The lack of shared libraries are an intentional feature of Go.
I know, it is intentional. I just think, it is a flaw, rather than a "feature".
Generally in a cluster environment they cause more problems than they solve.
Not true at all. Apache is regularly used with shared modules — though it is possible to compile modules in, nobody really does that in practice, and some functionality is only available from vendors in a form of precompiled shared library.
Java, Perl, Python, TCL, PHP all make use of run-time loadable shared libraries — solving problems, which Go can not solve without fully recompiling one's application every time.
There isn't anything fundamentally special about Go that...
Stop it right there. Simply, there is not anything fundamentally special about Go. Period.
There is an open bug to track it, and while the bug is very old, it still gets regular updates.
Well, that's a relief...
If you make a HelloWorld app, then the big bloat in your app will be the garbage collector.
Why can't that boilerplate, that's included into every Go-built executable, live in some kind of libgo.so, so that multiple Go-apps on the same system can share the bloat?
You should settle on a Go program of any significance being about 2MB to 10MB
Why TF should I "settle"? If I have 3 programs, that all need to parse JSON, for example, why must each one of them include the entire JSON-parsing functionality in its own executable, instead of sharing? And then, when whatever 3rd-party that maintains the JSON-parsing code releases a critical update, I have to recompile all of these executables — instead of simply replacing one library... Are you telling me, this is, somehow an advantage?
Yes, modern machines have so much RAM and other resources, a developer and a sysadmin can get away placing their own convenience over performance. Puppet and Sensu, for example, both come with their own version of Ruby bundled — few people are bothered by the fact, that the two always-running daemons, both implemented in Ruby, would not — without some work — share the same Ruby-environment.
Similarly, Java-apps are usually shipping with their own JRE included — and it is not uncommon to find multiple instances of, say, Tomcat on the same machine running under different Java-versions — a waste of tens of megabytes of RAM.
But, at least, a competent DevOps department can take measures to avoid such waste. You can convince a Java and a Ruby app, it is Ok to run under JRE or Ruby of your choice. Go makes that flat out impossible, because everything is thrown into one executable... For your convenience — don't you worry your pretty little head.
Which takes me right back to my usual rant... Per Moore's law, our computers today are 1024-times more powerful than they were 15 years ago. Do you think, your user-experience, however you choose to quantify it, has improved 1000 times? I certainly don't... Today's desktop-environments and browsers are better than they were then, but not by a factor greater than 5. The rest of the stupendous hardware advances were "eaten" by the sloppy developers (and sysadmins/operators) instead of being passed on to users.
For international disagreements on radioactive and toxic waste cleanup activities
They aren't really "international" — the term would imply multiple nations and some sort of deliberative body, where they meet with their agendas.
Greenland and Norway used to be one nation not long ago, split up peacefully and continue cooperating. They would not need very long to come up with a solution to a real problem. Which this is not. Certainly not today.
Thank you for confirming my point — the "Climate Science" predictions are worthless.
Greenland, mysteriously warming faster than expected today, may start freezing again ten years from now. We may as well rely on predictions of Astrologers.
Are you really so dim, you can't distinguish who from what? Neither my question nor TFA are about the latter — which method to use to avoid fatalities. That would be an engineering problem.
What is discussed here is an ethical one — when forced to choose between (high probability of) loss of one life vs. another, who should the AI prefer?
Children encounter a similar question early in childhood, when some asshole or bitch would ask them — however "jokingly" — who they love more, mama or papa... Fortunately, they can simply answer: "I love both equally".
An AI would not have this option. When considering different actions, it will, probably, attempt to minimize the total number of fatalities (or, rather mathematical expectation thereof). But there will be situations, where a hard cold choice would have to be made — blessed is he, who never had to make it...
Go seems like another attempt — undertaken every few years by a fresh crop of bright-but-not-wise kids — to start a new programming language.
And, as most before them, they are largely ignorant of the problems encountered by those before them, whom they tend to dismiss as not bright enough... And so they soon find themselves forced to compromise their seemingly beautiful and laudable design goals with hacks (of various ugliness) to solve these problems.
