This is all very well if you have a friendly, high level scripting language like Ruby, but I'm definitely glad I don't have to write a C compiler where functions can take arbitrary blocks of code.
> In an appropriately powerful language, it could be a function call.
> This is all very well if you have a friendly, high level scripting language like Ruby, but I'm definitely glad I don't have to write a C compiler where functions can take arbitrary blocks of code.
That's a surprisingly good setup because in Smalltalk(one of ruby's main ancestor languages)
if/else is a method which takes a block closure.
a ifTrue: [ l log: 'a is true'] ifFalse: [ 'a is false']
while
in ruby if else is a syntatic construct
if a
l.log ('a is true')
else
l.log ('a is false')
end
probably more for perceived clarity/comfortability then speeds sake.
> You really the NHS costs less per-capita in tax than US healthcare?
I think you left out a "think" between "really" and "the NHS" there. And, yes, the UK's public expenditures per capita on healthcare are less than the US's. In fact, the UKs public and private expenditures on healthcare combined are, per capita, less than the US's public expenditures (which, in turn, are less than the US's private expenditures). The UK's public expenditures on health care are also less than the US's public expenditures on health care as a share of GDP.
Thanks! I like these scales, how small the Earth is, how young humanity is.
But once someone starts preaching about how this means we are insignificant I lose interest quickly.
If we are the only sentient life in the universe, then we are extremely significant in the grand scheme of things. If there was/is a god or another alien civilization from another universe, they would certainly conclude that the evolution of sentient life is one of the top ten wonders of this universe.
I get tired of all this "insignificant" talk, its simply not true. Our minds are perhaps behind the wonder of life in the first place, but not that far behind, and life is one of the greatest things about our universe. How inanimate material started to think and move and do things. I think that is in no way insignificant, even if life only exists for a fraction of the time the universe will exist.
I guess what I wrote is entirely subjective, I wonder how many people would agree or disagree with my statement, or at least my feeling towards how others would view our sentience and life in general?
I really don't think humanity and life is insignificant even when we are small in comparison to giant stars and distances and short-lived in comparison to the age of the universe.
I think the main assumption you're making is that we represent the pinnacle of anything. Whether or not it's true, I think the exercise of seeing how small today is vis-a-vis how large it feels contains an analogous insight: the vastness of what was and what will be is so incomprehensible that it would be shortsighted to ascribe any kind of superlative significance to what's here now.
People who say humanity is the summit of some mountain might as well be saying "we are living in the newest day to ever have happened." Technically true, but far from certain that it means anything. Personally, I think it behooves the character of humanity to sit quietly in humility.
An eon from now, when the technological lifeforms which have succeeded recall instantly this thread from their archive, and witness how you once crowed about the grandness of humanity, they may experience an emotion which you might call humor -- only with a dimension and richness that your mind cannot possibly fathom. Or they may experience disdain, contempt, and ridicule at the thought that you had anything to do with them or their existence. Do you credit the millionth timid mammal, your potential forebear, for surviving the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction? Of course not -- not unduly at least -- it was only doing what was assigned to it, a biological directive.
And you consider the mind so great, which we scarcely understand -- to direct your own mind toward the contemplation of its grandness seems, at least, arrogant. If you should live so long, in your own lifetime it will not only decay, but before that it will trick you, deceive you and trap you. And soon, it will also be made obsolete. What did it do in between that was so great? Gamify some social metrics to increase ROI and user engagement? Contemplate and slightly reduce the runtime complexity of an algorithm whose need will be eliminated within a decade? Eat, sleep, shit and fuck?
So I'm not sure what exactly you mean by calling us significant, you don't know that at all. The statement means less than calling today the youngest day to ever have happened, because at least that is true.
In sum: all that you consider to be esteemable and worthy of elevation will be reduced with time. Whatever significance you imagine it holds is a function of another observer who -- if it exists -- is driven by motives and a character you don't understand.
Or in other words, just live today; it won't matter in the grand scheme of things. And likely, neither will humanity.
I'm really interested in computer architecture. I somehow doubt that there's a company that's going to sit me down and do that straight out of undergrad...
Yeah, whilst he mentions work and school, there's nowhere to just be social with people in that schedule. What do you do if you want to go to the cinema or the theatre, or just the pub?
I was fairly sure that NT was originally going to be a microkernel, but it ended up being really slow, so they had to push everything into a more monolithic architecture.
NT derived from Mica, DEC's microkernel OS project for their research RISC architecture PRISM. When DEC cancelled Mica along with PRISM — flirting briefly with MIPS before finishing Alpha — project lead Dave Cutler and some of his team took it to Microsoft. (The eventual settlement had MS support NT on Alpha until DEC collapsed from mismanagement.)
