You wave your hands about 2022, is that the year of the losses? Or do you have more apples and oranges in your analysis than data?
If some of the plastic bits change cost, that doesn't matter very much in 2022, it affects everybody so it is not a meaningful disruption. Nobody will be going without a new car because of it.
Modern manufacturing supply chains are supposed to be more flexible than historical ones, if that isn't true for an industry maybe they're doing it wrong and this experience will improve their practices?
And yet, it could run an old web browser that could easily display normal pages of data. It seems the only thing that it would actually choke on would be all the advertising and user tracking scripts. A few changes is CSS and things, but those have low overhead.
That's the whole point of the story; with improved software architecture you might be using an algorithm that scales horizontally, in which case there would be no need at all for a faster CPU, just more CPUs. Or even, more subsystems; maybe doing too much of the work in a CPU is the problem? In a lot of tools that I use, the hard parts are done in an FPGAs and embedded microntrollers and the CPU is just managing the user interface and system buses.
My whole life the main factor leading to people accepting sucky software is that the hardware is always getting better, and by the time they ship it it runs "fast enough" on the new hardware.
I've been anticipating this for decades; eventually computing power is "good enough" that people start actually trying to write good software. In my view the hardware is at that point, and time is ripe for software changes. And this will lead to tool improvements, to be sure. Architectures are likely to change, because a big part of what goes into existing systems is exactly this desire for the architecture to be relevant for a predetermined amount of time! If the hardware isn't improving and you can't just sell people the new version every few years, that radically changes the design considerations for the whole system. So far, that hasn't happened at the consumer level, and I don't know which changes will be successful, but there are likely to be radical changes in system architecture as companies start to design systems for much longer life.
I will make one specific prognostication: As new hardware architectures are introduced, more of the software will be pushed back onto ROMs, and OS kernels will act more like microcontroller libraries where you use system functions that on more expensive hardware is implemented in ROM, and on cheaper hardware the same code gets copied to RAM (as is the case for most of the system now)
Right now, and historically, audio/video subsystems sometimes have "hardware acceleration," certain things like floating point hardware are not always available, some optical scanners have to have their firmware copied from the host driver, some laptops require custom drivers because of custom hardware support/acceleration of various subsystems, and there is no general mechanism to manage any of this. Each subsystem might have a locally-standardized interface, but there is nothing general for those classes of situations. Or at least, to the extent that there is, it is only within the C compilers that it exists. I predict much greater convergence in how these different subsystems are defined and how they interact. Return of the Thick Client! Except the cheap version will be a compatible thin client. And each subsystem will be able to be implemented as hardware, local software, or cloud services.
The whole point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was that quantum physics can apply to large scale things like cats and people, indirectly, if you design a mechanism to make it so. It's not about the whole cat decaying. The experiment is that if a geiger counter detects a single atom decaying it triggers the release of a poison to kill the cat. Thus the quantum state of the single atom determines the life or death of the cat.
This sort of explanation is exactly why people are better off without these "thought experiments" that purport to simply the matter.
In the experiment, the cat either died or didn't, and if it died is besides the point. Certainly there was no mystery in a random data source being tied to a switch that had consequences. That's not even close to the point! The real point is that if it was a cat, the waveform collapsed or didn't right away, because the probability of each atom in the cat being in the same position relative to its neighbor is very very high compared to the a probability normalized to be close to 50/50. Meaningless. It only has meaning if the cat was actually not an observer, rather than trillions of observers as is the case in the real cat; and that is the actual thought experiment. If the cat wasn't an observer, it wouldn't be alive or dead until you opened the box, and then when you did the waveforms would collapse to one state or the other. The whole point is about when you can know the result, not about what happened.
And it is well established experimentally that if you really didn't interact with it, it wasn't actually in a state yet! So doing the same thing with multiple things just increases the number of things that have to be prevented from interacting in order to get the sort of quantum result being discussed.
Schrodinger's Cat is just a thought experiment. The rules of quantum mechanics don't apply to large scale things like cats.
Applying Schrodinger's Cat to physics itself does not actually change physics.