To this day, for example, Go has no support for run-time loading of other Go-code (no dlopen()!)... Your entire application has to be recompiled to add a feature... Implementing something like Apache in Go would be a non-starter, because Apache's entire fauna of mod_foos is impossible — you'll need to recompile your httpd every time you wish to enable a new module (or upgrade an existing one).
And, speaking of compiling, the executables are large — even if you use somebody else's code, you must still compile it all into your application... Because everything is included in each executable, running multiple Go-apps on the same computer wastes RAM (the most valuable resource in a computer) since the kernel is unaware of the duplications and can not allow multiple processes to share pages of physical RAM used by them.
Yes we should save all our outrage and news of it until the day before it's due to be a problem
False dichotomy. No, it does not have to be "day before". A year or two before would do.
As things stand, though, we aren't at all certain, this particular one will ever be a problem — the stuff may remain buried in ice for eons. "Climate Science" and related alarmism (Peak Oil, anyone?) is rather notorious for unsuccessful predictions, while successful ones are rather hard to come by — people have tried...
To worry about what even the "proponents" say is decades ahead, one must really have dispensed with contemporary issues — such as, indeed, whether bogus accusations of sexual misconduct — and attempts to redefine unapproved kissing as assault — will allow a deceitful and crooked person become president this year.
Well, climate change has made that unlikely. Melting ice threatens to expose all kinds of toxic debris in decades to come, and Greenland wants it cleaned up, now.
Oh, so it is not a pressing problem yet, is it?
Given the spectacular failures of other predictions made by contemporary "Climate Science", I say, this too can wait.
Indeed, though the write-up does not mention this, TFA quotes Greenland's official thus:
"At the same time, we expect it’s a problem that will take decades to resurface," he told me. "The immediate focus should be monitoring and research."
Seriously? What poverty? Burmese migrants sneak from Myanmar into neighboring Thailand for better life. Thais themselves are happy to go to Israel for fruit-picking now that Israelis are loath to allow Palestinians, who used to work these agricultural jobs, to enter the country. And many Israelis are more than happy to move to the US. In other words, poverty is relative. In absolute terms, a homeless in New York is better off than a "middle class" North Korean.
The inequality within a society will be with us always. Even when we move beyond the much-denounced "scarcity", people who are smarter and/or more driven than others will still appear ahead — if not by wealth, then by some other measure, quantifiable or otherwise. It is just as inescapable as are differences in good looks, agility, or stronger muscles, .
For the absolute poverty, (a close approximation of) Free Market Capitalism is the best prescription, as the US has been demonstrating for at least a century already. But, to avoid arousing US-haters too much, let's consider other, less controversial, examples:
Soviet Socialist Republic of Estonia vs. Finland
East Germany vs. West Germany
North Korea vs. South Korea
In all three of the above examples, the peoples — hitherto identical in culture, religion, language, natural resources — lived for some decades under Socialism/Communism and Capitalism respectively. In fact, Estonia is better endowed than its sibling by climate and land-fertility — and yet, Capitalist Finland produced Linux, Nokia and the best snow tires in the world, while Estonia... Well, not so much.
It is not even about Democracy necessarily — both Cuba and Chile, the fourth pair I might add to the above, have lived under dictatorships for a while. But Pinochet had the wisdom to choose Capitalism and so left his country Latin America's top economy, while Cuba remains a shithole.
Stick to Capitalism, dude — but don't let it become Crony Capitalism (a guinea pig ain't a pig) by giving government so much control over the production, the manufacturers and service providers start trying to satisfy government officials, rather than actual customers.
Billionaire Tech Investors Support Divisive Plan To Ban San Francisco's Homeless Camps
Not knowing anything else about the issue, I can tell, it is likely to be utter crap based simply on its adherents terming the opposition's plan "divisive".
That Obama does not have a coherent strategy in Syria is well known — he is, obviously, out of his community-organizing depth on the world scene. Occam's Razor requires us to explain America's failures by his ineptitude.
But for Putin, a fascist dictator, military is what he can do. And, in power for over 16 years already, he had much longer to learn.
Not necessarily to preserve ISIS.
Putin's plan is to eliminate all other anti-Assad forces in Syria — and then ask the world to choose between Assad and ISIS. Until he is done with everybody else, weakening the Caliphate-seeking assholes will remain counterproductive for him.
