It's also a proposal written by a tax lawyer at the Franchise Tax Board, so my inclination is to believe anything bad written about it. You make a reasonable argument that the "bad" isn't exactly where others put it, but that doesn't make it good.
Sorry, but you are quite wrong, unless you adopt a "no true Scotsman" definition of conservative. Most conservatives, who don't have children, are opposed to tax funded schools. Many conservatives, who don't deal with transport, are opposed to tax funded road paving. Etc.
If you wanted to say "wise conservatives support infrastructure investment" I'd have no problem with it, but most conservatives are short-sighted and more than slightly silly. (I'm not defending liberals here. Most of them are also short-sighted and more than slightly silly.)
Metal roofs have significant downsides. Plastic is the way to go here, but it needs to be protected from degradation. And it's just as easy for robots.
Climate change won't stop progress. But it might lead to major wars that *do*.
And there won't be a "great spiritual awakening". I know you threw that out as a strawman, but some might take it seriously.
If the conservatives are saying 50% of the jobs may be lost in 50 years (yeah, there's no hard backup for those numbers...or for any other projections), then you can be sure that's an underestimate. This study seems to be looking on a much shorter timeline, and doesn't seem (based on the summary) to be including truck drivers, so it's also a low-ball study. There will still be jobs for truck drivers in 2025, but they'll be much scarcer than currently. Say half as many truck drivers (hah!), which means half as many hired for support services...presuming those services themselves don't experience increasing automation.
It's also true that those tribes have been pushed to the edges, where material for survival is minimal. They've GOT to have everybody working to pull in food. This doesn't mean they wouldn't survive better with less coercion in a less inhospitable environment.
Chocolate isn't high in calories. You're probably counting the fat that they blend it with, so the chocolate is redundant. I suppose cocoa butter is a bit different from regular butter, though.
Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get too little sodium in your diet? This isn't true if you are laboring outside under a blazing sun in a temperature in the 90's (F), but for those who work indoors one can have real difficulty in getting too little salt to be healthy. My wife generally tries to hold her salt down to 300 mg/day. This worried me, but her doctor examined her blood serum level and said it was ideal. Still, she doesn't sweat much, and never works outside.
The normal diet is excessive in salt. How much excessive is subject to argument, as there are always tradeoffs, and people aren't all identical. I do OK generally following my wife's diet, but using a bit of soy sauce (SALT!) occasionally. But then I don't dig ditches outdoors in high temperatures.
I don't think I've seen a case of heat prostration in my life. but that's the most common medical problem caused by lack of salt. However the normal diet is so high in salt that most people are at no risk of that. They're more likely to suffer kidney damage (often not reversable) that comes due to excessive salt. If this is mild it may not be noticed without explicit tests, but it increases irritability and decreases brain function. How much depends on how severe the disease. It's an apparently continuous scale all the way from minimal change up to death (though it's usually detected and treated long before that).
If you don't like a boiled egg without salt, then you're overcooking the egg. It shouldn't need ANY seasoning while still warm, and even after refrigeration many other choices are as good as salt. But if you overcook it, nothing much will rescue it, and salt can ameliorate the result.
For roasted potatoes try sprinkling some granulated garlic or mild chili pepper on them. Or Italian herbs. No salt needed, or, by me, desired.
You're confusing things. During the paleo period people generally lived as long as currently (possibly less at the really old end, and certainly higher infant mortality).
OTOH, when agriculture was introduced not only did population levels start spiraling up, but the health of individuals plummeted. And the lifespans shrank remarkably. I'm not real sure the average person even lived to see 28. So you're really talking about the early agricultural era...and periodically all the way up to the present. Current western lifespans are probably even slightly longer than during the paleo period, and certainly there is lower infant mortality, but you can still find groups where people die young. Malnutrition and excessive stress are the main reasons.