Even if quantum mechanics didn't average away into nothing at that scale, the thought experiment still requires to pretend you don't know what an "observer" is, and that you don't know that every atom of the Cat is an observer already. The "observer" isn't the physicist after all, but rather it is the photon detector; and the cat is large enough to be interacting with everything else in the box just by its presence. And even if that was not so, as soon as you press the button the waveform has to either collapse or not, or else the cat wasn't affected. The cat is only used as an anthropomorphic small object; you're asked merely to care about the object, in order that it is easier to understand how impossibly non-intuitive quantum behavior is.
There are two morals to the story: 1) Photons are neither particles nor waves, those are just metaphors that have predictive value under narrowly defined circumstances. Attempts to explain it intuitively lead directly to nonsense like this thought experiment. And 2) Sub-atomic particles make awful pets. You can't even know if they're hungry or if you fed them at the same time.
I can buy chainsaws made in the USA, chainsaws made in Europe, chainsaws made in Canada, chainsaws made in China.
China competes on cheap products, but that isn't the same being integrated into the economy in a way that makes them important. The whole reason that the current trade policy is disruptive is because of the time it takes to arrange changes to industrial supply chains, not because China is important to manufacturing.
Things like automobile production that have a lot of parts will suffer supply hiccups, but OTOH they're not really doing JIT manufacturing, most cars sit around on lots before even being transferred to the dealers, and the disruptions aren't as bad as they might sound on the tee-vee. The vast majority of products do not have that many parts. And none of it is exclusive to China. None of it.
It is like when you're walking down the sidewalk, and a pebble gets tossed up in the air from traffic and hits chicken little on the head and he wants you to believe that the end of civilization is nigh.
As a person who prefers to spend a little more to buy solidly built items that last, I don't really see any harm it would have if cheap imported crap was more expensive than it is now.
Generally people who disfavor the trade scenario with China want less trade, because they do not see any chance of getting China to offer reciprocal rules for foreign businesses. Without that, without China allowing US businesses to operate in China with the freedom that Chinese businesses have to operate in the US, then reducing trade is the whole goal.
In that sense it is very "winable." Many of the European conflicts have already been resolved.
What I find funny is that a lot of people think it is only Trump supporters who want decreased trade with China, but I've been hearing the same thing from the left for 30 years about how "Free Trade" will ruin our economy for the little guy, and destroy the environment too. And on the right, the little guy has at least the same economic concerns. Neither party actually votes to support American workers or small business in trade negotiations, so it shouldn't really be that surprising that the little guy supports an anti-trade policy. Meaning, we want Trump to do a bad job dealing with trade with China! LOL
Not every bad job pushes things in the wrong direction, once in awhile you slip on a banana peel and get saved from getting run over by car! Actually, in other cases he wanted to so something evil, but wasn't allowed by the courts merely because he did a bad job at implementing it. So, maybe even 35% of the screw-ups are useful.
There is nothing subtle about misunderstanding people.
When you're speaking, you can choose misleading words and that is a matter of style. When somebody else is speaking, and you're replying, and they used a normal meaning of the word, then in that situation when you choose a different meaning of the word you might as well keep your joke private, because intentionally misunderstanding is just being stupid. The other person can't have missed anything in your words, because they're the one who already chose the meaning of their words. And you're using a different meaning, while purportedly attempting a reply.
People who misunderstand other, intentionally or not, are not being "sarcastic," they're being dumb-asses. It isn't like a Rorschach Test because it is prone to confusion, it is like that in that you'll spew out a response based on your own internal mechanisms without even being conscious of any connection, or lack of connection, between your own thoughts and the ideas you're purporting to respond to. In fact, we can learn just how stupid and aliterate you are by your response, we don't really even need whatever the original idea was. Because you didn't succeed in engaging it.
And an expensive-to-maintain type of data store at that.
Yeah, I'm mostly a blockchain programmer now, and every time I hear somebody call it a database I cringe and think, "Keep this person away from my database!" LOL
But that said, you only need to have overhead from the blockchain at the network nodes; the real work, and the real databases with mirrors of the blockchain data, usually run on application nodes that are using traditional technologies and access the blockchain through the API services on the network node.