People casting votes decide nothing. People counting votes decide everything.
The only hope for the electorate is to keep the latter group decentralized and otherwise disconnected from each other — to keep both fraud and honest mistakes small-scale and thus unprofitable. Any attempts to centralize vote-counting is the end of Democracy.
When Ukrainian forces try to use consumer-grade drones in their fight against Russian invaders, the devices are often intercepted by Russia's sophisticated radio-electronic warfare units. They are good enough to fool even American military equipment on occasion.
Had Russia really been fighting ISIS in Syria, they would've sent the same technology (and personnel) there.
You can be a criminal but not an enemy. And an enemy isn't necessarily a criminal.
Ah, I see... Still, this distinction is without consequence to my argument — which was that supporting you is not the government's job.
Oh wait, here [latimes.com] is the reason
[UCSF chancellor pay set at $750,000]
TFA is about the school getting rid of 80 people. Even if UCSF chancellor completely forwent his salary and worked for free, he could only give them less than $10K/year each. In other words, it is a red herring.
Cutting costs is a perfectly normal — indeed, commendable thing for organizations (public and private alike) to do. They do not exist to provide jobs, they exist to provide goods and/or services.
My point from the beginning of this thread was, that it is equally (un)ethical for the University to buy IT-labor from India for 10% of the American price, as it is for you and me to buy a China-made vacuum cleaner at a similar discount.
If you are going to denounce "greed", start with your own — manifested by the desires to a) be paid more; b) save money.
India has two official languages, English is one of them. The other is Hindu. Maybe, I should've said "one of the official languages" — who is "pedantic" now?
politics are very different. Culture is very different
Sure, sure. Yet, it is is quite surmountable. My family moved from Ukraine to the US — I know a few things about differing cultures.
And yet, it is still possible, if one absolutely can not find a different job here, where millions of immigrants do find it and happily prosper.
it's a LOT harder to get employment in India as a foreigner than compared to getting employment in the US as a foreigner
Now, would any of the involved engineers consider moving to India — to be paid 10 times less than they were — even if the country welcomed them?
Probably, not... Would they consider moving to North Carolina or South Dakota — to be paid 2-3 times less? Some might — but others will still complain (and write letters to Senators).
The others lean more toward "suitable" or "practical"
I can see, why moving to India is less practical for a Californian, than to North Carolina. But I do not see it so much less practical as to make a qualitative difference — merely quantitative. India is a (reasonable approximation of) Democracy, English is the official language...
You say "not exactly", but then affirm my point...
This poses the question of what/who are to be considered enemies?
Unless you are going to suggest, the Indians or the University's management are the enemies implied in the text of the Oath, the question is not pertinent...
I do not believe the concerns today are about banning trade, but eliminate one-sided trade practices
The concern in TFA is that a bunch of people lost their jobs, because their employer decided to switch labor-suppliers. Even when/if we develop Free(er) Trade, this is going to continue happening.
Probably because it is a country's duty to first support its own citizens.
No, it is not. The government's duty is to protect us from external enemies and internal criminals. Nobody owes you any actual support — that is, you can not count on other people giving you anything of theirs, only on them not taking away anything of yours.
Back to the original topic, I can not see, how an employer can be considered wrong not buying labor from the same folks, who are themselves happy to buy imported goods. We are all selling something (such as our labor) to buy something — and Free Trade expands the markets for both sellers and buyers. It sucks to be on the losing side, but that's life...
If you ban trading with India, the employer may consider moving work away from the expensive California towards a cheaper State — will we be talking about banning interstate commerce next, the way health insurance is already banned (under a variety of bogusexcuses), for example?
Since she hasn't been convicted of a crime, she needs to be absolved of exactly squat.
Oh, this coming from the people, who've already convicted Trump of sexual assault?
The grand-parent implicitly admitted her wrongdoing, but tried to absolve her on the grounds, that her actions involved no criminal "intent". That was patently wrong and warranted a correction — intent is not always necessary, and certainly is not in the case of mishandling classified information. She is also obviously guilty of obstructing justice/destruction of evidence — deleting thousands of e-mails after getting a subpoena...
