to them. If they then recombined what would happen to the momentum?
I'm not sure. I suspect that this is going to largely be "an invention looking for an application" for a decade...just like the laser was.
The problem is we've never been able to create alloys as a tightly controlled gradient of multiple metals before. Now if it could print a sharp disjunction between the materials, and especially if it could also print an insulating layer, then the applications would be obvious, but this is a very different thing. Different metals, e.g., conduct both heat and electricity differently. What will the effects be is one can print a gradient that oscillates between two different metals? How well can alloy crystal properties be predicted?
I think this is something that has a LOT of potential, but what those potetials actually are may well take quite awhile to figure out.
Yeah, but either could just sell that part of their business, or even just decide it wasn't worth the effort and shut it down without warning.
FWIW, I seem to recall approx. that already having happened, though I can't give a specific reference. The only real answer is to make backups BEFORE you put the data out to the cloud, and keep the backups (and test them periodically).
Trusting a(nother) company to guard your data has a long history of failures. But so does relying on local backups. You need both.
Which is why they need to be searchable by Google. But multiply this by most of them can't write coherently. And many of them don't want to really spill their secrets, just to prove that they have them. (This is the basis of many companies, so don't laugh too hard at them. Also remember the astronomer who published a coded note when he first sighted Uranus, so that he could claim priority if someone else completed writing their paper on it before he did. That still happens, if not so blatantly.)
I only ever found one of their journals of any value whatsoever (Computing Surveys). Their "collected algorithms" was lousy. If I were interested in representation of polynomial equations in Fortran it would sometimes be useful...but I haven't done that since college...decades ago.
Occasionally I'll follow a link that ends up in the ACM members only section. Sometimes it looks interesting, but back in the time I could follow it into the article only once was it really at all interesting, and that time it still wasn't useful.
If you've got a set of Knuth's books, then I don't think the ACM has anything to offer.
WRT ACM articles linked from Google: They are there, if only as indirect links [not sure], because every once in a while I end up on one of their "you can only read the abstract" pages. I never regret not being able to read further, because I *was* a member and *could* read the linked article for awhile. Every single one was worthless (for my purposes).
The only useful thing I've ever gotten out of the ACM site that I didn't find in Knuth was a date algorithm. And I already had most of it down. And their version still didn't deal with pre-Gregorian dates (except as if they had been Gregorian dates). (To be fair, Julian dates are rather different. Still...) Also it didn't properly handle dates BC, even in Gregorian terms.
Well, they guy that wrote the algorithm was still really tight on conserving RAM usage. It *was* a very concise algorithm. And it worked without problems (in Gregorian) back to 1AD. It was also (IIRC) nigh unintelligible because of embedded magic numbers. When unpacked it basically just said skip leap years for centuries unless the century divided by 400 is an integer. But he did it in one line of fortran.
Then you're dong it wrong. For the class of problems I'm interested in each process needs an input queue, and the ability to detect (somehow...there are several plausible means so I'm not choosing) what other processes are around and how to write to their input queues. And you need to be able to examine your input queue to tell whether there's a waiting message without blocking. All fairly straightforwards. You don't synchronize the processes, each one runs as far as it can with the inputs it has available and then waits for additional input. What is queued should be messages as short as possible, but that's true whenever you copy an array. And the queue should hold either a deep-copy of whatever is being exchanged or a reference to an immutable instance. No scheduling, per se, except that you might want to be able to adjust the priority at which the processes execute.
FWIW, I'm currently implementing something that operates in this way, and most of the tools I'm using to do this are excessively slow BECAUSE they are capable of a lot more than I'm asking them to do. I'm only planning on having around 8-16 processes because I've only got about 8 processors. I expect that most of the processes will keep busy all the time without needing new inputs. The messages that I'm planning on passing all have the form (action, key, value), and for my purposes key will always be either a string or an integer, and value will be an array of stuff. The kind of stuff will vary depending on what kind of process is receiving the input and what action is to be preformed. (Which is why I really don't want a static type.) Generally, however, it will begin with a few numbers, then a few (usually 4) arrays of structures(without internal pointers) and then possibly a string. This kind of thing is quite simple to handle in a language with dynamic types, and a real pain in languages with static types.
Do note that this means that most of the messages will be longer than is optimal, and that the length will not be consistent. It's the kind of thing that marshall, pickel, yaml, or json and handle trivially. No class serialization needed.