That doesn't sound like a paleo diet to me. And isn't "2000 calories is heavy in fiber" a typo? I can see a fad dietist claiming that "2000 calories very low in fiber" would lead to a weight gain. I'm not even really sure it's wrong (ans I wouldn't want to experiment).
Also, it's possible that 6000 calories a day would lead to a weight loss if you did it in real paleo fashion...e.g., ran it down and speared it yourself, and then ate it without cooking. There've been lots of claims that cooking things makes the nutrition that they contain more accessible.
There are designs for solar power that don't have a problem with intermittancy, but they are more expensive. Molten salt is one. It's generally cheaper to use some storage mechanism, like a flow battery, or some local feature that enables energy storage, e.g. pumping water up-hill. This *does* increase cost, but not enough to compare with alternatives once you include all external costs. (But do note that solar power has it's own external costs. Nothing is free.)
It's true that the cost of solar/wind power needs to be increased to include the cost of a storage system. It would still be cheaper than fission prices if you include external costs.
Fusion is a very interesting alternative. It is *potentially* a low pollution, high intensity, relatively portable power source. Whether it will actually become such is quite uncertain. But it's plausible. And while it will probably be expensive it could be used in places where other sources can't be used, e.g. a manned space station in Pluto's orbit. (You'd need a huge radiator, of course.) Lockheed's current estimate seems to be about the size of a fission plant used on a nuclear sub. I don't know what their estimated power production is, but the reports are that they've mainly done simulations rather than experiments.
So I'm quite interested in fusion power as a long term component in the solution to power needs, but for the short term I think a combination of solar and wind is better, combined with one of the proven storage methods. There are several, but they all add to the cost, so except in exceptional circumstances they aren't used.
Sorry, I made an editing mistake, and there's no way to correct a post if you don't notice it until after you've posted. That should have read: This is just a repeat of information that isn't as good as second-hand, so don't take it seriously, but merely as something to watch for.
That's what happens when you do a re-write and aren't really careful.
Ummh...The information I gave was as I remembered it from Threaded Interpretive Languages. I agree about the name, but I never claimed the name was derived from Fortran. And https://www.forth.com/resource... says that it was actually to "compute ephemerides, orbital elements, satellite station positions, etc. ", so I may have mis-remembered the original purpose. Or perhaps TIL got it wrong.
Perhaps "derived from" (did I say that?) is too strong, and I should have said inspired by Fortran. (Inspired by Fargo would be more reasonable, but few had access to Fargo or even knew it existed. Fargo was a cut down Fortranish something for the IBM 1401. I never actually used it, so it might have been an interpreter rather than a compiler.)
Unfortunately, Devuan has a lot less infrastructure support than Debian. That takes time and money to build. So far development on Debian largely works automatically with Devuan, so that hasn't caused much trouble, but it will predictably cause more trouble ahead as divergence inevitably means more work to make packages work for both. Even more lamentably there are reports that systemd is causing intentional incompatibilities. This isn't just a repeat of information that isn't as good as second-hand, so don't take it seriously, but merely as something to watch for.
That said, if Devuan makes a go of things, there will be a need for more volunteer developers. Do your skills fit?
Is there a UTF-128? I thought that even UTF-32 only *used* 24 bits.
But I take your point. I'm no fan of systemd either. Just this week I had do re-install the OS because the root partition filled up. I'm contemplating abandoning root partitions because the system is getting unreasonably large...and I can't predict what it's going to do next.
OTOH, perhaps the data being in a separate partition is why I was able to recover it without loss? Parts of the system partition looked to have been corrupted (though I didn't test).
Coming up was a better idea is required, but is not sufficient. People tend to get invested in the ideas that they've accepted, and refuse to change even for something better. The next generation will usually adapt unless they've been massively propagandized against it.
Forth was created as a cut-down attempt at Fortran for a machine that controlled a radio-telescope, and couldn't support a real Fortran compiler. So it's a derivative of Fortran, even though it looks quite different, and even though the assembler shows through in a lot of the implementations. (That's not a required feature.) Even the name is cut down. The computer wouldn't support 6 letter names.