For some people, persecution fantasies are as close as they can get to being important.
If they really want to be persecuted they could just be more honest about what they really think, and if they're more deplorable than their friends and family they'll get some nice consequences to whine about.
And if their friends and family are more deplorable than them, then they can just be honest about their feelings in public and make sure antifa is attending the event. Now they'll be know to both sides as an important person.
Meanwhile, in the real world, systemd is bringing huge technical improvements not only to servers and workstations, but even to small embedded systems like I work with!
The reason you still hate systemd is that you still don't have a use case for actually caring about those details.;) It is obvious; people who love SysV UNIX, in 2018, are either over 90 years old, or full of shit with no use case other than telling people "Hurr-Durr, tools suck."
With systemd we can receive a network request, do security checks, then start up the service and wait for it to be ready before passing the connection over. With SysV you're running some userspace daemon that has to arrange to be able to accept every connection you spew at it, and you're managing that shit in who-knows-what code is running behind that process number. Fuck that shit. Talk about weak sauce. Why do you love the really-weak and known to be insipid sauce? Oh, right, you don't actually use sauce. You just talk shit and try to get saucy.
Is it more important to do something to help the homeless, or to develop a viable use case for blockchain?
Solving the problem of homelessness is very hard... (well, very hard to find a solution that would be acceptable to the government and most tax payers at least).
And it's even harder to find a solution acceptable to the homeless!
That said, a blockchain is a type of data store. Any solution can incorporate that, it doesn't have to be a necessary part of the effort. I doubt you would have an attempt at affecting the problem without generating data.
Sorry for two replies, but I wanted to add that in communist propaganda, the canonical bad-guy bourgeois was a cobbler, a lower-middle class person who had economic freedom. I just wanted to clarify that this isn't some other perspective from capitalists. That is literally who their bad-guy is.
I wasn't talking about OEMs not giving you a part number. I'm talking about the fact that they all do give you a part number, but they also substitute other parts that they consider "equivalent." OEMs that don't do that, also don't sell low cost systems, and so won't even be using the nearby part numbers that this would be considered "equivalent" to.
You're very credulous of marketing. But you apparently lack real-world data.
That's how I would get free HDs in the mid 90s; people would use data compression, a sector would go bad, and the OS would give the user drive errors. In many cases the compression prevented the OS from being able to understand the problem, and it would appear even to the dorks at the local computer store to be a dead drive; or at least, it would take them so long to figure it out that it was cheaper to sell a new one.
Sometimes we could even get free SCSI drives that merely needed a "low level format" and they were as good as new. The controllers were harder to find, but also sometimes available when the motherboard it installed in died.:)
The first HD I saw was in middle school; 10 MB. Parallel interface. Shared by a small group of Apple ][e computers. Took 5-10 minutes to warm up, and if you accessed anything before the flashing light stopped flashing, data corruption was likely.
Multi-user; single filesystem. Due to the wonders of the parallel interface, all the connected computers would completely block while waiting for access; even just a read would block the whole system.
It was nearly useful. The only kids who used it, once the features were understood, were the ones who didn't want to look like a nerd by carrying a disk case around. Me, I carried around an oversized disk case, so I had 10M in my bag.
If you don't know which way to set the clock to prevent missing public transit, you probably don't need to know and can go back to your life of kicking rocks, or else get back on your horse, as the case may be.
Slashdot Mirror
Sithl is a German company, and the chainsaws they sell in the USA are made in Virginia.
https://www.stihlusa.com/stihl...
Most of the Husqvarnas sold in the US are made in the US, but the more expensive ones are made in Sweden.
I personally prefer Stihl if I have to use a saw, but I can't imagine a Ryobi, Tanaka, or Hitachi not being a reasonable tool.
You wave your hands about 2022, is that the year of the losses? Or do you have more apples and oranges in your analysis than data?
If some of the plastic bits change cost, that doesn't matter very much in 2022, it affects everybody so it is not a meaningful disruption. Nobody will be going without a new car because of it.