This means that each process totally controlls it's internal synchronization without external conflicts. Thread synchronization is not a problem. Scaling is trivial. Efficiency...well, I'm not so sure of that. I need to set things up so that most processing happens without IPC, and I'm not sure how possible that will be. I may need to go all out and find or build an even simpler IPC mechanism. (I think what I'm currently planning on has TCP/IP sockets burried within the implementation. I'm using localhost, so that probably gets translated into UNIX domain sockets, but even that may not be as fast as possible. OTOH, I don't want the input queues to be bounded by a pre-determined amount of RAM unless I must.)
Slashdot Mirror
??? Did you notice that the guy first mentioning "thought experiment" claimed to be a physicist? Moral high ground? Please tell me what "moral high ground" was involved in Einstein's famous "elevator" thought experiment.
I will grant that there are those who misuse the term, but give him the credit for properly using it.
OTOH, "thought experiments" in the area of psychology are, in my experience, so poorly done that they neither demonstrate nor validly support any argument. Some of them do point in interesting directions, but what people believe they will do in a situation is often very different from what they would actually do, and that renders them of at best questionable value, even when well designed.
As you said, "limited experience". That is one (or a few related) schools of psychology. Others, are much more directional.
OTOH, nobody goes around "laying out a few home truths", because that is counter-productive. (Some psychologists don't seem to do better than random, but they all avoid known bad choices...like "laying out a few home truths".)
As the originator of the term, he had the right to define it. But the definition that he created was based not only on his words, but also on his actions.
Under the control of Mussolini the government tried to use minimal force to get its way (i.e., to satisfy the business interests), but if minimal force wouldn't work, he was quite willing to use more.
N.B.: He also created the term "egghead" to describe intellectuals, because his thugs found it so easy to break their heads.
Sorry, but you are confusing existing systems which are called Socialist with Socialism. It's not an unreasonable argument, but Socialism isn't necessarily a government. Local laws permitting individual factories can be Socialist. And there is no guarantee that such a facotry would provide those benefits.
OTOH, both countries and factories can fail whether they are Socialist or Capitalist. There's no inherent guarantee that one is more likely to fail than the other. The fact that there are few successful Socialist factories reflects their low rate of formation, and their high infant mortality (because they often come into existence only when the original, run on a Capitalist basis, is going bankrupt...so it is sold to the workers).
I don't find much validity in the GP's argument, but neither do I in yours. Public health measures are not an inherently socialist feature, even though they are more common and extensive in governments called Socialist. They should sensibly be considered as "investment to maintain the health of the social body upon which the government subsists". That they are considered socialist is due largely to the work of the American Medical Association, which had a vested interest in not having the government control their wages and prices. Now that those things are instead controlled by the insurance industry that vested interest has evaporated, but the prejudices instilled have not...and the insurance companies are quite happy to keep those prejudices going.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of EITHER socialism or communism. Communism predates Karl Marx. And Stalinism isn't even Marx-Lenninism. (Note the hyphenated designation, as that which Lenin preached and practiced wasn't what Marx preached.) Also neither is Maoism, which also is only one variety of communism. (Stalinism isn't ANY kind of communism. It's just standard totalitarian dictatorship with an unusually brutal and despotic dictator. Only Idi Amin could claim to practice the same kind of government, though Pot Pol had certain similarities.)
Calling yourself something doesn't mean that the label rightfully applies to you. The North Korean government calls itself a "People's Republic", but it doesn't match the conventional meaning of Republic. (Do note, however, that Republics are normally controlled by an Oligarchy of some sort. It's not the "feel good" term that USians are generally taught it is. Not if you really understand what it means and how it operates. And the constitution guarantees that the states will have a Republican [Things of the Public] form of government, not a Demmocratic [i.e., power derives from the people] kind of government. And in both these cases I grossly simplified the meanings of the terms. In fact I'd need to research a bit to determine precisely what each meant, though basically in a Republic power derives from ownership of things, and in a Democracy power derives from being a "person", for some meaning of person. [E.g., slaves were originally considered to be only 2/3 of a person in the US.] Please note that this doesn't mean that the power belongs to the people, but rather that the government allocates power on the basis of people.)
This is a good example of why when there are no consequences, civil behavior deteriorates.
Your aren't talking about ethics or morals, you're talking contract law. And we don't know what the contract amounts to. We do, however, know that MS was treatening to sue people right and left over secret patents, so it's quite reasonable that Samsung may have felt that they were coerced into signing the agreement. If so, then it's quite ethical to look for any escape hole.
Given the history of government, expect the voting mechanism to be bought from a company which has little transparency, and little interest in fixing problems.
The history a voting machines in the US is a history of fraud and probable fraud. If you switch to an on-line voting system, expect it to be vulnerable to fraudulent voting and difficult to check. And illegal to validate. ("That's our proprietary code your'e trying to inspect!")