C doesn't support libraries, that's done by the linker. But C does support modules. It's not even convoluted. You just make each module a separate file, and only disclose those you want visible in the header file. Static and external also help when used in various places. Note: The actual connection of the thus created modules is still done by the linker. But because of the definition of the header file and the static and external keywords it's fair to say that C supports them.
That said, I don't like the complexities created by that style of programming, but C does support it.
FWIW, *ANY* Turing complete language (and that doesn't take much) can probably be twisted into enabling any programming construct. The twists and turns required may be so horrendous that nobody would do it.
There were macro assemblers before Fortran, and assemblers before macro assemblers, and octal op codes before assemblers, and panel switched before octal op codes, and wiring panels before panel switches. I suppose I could keep going back until I reached gear wheels, but anything prior to Babbage/Ada Lovelace doesn't really count as the same subject.
Now just where you start calling one of those things a language is something we could argue about, but that's one of those artificially chosen boundaries...where you need a boundary, but you're looking so close that the exact position of the boundary isn't obvious. It's clearly after gear wheels, and clearly before compilers. Any where in there is an arbitrary choice. But where you chose determines what "languages" are first generation. And this is a simplified summary, because the earliest Fortran wasn't that different from an advanced macro assembler.
FWIW, I once read an article that claimed that most of C could be implemented as M6800 assembler macros, and gave a good demonstration of a lot of the parts. And certainly much of, and perhaps all of, Lifeboat-C could be directly mapped to clusters of I8088 assembler instructions.. (It wasn't a full K&R C, but it was pretty close.) So the boundaries between assemblers and compilers aren't solid, but nearly fractal.
Actually both we and the creatures we call apes are descended from apes. This is because we *are* apes, though an unusual variety. We and our relatives are apes all the way back to when Gibbons separated off, and probably further. Depends on the exact definition you use.
OTOH, I could use a variation of the same argument to assert that we are fish, all the way back until teleosts separated off. Most people don't like that argument, I find it an interesting test of how people think about classification problems, and not substantively significant. It's argument about word game rules, not about anything substantive. FWIW, I tend to be a Cladist (i.e., I count line of descent), so I *do* count people as fish...of a rather weird variety, as I do all other mammals and reptiles. And reptiles isn't a good group unless you include birds as a variety of reptile.
The world is complex, and the natural joints in categories often don't match what looks superficially reasonable. People are apes, apes are mammals, mammals are fish (well, that's a lousy term, but I don't have a better one to hand), fish are chordates, chordates are multicellular, multicellular are eukaryotes. It's like set inclusion, with proper containment (if the containment weren't proper, there'd be no reason to have separate names).
While a robot cannot be bullied, a human can bully a robot.
I.e. the human is acting in a way that the human perceives as bullying, but the robot doesn't have the predicted emotional response.
It's quite possible to vandalize a robot without bullying it if you have in your mind the clear belief that the robot isn't responding emotively. And certainly the robot wouldn't be, but people have a strong tendency to anthropomorphize anything that acts as if it were an independent agent (from their perspective). So most people would be bullying a robot were they to vandalize it.
Be fair, "the greatest climate disaster" started long before Trump took office. It might even be before Lincoln. It's just that nobody noticed it at the time, because it's taken a long time to build. Trump may, however, be president at a point of inflection (a point, because you can't even roughly model it with simple quadratic function). Things are, indeed, likely to get worse quickly for a bit, but Trump didn't cause that, he's just been refusing to ameliorate it.
Sorry, but it's a reasonable request. It may also be reasonable to deny it, but it's a reasonable request. There's no way that a "driver" who's just been sitting there playing a game on his phone will be able to take over the driving in 10 seconds, so the steering wheel is useless in emergencies.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also a proposal written by a tax lawyer at the Franchise Tax Board, so my inclination is to believe anything bad written about it. You make a reasonable argument that the "bad" isn't exactly where others put it, but that doesn't make it good.