Modern manufacturing supply chains are supposed to be more flexible than historical ones, if that isn't true for an industry maybe they're doing it wrong and this experience will improve their practices?
My sacrificial anode is a coral reef, and nobody can figure out if they're supposed to be mad at me or not.
And yet, it could run an old web browser that could easily display normal pages of data. It seems the only thing that it would actually choke on would be all the advertising and user tracking scripts. A few changes is CSS and things, but those have low overhead.
That's the whole point of the story; with improved software architecture you might be using an algorithm that scales horizontally, in which case there would be no need at all for a faster CPU, just more CPUs. Or even, more subsystems; maybe doing too much of the work in a CPU is the problem? In a lot of tools that I use, the hard parts are done in an FPGAs and embedded microntrollers and the CPU is just managing the user interface and system buses.
Why miss what you can still have? Starting at under $33!
https://www.mouser.com/Product...
But I'm not sure you'd have any advantage over a $5 ARM SoC.
My whole life the main factor leading to people accepting sucky software is that the hardware is always getting better, and by the time they ship it it runs "fast enough" on the new hardware.
I've been anticipating this for decades; eventually computing power is "good enough" that people start actually trying to write good software. In my view the hardware is at that point, and time is ripe for software changes. And this will lead to tool improvements, to be sure. Architectures are likely to change, because a big part of what goes into existing systems is exactly this desire for the architecture to be relevant for a predetermined amount of time! If the hardware isn't improving and you can't just sell people the new version every few years, that radically changes the design considerations for the whole system. So far, that hasn't happened at the consumer level, and I don't know which changes will be successful, but there are likely to be radical changes in system architecture as companies start to design systems for much longer life.
I will make one specific prognostication: As new hardware architectures are introduced, more of the software will be pushed back onto ROMs, and OS kernels will act more like microcontroller libraries where you use system functions that on more expensive hardware is implemented in ROM, and on cheaper hardware the same code gets copied to RAM (as is the case for most of the system now)
Right now, and historically, audio/video subsystems sometimes have "hardware acceleration," certain things like floating point hardware are not always available, some optical scanners have to have their firmware copied from the host driver, some laptops require custom drivers because of custom hardware support/acceleration of various subsystems, and there is no general mechanism to manage any of this. Each subsystem might have a locally-standardized interface, but there is nothing general for those classes of situations. Or at least, to the extent that there is, it is only within the C compilers that it exists. I predict much greater convergence in how these different subsystems are defined and how they interact. Return of the Thick Client! Except the cheap version will be a compatible thin client. And each subsystem will be able to be implemented as hardware, local software, or cloud services.
Right, tariffs don't make friends, they just reduce the trade by increasing overhead.
The whole point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was that quantum physics can apply to large scale things like cats and people, indirectly, if you design a mechanism to make it so. It's not about the whole cat decaying. The experiment is that if a geiger counter detects a single atom decaying it triggers the release of a poison to kill the cat. Thus the quantum state of the single atom determines the life or death of the cat.
This sort of explanation is exactly why people are better off without these "thought experiments" that purport to simply the matter.
In the experiment, the cat either died or didn't, and if it died is besides the point. Certainly there was no mystery in a random data source being tied to a switch that had consequences. That's not even close to the point! The real point is that if it was a cat, the waveform collapsed or didn't right away, because the probability of each atom in the cat being in the same position relative to its neighbor is very very high compared to the a probability normalized to be close to 50/50. Meaningless. It only has meaning if the cat was actually not an observer, rather than trillions of observers as is the case in the real cat; and that is the actual thought experiment. If the cat wasn't an observer, it wouldn't be alive or dead until you opened the box, and then when you did the waveforms would collapse to one state or the other. The whole point is about when you can know the result, not about what happened.
And it is well established experimentally that if you really didn't interact with it, it wasn't actually in a state yet! So doing the same thing with multiple things just increases the number of things that have to be prevented from interacting in order to get the sort of quantum result being discussed.
Schrodinger's Cat is just a thought experiment. The rules of quantum mechanics don't apply to large scale things like cats.