Do not support it. Were it an open system, I'd be cautiously supportive, but recent history tells me not to expect that.
Well, yes...but if it's illegal (under Irish law) for the company in Ireland to transmit the data to the US, they they are demanding that the company chartered in Ireland under Irish law comit a crime.
I don't know that that applies in this particular case, but there is much information that the EU forbids export of to any country that doesn't protect the information. And that definitely includes the US, where personal information is seen as a corporate asset over which the individual has no right.
In fact, I find it quite plausible that the demanded information might be illegal for the Irish company to transmit. (This goes contrary to the assertion made earlier that the agent of MS merely needs to push a button located in the US and the information will appear...unless there's criminally sloppy systems design.)
Traitor doesn't fit the definition given in the Constitution. OTOH, they do appear to be guilty of multiple counts of malfeasance and conspiracy to commit malfeasance. So criminal would fit if they were prosecuted.
However, since they have not been formally accused by any prosecutorial authority, I think the best word may be "lying scum".
That's oversimplifying, but it was certainly a big part of it. People are incredibly self-centered...so much so that they don't even notice it. If something isn't affecting them or people that they know directly, most people will just ignore it.
Please note: This is not a criticism of the anti-war movement in the Vietnam era. It was a totally stupid war for no reason that was ever explained ... or rather the explanations did not justify it, and were often lies. The ani-war movement was just, moral, and proper. It also woudn't have happened if people who had access to power weren't forced to face what the war might mean to them.
Please note, the current wars in the middle east are much more justifiable, though nobody in government dares to mention the real justification: oil. The wars are a blatant resource grab. (I'm not sure this extends to Afghanistan. I think that may be basically a war to test out the new military toys in a live exercise. But I'm not sure.)
Please also note that the "military toys" currently being developed and debugged are designed to allow a government to attack an armed civilian uprising. And note that simple verstions are being distributed to various police forces all over the US. This may explain what the real purpose of that "war" is.
If I were depending on the word of the CIA that the world wasn't a painted backdrop, then I would consider that excellent advice.
No. Some agency is necessary. The CIA and the NSA as currently constituted are not.
To claim that they are needed is as silly as claiming that because a limited copyright is good, one that extends forever it needed. It's as silly as claiming that because some patents are needed, a patent on something that everyone has been doing for decades is justifiable, and that allowing it is mandatory.
Scale the NSA back to what it was in the 1950's, and the CIA back to what it was back in 1944, when it had a different name. Those agencies were probably necessary, but that's not at all the same as saying the current agencies are necessary, or even desireable. They are currently SO bad, that we'd be better off just totally abolishing them, even though that's clearly a bad idea except as one stage of a "redo from scratch" operation.
Excuse me, but many of us, or at least myself, do believe that they broke actual laws as well as being blatantly immoral. IANAL, so I can't be certain, but I believe that they did.
OTOH, I don't normally condemn people for breaking the laws if I feel the laws are unjust. I'm much more upset that they acted immorally than that they acted illegaly.
I understand your stated expectations. This is to be expected of one who blindly trusts authority. However it is worth noting that most of the statements by CIA/NSA/etc. spokesmen cannot be checked by anyone not a member of those organizations. (And this is why the "blindly".)
Just not being able to prove them wrong is not grounds for trusting them, when they (i.e. the organizations collectively) are the reason that those statements cannot be checked.
OTOH, statements from "techno libertarians" aren't always correct, but if they can't be checked, then it's clear that they can't check them either. This is a very significant difference.
I don't know the design, but couldn't you use the charge difference to separate them a bit, and then throw both away in the same direction? This seems implied by the comment that it violates conservation of momentum, because if the virtual pair then recombines momentum would seem to have disappeared.
A question is whether you could do this without using enough energy to stabilize the virtual pair as actual particles. It not then it would be extremely inefficient energetically.
Well, if you threw away both halves of the virtual pair, you would transfer momentum to them. If they then recombined what would happen to the momentum?
No, but it does sound like malfeasance. Which is a felony.
Some of them can write.
I'm not sure. I suspect that this is going to largely be "an invention looking for an application" for a decade...just like the laser was.
The problem is we've never been able to create alloys as a tightly controlled gradient of multiple metals before. Now if it could print a sharp disjunction between the materials, and especially if it could also print an insulating layer, then the applications would be obvious, but this is a very different thing. Different metals, e.g., conduct both heat and electricity differently. What will the effects be is one can print a gradient that oscillates between two different metals? How well can alloy crystal properties be predicted?