Lack of intent may be why she should get a reduced sentence. It does not absolve her of the crime. An NSA contractor was just arrested merely for taking some materials home — that in itself is highly illegal and qualifies him for jail time. If the investigation also proves he wanted to leak/sell the information, the charges will be upgraded.
She really does belong to jail over this — the Democrats have disgraced the US this year by nominating a bona-fide criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, it is intentional. I just think, it is a flaw, rather than a "feature".
Not true at all. Apache is regularly used with shared modules — though it is possible to compile modules in, nobody really does that in practice, and some functionality is only available from vendors in a form of precompiled shared library.
Java, Perl, Python, TCL, PHP all make use of run-time loadable shared libraries — solving problems, which Go can not solve without fully recompiling one's application every time.
Stop it right there. Simply, there is not anything fundamentally special about Go. Period.
Well, that's a relief...
Why can't that boilerplate, that's included into every Go-built executable, live in some kind of libgo.so, so that multiple Go-apps on the same system can share the bloat?
Why TF should I "settle"? If I have 3 programs, that all need to parse JSON, for example, why must each one of them include the entire JSON-parsing functionality in its own executable, instead of sharing? And then, when whatever 3rd-party that maintains the JSON-parsing code releases a critical update, I have to recompile all of these executables — instead of simply replacing one library... Are you telling me, this is, somehow an advantage?
Yes, modern machines have so much RAM and other resources, a developer and a sysadmin can get away placing their own convenience over performance. Puppet and Sensu, for example, both come with their own version of Ruby bundled — few people are bothered by the fact, that the two always-running daemons, both implemented in Ruby, would not — without some work — share the same Ruby-environment.
Similarly, Java-apps are usually shipping with their own JRE included — and it is not uncommon to find multiple instances of, say, Tomcat on the same machine running under different Java-versions — a waste of tens of megabytes of RAM.
But, at least, a competent DevOps department can take measures to avoid such waste. You can convince a Java and a Ruby app, it is Ok to run under JRE or Ruby of your choice. Go makes that flat out impossible, because everything is thrown into one executable... For your convenience — don't you worry your pretty little head.
Which takes me right back to my usual rant... Per Moore's law, our computers today are 1024-times more powerful than they were 15 years ago. Do you think, your user-experience, however you choose to quantify it, has improved 1000 times? I certainly don't... Today's desktop-environments and browsers are better than they were then, but not by a factor greater than 5. The rest of the stupendous hardware advances were "eaten" by the sloppy developers (and sysadmins/operators) instead of being passed on to users.
They aren't really "international" — the term would imply multiple nations and some sort of deliberative body, where they meet with their agendas.
Greenland and Norway used to be one nation not long ago, split up peacefully and continue cooperating. They would not need very long to come up with a solution to a real problem. Which this is not. Certainly not today.
Thank you for confirming my point — the "Climate Science" predictions are worthless.
Greenland, mysteriously warming faster than expected today, may start freezing again ten years from now. We may as well rely on predictions of Astrologers.
Are you really so dim, you can't distinguish who from what? Neither my question nor TFA are about the latter — which method to use to avoid fatalities. That would be an engineering problem.
What is discussed here is an ethical one — when forced to choose between (high probability of) loss of one life vs. another, who should the AI prefer?
Children encounter a similar question early in childhood, when some asshole or bitch would ask them — however "jokingly" — who they love more, mama or papa... Fortunately, they can simply answer: "I love both equally".
An AI would not have this option. When considering different actions, it will, probably, attempt to minimize the total number of fatalities (or, rather mathematical expectation thereof). But there will be situations, where a hard cold choice would have to be made — blessed is he, who never had to make it...
Go seems like another attempt — undertaken every few years by a fresh crop of bright-but-not-wise kids — to start a new programming language.
And, as most before them, they are largely ignorant of the problems encountered by those before them, whom they tend to dismiss as not bright enough... And so they soon find themselves forced to compromise their seemingly beautiful and laudable design goals with hacks (of various ugliness) to solve these problems.