Applying Schrodinger's Cat to physics itself does not actually change physics.
Even if quantum mechanics didn't average away into nothing at that scale, the thought experiment still requires to pretend you don't know what an "observer" is, and that you don't know that every atom of the Cat is an observer already. The "observer" isn't the physicist after all, but rather it is the photon detector; and the cat is large enough to be interacting with everything else in the box just by its presence. And even if that was not so, as soon as you press the button the waveform has to either collapse or not, or else the cat wasn't affected. The cat is only used as an anthropomorphic small object; you're asked merely to care about the object, in order that it is easier to understand how impossibly non-intuitive quantum behavior is.
There are two morals to the story: 1) Photons are neither particles nor waves, those are just metaphors that have predictive value under narrowly defined circumstances. Attempts to explain it intuitively lead directly to nonsense like this thought experiment. And 2) Sub-atomic particles make awful pets. You can't even know if they're hungry or if you fed them at the same time.
Hong Kong isn't independent now, wtf are you even talking about?
They got 10 years of no new rules to arrange an orderly handover, any promises beyond that were already broken and the policies retracted long ago.
You should seek access to news sources.
I can buy chainsaws made in the USA, chainsaws made in Europe, chainsaws made in Canada, chainsaws made in China.
China competes on cheap products, but that isn't the same being integrated into the economy in a way that makes them important. The whole reason that the current trade policy is disruptive is because of the time it takes to arrange changes to industrial supply chains, not because China is important to manufacturing.
Things like automobile production that have a lot of parts will suffer supply hiccups, but OTOH they're not really doing JIT manufacturing, most cars sit around on lots before even being transferred to the dealers, and the disruptions aren't as bad as they might sound on the tee-vee. The vast majority of products do not have that many parts. And none of it is exclusive to China. None of it.
It is like when you're walking down the sidewalk, and a pebble gets tossed up in the air from traffic and hits chicken little on the head and he wants you to believe that the end of civilization is nigh.
As a person who prefers to spend a little more to buy solidly built items that last, I don't really see any harm it would have if cheap imported crap was more expensive than it is now.
Generally people who disfavor the trade scenario with China want less trade, because they do not see any chance of getting China to offer reciprocal rules for foreign businesses. Without that, without China allowing US businesses to operate in China with the freedom that Chinese businesses have to operate in the US, then reducing trade is the whole goal.
In that sense it is very "winable." Many of the European conflicts have already been resolved.
What I find funny is that a lot of people think it is only Trump supporters who want decreased trade with China, but I've been hearing the same thing from the left for 30 years about how "Free Trade" will ruin our economy for the little guy, and destroy the environment too. And on the right, the little guy has at least the same economic concerns. Neither party actually votes to support American workers or small business in trade negotiations, so it shouldn't really be that surprising that the little guy supports an anti-trade policy. Meaning, we want Trump to do a bad job dealing with trade with China! LOL
Not every bad job pushes things in the wrong direction, once in awhile you slip on a banana peel and get saved from getting run over by car! Actually, in other cases he wanted to so something evil, but wasn't allowed by the courts merely because he did a bad job at implementing it. So, maybe even 35% of the screw-ups are useful.
Your response doesn't address the points I was making.
So what were "the points" you were making
Stop typing until you get there.
There is nothing subtle about misunderstanding people.
When you're speaking, you can choose misleading words and that is a matter of style. When somebody else is speaking, and you're replying, and they used a normal meaning of the word, then in that situation when you choose a different meaning of the word you might as well keep your joke private, because intentionally misunderstanding is just being stupid. The other person can't have missed anything in your words, because they're the one who already chose the meaning of their words. And you're using a different meaning, while purportedly attempting a reply.
People who misunderstand other, intentionally or not, are not being "sarcastic," they're being dumb-asses. It isn't like a Rorschach Test because it is prone to confusion, it is like that in that you'll spew out a response based on your own internal mechanisms without even being conscious of any connection, or lack of connection, between your own thoughts and the ideas you're purporting to respond to. In fact, we can learn just how stupid and aliterate you are by your response, we don't really even need whatever the original idea was. Because you didn't succeed in engaging it.