Sorry, but you are quite wrong, unless you adopt a "no true Scotsman" definition of conservative. Most conservatives, who don't have children, are opposed to tax funded schools. Many conservatives, who don't deal with transport, are opposed to tax funded road paving. Etc.
If you wanted to say "wise conservatives support infrastructure investment" I'd have no problem with it, but most conservatives are short-sighted and more than slightly silly. (I'm not defending liberals here. Most of them are also short-sighted and more than slightly silly.)
Metal roofs have significant downsides. Plastic is the way to go here, but it needs to be protected from degradation. And it's just as easy for robots.
Climate change won't stop progress. But it might lead to major wars that *do*.
And there won't be a "great spiritual awakening". I know you threw that out as a strawman, but some might take it seriously.
If the conservatives are saying 50% of the jobs may be lost in 50 years (yeah, there's no hard backup for those numbers...or for any other projections), then you can be sure that's an underestimate. This study seems to be looking on a much shorter timeline, and doesn't seem (based on the summary) to be including truck drivers, so it's also a low-ball study. There will still be jobs for truck drivers in 2025, but they'll be much scarcer than currently. Say half as many truck drivers (hah!), which means half as many hired for support services...presuming those services themselves don't experience increasing automation.
It's also true that those tribes have been pushed to the edges, where material for survival is minimal. They've GOT to have everybody working to pull in food. This doesn't mean they wouldn't survive better with less coercion in a less inhospitable environment.
Chocolate isn't high in calories. You're probably counting the fat that they blend it with, so the chocolate is redundant. I suppose cocoa butter is a bit different from regular butter, though.
OK. If you work in the sun and sweat a lot, that's reasonable. Sweat glands are a lot less conservative of salt, etc., than are the kidneys.
Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get too little sodium in your diet? This isn't true if you are laboring outside under a blazing sun in a temperature in the 90's (F), but for those who work indoors one can have real difficulty in getting too little salt to be healthy. My wife generally tries to hold her salt down to 300 mg/day. This worried me, but her doctor examined her blood serum level and said it was ideal. Still, she doesn't sweat much, and never works outside.
The normal diet is excessive in salt. How much excessive is subject to argument, as there are always tradeoffs, and people aren't all identical. I do OK generally following my wife's diet, but using a bit of soy sauce (SALT!) occasionally. But then I don't dig ditches outdoors in high temperatures.
I don't think I've seen a case of heat prostration in my life. but that's the most common medical problem caused by lack of salt. However the normal diet is so high in salt that most people are at no risk of that. They're more likely to suffer kidney damage (often not reversable) that comes due to excessive salt. If this is mild it may not be noticed without explicit tests, but it increases irritability and decreases brain function. How much depends on how severe the disease. It's an apparently continuous scale all the way from minimal change up to death (though it's usually detected and treated long before that).
If you don't like a boiled egg without salt, then you're overcooking the egg. It shouldn't need ANY seasoning while still warm, and even after refrigeration many other choices are as good as salt. But if you overcook it, nothing much will rescue it, and salt can ameliorate the result.
For roasted potatoes try sprinkling some granulated garlic or mild chili pepper on them. Or Italian herbs. No salt needed, or, by me, desired.
You're confusing things. During the paleo period people generally lived as long as currently (possibly less at the really old end, and certainly higher infant mortality).
OTOH, when agriculture was introduced not only did population levels start spiraling up, but the health of individuals plummeted. And the lifespans shrank remarkably. I'm not real sure the average person even lived to see 28. So you're really talking about the early agricultural era...and periodically all the way up to the present. Current western lifespans are probably even slightly longer than during the paleo period, and certainly there is lower infant mortality, but you can still find groups where people die young. Malnutrition and excessive stress are the main reasons.