I think this is something that has a LOT of potential, but what those potetials actually are may well take quite awhile to figure out.
Yeah, but either could just sell that part of their business, or even just decide it wasn't worth the effort and shut it down without warning.
FWIW, I seem to recall approx. that already having happened, though I can't give a specific reference. The only real answer is to make backups BEFORE you put the data out to the cloud, and keep the backups (and test them periodically).
Trusting a(nother) company to guard your data has a long history of failures. But so does relying on local backups. You need both.
Which is why they need to be searchable by Google. But multiply this by most of them can't write coherently. And many of them don't want to really spill their secrets, just to prove that they have them. (This is the basis of many companies, so don't laugh too hard at them. Also remember the astronomer who published a coded note when he first sighted Uranus, so that he could claim priority if someone else completed writing their paper on it before he did. That still happens, if not so blatantly.)
I only ever found one of their journals of any value whatsoever (Computing Surveys). Their "collected algorithms" was lousy. If I were interested in representation of polynomial equations in Fortran it would sometimes be useful...but I haven't done that since college...decades ago.
Occasionally I'll follow a link that ends up in the ACM members only section. Sometimes it looks interesting, but back in the time I could follow it into the article only once was it really at all interesting, and that time it still wasn't useful.
If you've got a set of Knuth's books, then I don't think the ACM has anything to offer.
WRT ACM articles linked from Google: They are there, if only as indirect links [not sure], because every once in a while I end up on one of their "you can only read the abstract" pages. I never regret not being able to read further, because I *was* a member and *could* read the linked article for awhile. Every single one was worthless (for my purposes).
The only useful thing I've ever gotten out of the ACM site that I didn't find in Knuth was a date algorithm. And I already had most of it down. And their version still didn't deal with pre-Gregorian dates (except as if they had been Gregorian dates). (To be fair, Julian dates are rather different. Still...) Also it didn't properly handle dates BC, even in Gregorian terms.
Well, they guy that wrote the algorithm was still really tight on conserving RAM usage. It *was* a very concise algorithm. And it worked without problems (in Gregorian) back to 1AD. It was also (IIRC) nigh unintelligible because of embedded magic numbers. When unpacked it basically just said skip leap years for centuries unless the century divided by 400 is an integer. But he did it in one line of fortran.
Then you're dong it wrong. For the class of problems I'm interested in each process needs an input queue, and the ability to detect (somehow...there are several plausible means so I'm not choosing) what other processes are around and how to write to their input queues. And you need to be able to examine your input queue to tell whether there's a waiting message without blocking. All fairly straightforwards. You don't synchronize the processes, each one runs as far as it can with the inputs it has available and then waits for additional input. What is queued should be messages as short as possible, but that's true whenever you copy an array. And the queue should hold either a deep-copy of whatever is being exchanged or a reference to an immutable instance. No scheduling, per se, except that you might want to be able to adjust the priority at which the processes execute.
FWIW, I'm currently implementing something that operates in this way, and most of the tools I'm using to do this are excessively slow BECAUSE they are capable of a lot more than I'm asking them to do. I'm only planning on having around 8-16 processes because I've only got about 8 processors. I expect that most of the processes will keep busy all the time without needing new inputs. The messages that I'm planning on passing all have the form (action, key, value), and for my purposes key will always be either a string or an integer, and value will be an array of stuff. The kind of stuff will vary depending on what kind of process is receiving the input and what action is to be preformed. (Which is why I really don't want a static type.) Generally, however, it will begin with a few numbers, then a few (usually 4) arrays of structures(without internal pointers) and then possibly a string. This kind of thing is quite simple to handle in a language with dynamic types, and a real pain in languages with static types.
Do note that this means that most of the messages will be longer than is optimal, and that the length will not be consistent. It's the kind of thing that marshall, pickel, yaml, or json and handle trivially. No class serialization needed.
This means that each process totally controlls it's internal synchronization without external conflicts. Thread synchronization is not a problem. Scaling is trivial. Efficiency...well, I'm not so sure of that. I need to set things up so that most processing happens without IPC, and I'm not sure how possible that will be. I may need to go all out and find or build an even simpler IPC mechanism. (I think what I'm currently planning on has TCP/IP sockets burried within the implementation. I'm using localhost, so that probably gets translated into UNIX domain sockets, but even that may not be as fast as possible. OTOH, I don't want the input queues to be bounded by a pre-determined amount of RAM unless I must.)
IIUC, Android under the hood is largely C with some C++ on top of that. True, the part that makes Android different from Linux may be largely C++...