To this day, for example, Go has no support for run-time loading of other Go-code (no dlopen()!)... Your entire application has to be recompiled to add a feature... Implementing something like Apache in Go would be a non-starter, because Apache's entire fauna of mod_foos is impossible — you'll need to recompile your httpd every time you wish to enable a new module (or upgrade an existing one).
And, speaking of compiling, the executables are large — even if you use somebody else's code, you must still compile it all into your application... Because everything is included in each executable, running multiple Go-apps on the same computer wastes RAM (the most valuable resource in a computer) since the kernel is unaware of the duplications and can not allow multiple processes to share pages of physical RAM used by them.
2 Yucks and 3 Eeewws...
Who would you prioritize, and why should the others not hate your guts and call you names as a result?
False dichotomy. No, it does not have to be "day before". A year or two before would do.
As things stand, though, we aren't at all certain, this particular one will ever be a problem — the stuff may remain buried in ice for eons. "Climate Science" and related alarmism (Peak Oil, anyone?) is rather notorious for unsuccessful predictions, while successful ones are rather hard to come by — people have tried...
To worry about what even the "proponents" say is decades ahead, one must really have dispensed with contemporary issues — such as, indeed, whether bogus accusations of sexual misconduct — and attempts to redefine unapproved kissing as assault — will allow a deceitful and crooked person become president this year.
Oh, so it is not a pressing problem yet, is it?
Given the spectacular failures of other predictions made by contemporary "Climate Science", I say, this too can wait.
Indeed, though the write-up does not mention this, TFA quotes Greenland's official thus:
Must be a really slow news day...
Why, obviously, I'll outlaw it!
Seriously? What poverty? Burmese migrants sneak from Myanmar into neighboring Thailand for better life. Thais themselves are happy to go to Israel for fruit-picking now that Israelis are loath to allow Palestinians, who used to work these agricultural jobs, to enter the country. And many Israelis are more than happy to move to the US. In other words, poverty is relative. In absolute terms, a homeless in New York is better off than a "middle class" North Korean.
The inequality within a society will be with us always. Even when we move beyond the much-denounced "scarcity", people who are smarter and/or more driven than others will still appear ahead — if not by wealth, then by some other measure, quantifiable or otherwise. It is just as inescapable as are differences in good looks, agility, or stronger muscles, .
For the absolute poverty, (a close approximation of) Free Market Capitalism is the best prescription, as the US has been demonstrating for at least a century already. But, to avoid arousing US-haters too much, let's consider other, less controversial, examples:
In all three of the above examples, the peoples — hitherto identical in culture, religion, language, natural resources — lived for some decades under Socialism/Communism and Capitalism respectively. In fact, Estonia is better endowed than its sibling by climate and land-fertility — and yet, Capitalist Finland produced Linux, Nokia and the best snow tires in the world, while Estonia... Well, not so much.
It is not even about Democracy necessarily — both Cuba and Chile, the fourth pair I might add to the above, have lived under dictatorships for a while. But Pinochet had the wisdom to choose Capitalism and so left his country Latin America's top economy, while Cuba remains a shithole.
Stick to Capitalism, dude — but don't let it become Crony Capitalism (a guinea pig ain't a pig) by giving government so much control over the production, the manufacturers and service providers start trying to satisfy government officials, rather than actual customers.
It is just unfair, that the rich have a better life than the poor... The government must mandate equal quality of life for all!
Not knowing anything else about the issue, I can tell, it is likely to be utter crap based simply on its adherents terming the opposition's plan "divisive".
That Obama does not have a coherent strategy in Syria is well known — he is, obviously, out of his community-organizing depth on the world scene. Occam's Razor requires us to explain America's failures by his ineptitude.
But for Putin, a fascist dictator, military is what he can do. And, in power for over 16 years already, he had much longer to learn.
Putin's plan is to eliminate all other anti-Assad forces in Syria — and then ask the world to choose between Assad and ISIS. Until he is done with everybody else, weakening the Caliphate-seeking assholes will remain counterproductive for him.
As Stalin once put it:
The only hope for the electorate is to keep the latter group decentralized and otherwise disconnected from each other — to keep both fraud and honest mistakes small-scale and thus unprofitable. Any attempts to centralize vote-counting is the end of Democracy.