That said, a blockchain is a type of data store.
And an expensive-to-maintain type of data store at that.
Yeah, I'm mostly a blockchain programmer now, and every time I hear somebody call it a database I cringe and think, "Keep this person away from my database!" LOL
But that said, you only need to have overhead from the blockchain at the network nodes; the real work, and the real databases with mirrors of the blockchain data, usually run on application nodes that are using traditional technologies and access the blockchain through the API services on the network node.
For some people, persecution fantasies are as close as they can get to being important.
If they really want to be persecuted they could just be more honest about what they really think, and if they're more deplorable than their friends and family they'll get some nice consequences to whine about.
And if their friends and family are more deplorable than them, then they can just be honest about their feelings in public and make sure antifa is attending the event. Now they'll be know to both sides as an important person.
Meanwhile, in the real world, systemd is bringing huge technical improvements not only to servers and workstations, but even to small embedded systems like I work with!
The reason you still hate systemd is that you still don't have a use case for actually caring about those details. ;) It is obvious; people who love SysV UNIX, in 2018, are either over 90 years old, or full of shit with no use case other than telling people "Hurr-Durr, tools suck."
With systemd we can receive a network request, do security checks, then start up the service and wait for it to be ready before passing the connection over. With SysV you're running some userspace daemon that has to arrange to be able to accept every connection you spew at it, and you're managing that shit in who-knows-what code is running behind that process number. Fuck that shit. Talk about weak sauce. Why do you love the really-weak and known to be insipid sauce? Oh, right, you don't actually use sauce. You just talk shit and try to get saucy.
Is it more important to do something to help the homeless, or to develop a viable use case for blockchain?
Solving the problem of homelessness is very hard... (well, very hard to find a solution that would be acceptable to the government and most tax payers at least).
And it's even harder to find a solution acceptable to the homeless!
That said, a blockchain is a type of data store. Any solution can incorporate that, it doesn't have to be a necessary part of the effort. I doubt you would have an attempt at affecting the problem without generating data.
Sorry for two replies, but I wanted to add that in communist propaganda, the canonical bad-guy bourgeois was a cobbler, a lower-middle class person who had economic freedom. I just wanted to clarify that this isn't some other perspective from capitalists. That is literally who their bad-guy is.
You did not understand.
I wasn't talking about OEMs not giving you a part number. I'm talking about the fact that they all do give you a part number, but they also substitute other parts that they consider "equivalent." OEMs that don't do that, also don't sell low cost systems, and so won't even be using the nearby part numbers that this would be considered "equivalent" to.
You're very credulous of marketing. But you apparently lack real-world data.
If you can't remember which word you're looking up, it won't really even matter.
But it does indeed matter whether you're holding them so tightly that it is as an "actual holding or occupancy." Don't do that.
That's how I would get free HDs in the mid 90s; people would use data compression, a sector would go bad, and the OS would give the user drive errors. In many cases the compression prevented the OS from being able to understand the problem, and it would appear even to the dorks at the local computer store to be a dead drive; or at least, it would take them so long to figure it out that it was cheaper to sell a new one.
Sometimes we could even get free SCSI drives that merely needed a "low level format" and they were as good as new. The controllers were harder to find, but also sometimes available when the motherboard it installed in died. :)
The first HD I saw was in middle school; 10 MB. Parallel interface. Shared by a small group of Apple ][e computers. Took 5-10 minutes to warm up, and if you accessed anything before the flashing light stopped flashing, data corruption was likely.
Multi-user; single filesystem. Due to the wonders of the parallel interface, all the connected computers would completely block while waiting for access; even just a read would block the whole system.
It was nearly useful. The only kids who used it, once the features were understood, were the ones who didn't want to look like a nerd by carrying a disk case around. Me, I carried around an oversized disk case, so I had 10M in my bag.
If you don't know which way to set the clock to prevent missing public transit, you probably don't need to know and can go back to your life of kicking rocks, or else get back on your horse, as the case may be.