That doesn't sound like a paleo diet to me. And isn't "2000 calories is heavy in fiber" a typo? I can see a fad dietist claiming that "2000 calories very low in fiber" would lead to a weight gain. I'm not even really sure it's wrong (ans I wouldn't want to experiment).
Also, it's possible that 6000 calories a day would lead to a weight loss if you did it in real paleo fashion...e.g., ran it down and speared it yourself, and then ate it without cooking. There've been lots of claims that cooking things makes the nutrition that they contain more accessible.
There are designs for solar power that don't have a problem with intermittancy, but they are more expensive. Molten salt is one. It's generally cheaper to use some storage mechanism, like a flow battery, or some local feature that enables energy storage, e.g. pumping water up-hill. This *does* increase cost, but not enough to compare with alternatives once you include all external costs. (But do note that solar power has it's own external costs. Nothing is free.)
It's true that the cost of solar/wind power needs to be increased to include the cost of a storage system. It would still be cheaper than fission prices if you include external costs.
Fusion is a very interesting alternative. It is *potentially* a low pollution, high intensity, relatively portable power source. Whether it will actually become such is quite uncertain. But it's plausible. And while it will probably be expensive it could be used in places where other sources can't be used, e.g. a manned space station in Pluto's orbit. (You'd need a huge radiator, of course.) Lockheed's current estimate seems to be about the size of a fission plant used on a nuclear sub. I don't know what their estimated power production is, but the reports are that they've mainly done simulations rather than experiments.
So I'm quite interested in fusion power as a long term component in the solution to power needs, but for the short term I think a combination of solar and wind is better, combined with one of the proven storage methods. There are several, but they all add to the cost, so except in exceptional circumstances they aren't used.
Sorry, I made an editing mistake, and there's no way to correct a post if you don't notice it until after you've posted. That should have read:
This is just a repeat of information that isn't as good as second-hand, so don't take it seriously, but merely as something to watch for.
That's what happens when you do a re-write and aren't really careful.
Ummh...The information I gave was as I remembered it from Threaded Interpretive Languages. I agree about the name, but I never claimed the name was derived from Fortran. And https://www.forth.com/resource... says that it was actually to "compute ephemerides, orbital elements, satellite station positions, etc. ", so I may have mis-remembered the original purpose. Or perhaps TIL got it wrong.
Perhaps "derived from" (did I say that?) is too strong, and I should have said inspired by Fortran. (Inspired by Fargo would be more reasonable, but few had access to Fargo or even knew it existed. Fargo was a cut down Fortranish something for the IBM 1401. I never actually used it, so it might have been an interpreter rather than a compiler.)
Unfortunately, Devuan has a lot less infrastructure support than Debian. That takes time and money to build. So far development on Debian largely works automatically with Devuan, so that hasn't caused much trouble, but it will predictably cause more trouble ahead as divergence inevitably means more work to make packages work for both. Even more lamentably there are reports that systemd is causing intentional incompatibilities. This isn't just a repeat of information that isn't as good as second-hand, so don't take it seriously, but merely as something to watch for.
That said, if Devuan makes a go of things, there will be a need for more volunteer developers. Do your skills fit?
Is there a UTF-128? I thought that even UTF-32 only *used* 24 bits.
But I take your point. I'm no fan of systemd either. Just this week I had do re-install the OS because the root partition filled up. I'm contemplating abandoning root partitions because the system is getting unreasonably large...and I can't predict what it's going to do next.
OTOH, perhaps the data being in a separate partition is why I was able to recover it without loss? Parts of the system partition looked to have been corrupted (though I didn't test).
Coming up was a better idea is required, but is not sufficient. People tend to get invested in the ideas that they've accepted, and refuse to change even for something better. The next generation will usually adapt unless they've been massively propagandized against it.