When Ukrainian forces try to use consumer-grade drones in their fight against Russian invaders, the devices are often intercepted by Russia's sophisticated radio-electronic warfare units. They are good enough to fool even American military equipment on occasion.
Had Russia really been fighting ISIS in Syria, they would've sent the same technology (and personnel) there.
Ah, I see... Still, this distinction is without consequence to my argument — which was that supporting you is not the government's job.
[UCSF chancellor pay set at $750,000]
TFA is about the school getting rid of 80 people. Even if UCSF chancellor completely forwent his salary and worked for free, he could only give them less than $10K/year each. In other words, it is a red herring.
Cutting costs is a perfectly normal — indeed, commendable thing for organizations (public and private alike) to do. They do not exist to provide jobs, they exist to provide goods and/or services.
My point from the beginning of this thread was, that it is equally (un)ethical for the University to buy IT-labor from India for 10% of the American price, as it is for you and me to buy a China-made vacuum cleaner at a similar discount.
If you are going to denounce "greed", start with your own — manifested by the desires to a) be paid more; b) save money.
Of course, it is.
India has two official languages, English is one of them. The other is Hindu. Maybe, I should've said "one of the official languages" — who is "pedantic" now?
Sure, sure. Yet, it is is quite surmountable. My family moved from Ukraine to the US — I know a few things about differing cultures.
And yet, it is still possible, if one absolutely can not find a different job here, where millions of immigrants do find it and happily prosper.
Now, would any of the involved engineers consider moving to India — to be paid 10 times less than they were — even if the country welcomed them?
Probably, not... Would they consider moving to North Carolina or South Dakota — to be paid 2-3 times less? Some might — but others will still complain (and write letters to Senators).
No, actually, not even then. I linked to the definition of assault before — unwanted kiss does not qualify, even if Anderson Cooper thinks it does.
I can see, why moving to India is less practical for a Californian, than to North Carolina. But I do not see it so much less practical as to make a qualitative difference — merely quantitative. India is a (reasonable approximation of) Democracy, English is the official language...
You say it, like it is a bad thing...
You say "not exactly", but then affirm my point...
Unless you are going to suggest, the Indians or the University's management are the enemies implied in the text of the Oath, the question is not pertinent...
The concern in TFA is that a bunch of people lost their jobs, because their employer decided to switch labor-suppliers. Even when/if we develop Free(er) Trade, this is going to continue happening.
Thank you. This does fully agree with what I wrote.
Both are feasible. One more so than another, is your argument merely quantitative?
No, it is not. The government's duty is to protect us from external enemies and internal criminals. Nobody owes you any actual support — that is, you can not count on other people giving you anything of theirs, only on them not taking away anything of yours.
Back to the original topic, I can not see, how an employer can be considered wrong not buying labor from the same folks, who are themselves happy to buy imported goods. We are all selling something (such as our labor) to buy something — and Free Trade expands the markets for both sellers and buyers. It sucks to be on the losing side, but that's life...
If you ban trading with India, the employer may consider moving work away from the expensive California towards a cheaper State — will we be talking about banning interstate commerce next, the way health insurance is already banned (under a variety of bogus excuses), for example?
Oh, this coming from the people, who've already convicted Trump of sexual assault?
The grand-parent implicitly admitted her wrongdoing, but tried to absolve her on the grounds, that her actions involved no criminal "intent". That was patently wrong and warranted a correction — intent is not always necessary, and certainly is not in the case of mishandling classified information. She is also obviously guilty of obstructing justice/destruction of evidence — deleting thousands of e-mails after getting a subpoena...
Well, it certainly does not work, when your husband can put in a good word for you with the country's top prosecutor. Obviously, due process is for the little people — which Clintons surely aren't...
Wow! Do we have to debunk this meme once again?
Lack of intent may be why she should get a reduced sentence. It does not absolve her of the crime. An NSA contractor was just arrested merely for taking some materials home — that in itself is highly illegal and qualifies him for jail time. If the investigation also proves he wanted to leak/sell the information, the charges will be upgraded.
She really does belong to jail over this — the Democrats have disgraced the US this year by nominating a bona-fide criminal.