Forth was created as a cut-down attempt at Fortran for a machine that controlled a radio-telescope, and couldn't support a real Fortran compiler. So it's a derivative of Fortran, even though it looks quite different, and even though the assembler shows through in a lot of the implementations. (That's not a required feature.) Even the name is cut down. The computer wouldn't support 6 letter names.
C doesn't support libraries, that's done by the linker. But C does support modules. It's not even convoluted. You just make each module a separate file, and only disclose those you want visible in the header file. Static and external also help when used in various places.
Note: The actual connection of the thus created modules is still done by the linker. But because of the definition of the header file and the static and external keywords it's fair to say that C supports them.
That said, I don't like the complexities created by that style of programming, but C does support it.
FWIW, *ANY* Turing complete language (and that doesn't take much) can probably be twisted into enabling any programming construct. The twists and turns required may be so horrendous that nobody would do it.
There were macro assemblers before Fortran, and assemblers before macro assemblers, and octal op codes before assemblers, and panel switched before octal op codes, and wiring panels before panel switches. I suppose I could keep going back until I reached gear wheels, but anything prior to Babbage/Ada Lovelace doesn't really count as the same subject.
Now just where you start calling one of those things a language is something we could argue about, but that's one of those artificially chosen boundaries...where you need a boundary, but you're looking so close that the exact position of the boundary isn't obvious. It's clearly after gear wheels, and clearly before compilers. Any where in there is an arbitrary choice. But where you chose determines what "languages" are first generation. And this is a simplified summary, because the earliest Fortran wasn't that different from an advanced macro assembler.
FWIW, I once read an article that claimed that most of C could be implemented as M6800 assembler macros, and gave a good demonstration of a lot of the parts. And certainly much of, and perhaps all of, Lifeboat-C could be directly mapped to clusters of I8088 assembler instructions.. (It wasn't a full K&R C, but it was pretty close.) So the boundaries between assemblers and compilers aren't solid, but nearly fractal.
Actually both we and the creatures we call apes are descended from apes. This is because we *are* apes, though an unusual variety. We and our relatives are apes all the way back to when Gibbons separated off, and probably further. Depends on the exact definition you use.
OTOH, I could use a variation of the same argument to assert that we are fish, all the way back until teleosts separated off. Most people don't like that argument, I find it an interesting test of how people think about classification problems, and not substantively significant. It's argument about word game rules, not about anything substantive. FWIW, I tend to be a Cladist (i.e., I count line of descent), so I *do* count people as fish...of a rather weird variety, as I do all other mammals and reptiles. And reptiles isn't a good group unless you include birds as a variety of reptile.
The world is complex, and the natural joints in categories often don't match what looks superficially reasonable. People are apes, apes are mammals, mammals are fish (well, that's a lousy term, but I don't have a better one to hand), fish are chordates, chordates are multicellular, multicellular are eukaryotes. It's like set inclusion, with proper containment (if the containment weren't proper, there'd be no reason to have separate names).
While a robot cannot be bullied, a human can bully a robot.
I.e. the human is acting in a way that the human perceives as bullying, but the robot doesn't have the predicted emotional response.
It's quite possible to vandalize a robot without bullying it if you have in your mind the clear belief that the robot isn't responding emotively. And certainly the robot wouldn't be, but people have a strong tendency to anthropomorphize anything that acts as if it were an independent agent (from their perspective). So most people would be bullying a robot were they to vandalize it.
Be fair, "the greatest climate disaster" started long before Trump took office. It might even be before Lincoln. It's just that nobody noticed it at the time, because it's taken a long time to build. Trump may, however, be president at a point of inflection (a point, because you can't even roughly model it with simple quadratic function). Things are, indeed, likely to get worse quickly for a bit, but Trump didn't cause that, he's just been refusing to ameliorate it.
Sorry, but it's a reasonable request. It may also be reasonable to deny it, but it's a reasonable request. There's no way that a "driver" who's just been sitting there playing a game on his phone will be able to take over the driving in 10 seconds, so the steering wheel is useless in emergencies.