CapeWearingAeroplane @ CapeWearingAeroplane @sopuli.xyz

Posts

0

Comments

265

Joined

2 yr. ago

Wat?

Since you seem to know a lot about this: I would think that at some point the purely physical size of a device is prohibitive of using shared cache, just because the distance from a cpu to the cache can't be too big. Do you know when this comes into play, if it does? Also, having written some multithreaded computational software, I've found that there's typically (for the stuff I do) a limit to how many cores I can efficiently make use of, before the overhead of opening and closing threads eats the advantage of sharing the work between cores. What kind of "everyday" server stuff is efficiently making use of ≈300 cores? It's clearly some set of tasks that can be done independently of one another, but do you know more specifically what kind of things people need this many cores on a server for?

I see your point, which is kind of what I meant about the exception for people that are "just there for the gig". And I agree that when we take those into account, we have people who are legally required to defend/protect things they don't personally support. I also think taking those people into account is a different kind of discussion, because then we're talking about people taking an oath to uphold institutions they don't believe in for self-serving reasons. Whether or not someone can faithfully do that is an interesting discussion in itself.

I won't repeat the whole argument, but I have to admit like it seems you didn't catch the core part.

You should be able to get food and survival on basic pay. Prices should increase slowly over time. Basic pay should therefore increase at the same pace, or slightly faster, than prices are increasing. The issue you have now is not really the current inflation, but that inflation has outpaced wage growth for the past couple of years. Price growth isn't a problem if everybodies wages increase at the same rate as the prices grow, or faster, agree?

Now that inflation has slowed down, wages just need a little time to catch up. <= That right there is an important point. You don't want prices to decrease to match your current pay. That breaks the economy bad. You want your wage to increase to match the current prices.

Another major issue you have is that minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, that's a regulatory issue. Also your unions had their collective back broken a couple decades ago, that didn't help either.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but I honestly don't think it is:

Military and police are groups that defend/protect their country, it's laws and it's fundamental principles, which they most likely support. Just like your previous argument: Police can defend and support the right to protest, without supporting the content of the protest. This extends to pretty much anything.

Doctors and lawyers can support a universal right to life, good health, and a just trial, and by supporting those things, it makes sense to help, defend and protect a patient / client regardless of their background, practices or actions.

In both cases, we could make an exemption for police / military / doctors / lawyers that are there just for the cash. At that point, it's basically, "I'm defending / protecting because I support me getting paid." and the whole argument is kind of moot.

Voting blank? I can respect that as making a political point. But even though you say you've made up your mind: Can I please encourage you to stay up-to-date on what is being done by the candidates, and to keep an open mind that you may still be won over?

Elections are still almost a year off, idk what it could be, but perhaps you see something and think "that was actually pretty decent, I could vote for that guy if he does more of that." And the way I see it, that's the best possible outcome right now, however unlikely it may be/feel.

Sorry mate, but as of this coming election, these are probably your choices. If you don't vote, the only thing you're doing is increasing the risk of the greater of two evils.

If you want better politicians to run for president (which is a very reasonable wish to have) you're first going to have to vote them in at lower levels. The problem, to me, appears to be that those who make it to the top end up being bad choices for a lot of people. I attribute that to low voter turnout in lower level elections, which leads to decent politicians never making it to the point where they can run for top level offices.

I'm not going to shred on you for feeling apathetic, I can understand that. I'm just going to point out that when given the choice between two evils, you need to reflect on whether you think it's right to not choose, even if that leads to the greater of the two coming to pass.

Pils?

You have to remember: Inflation tells you how fast prices are increasing. We want a certain degree of inflation (typically around 2% is healthy for the economy). The problem occurs when inflation is too high, so that wages don't keep up, that's what we're seeing now. When inflation decreases, that means prices are growing less fast, not that they're decreasing.

Decreasing prices (across the board) would be deflation, which is terrible (think Great Depression / 1930's Germany terrible). If your 100$ is worth more tomorrow than it is today, then why would you spend it today? You wouldn't (except for necessities). That leads to a massive drop in investments, not only in the "Wall street" sense, but in things like building houses, building factories, hiring people etc. it also causes wages to decrease. This goes on until production and wages hit a low point where there's huge amounts of money in circulation, very low production/employment, and very low prices. That's when you get a whiplash to a situation where everyone has money to buy stuff, but no one is making it, aaaaand we have HyperInflation™

In short: Your 100$ has in fact never been worth less than now, and that's a good thing. We just want it to decrease in value more slowly, and things are going in the right direction. It could still take a year or two for wages to catch back up, but we'll get there. Current policies are helping the situation.

But you're not protecting the religion, you're protecting the right to practice it, which it seems like you also support. It would be strange to say "I will protect your religion" if you don't support any aspect of said religion.

Y'all need more combined words! Why can't we just call it "underskinsfat" or "subskinsfat" and be rid of the problem? I much miss the option in the English language of just plugging together whatever words I need in order to create a word that gets the point across. I hope the devs will add that in a future update.

Without that option you can't get words like "ashstuck" to describe the specific situation where someone is stuck somewhere because flights are cancelled due to ash in the atmosphere, typically from a volcanic eruption.

Thanks for sharing! I wouldn't have guessed that sense of smell could be so heavily impacted! Nice to hear that your emotions are doing better as well :)

I believe it does "one pass" when it loads the code into ram, because syntax errors can be caught before anything runs. But I think the actual interpretation happens pretty much one line at a time :)

Cool! I didn't know about the pelvic tilt either, and it's interesting to hear that both mtf and ftm transitioners (is that the right term?) have similar experiences regarding emotional accessibility. And thanks for opening for questions, I'm going to fire off a couple right away:

Have you experienced any change in sleep patterns?

Any significant change in appetite? If yes, how? Both regarding amounts, and what kind of food you "crave"?

I'm assuming you don't menstruate, but do you have any kind of hormonal "cycle" that would be similar? If so, how is it?

PS. It's veery late in my time zone, so I have to sleep now, but I appreciate any answers I get, and I'm looking forward to reading them :)

I definitely see your point, but at the same time, isn't public debate in text the best tool we have here for an open discussion?

Regardless, I can understand, and respect, that you don't want to spend time on public discussions about moderation. As "some mod somewhere" once said: If you don't like how it's being done, become a mod yourself. I can respect that.

Not even "not so bad", I would say that as a scripting language it's fantastic. If I'm writing any actually complex code, then static typing is much easier to work with, but if you want to hack together some stuff, python is great.

It also interfaces extremely easily with C++ through pybind11, so for most of what I do, I end up writing the major code base in C++ and a lightweight wrapper in Python, because then you don't have to think about anything when using the lib, just hack away in dynamically typed Python, and let your compiled C++ do the heavy lifting.

That's a compiled language, an interpreted language is translated to assembly at runtime, in pythons case: pretty much one line at a time.

Disclaimer: To the best of my knowledge, please correct me where I'm wrong.

I've also always thought it may have to do with social conditioning, but possibly on a non-sexual level. My thought is that guys are (generally) conditioned to be more quiet about intimate things, or things that are good, and more loud in "aggressive" situations. This fits well with the factual observation that men are less likely to talk about personal problems with a friend, and more likely to push the boundaries (be vocal) in an interview. In my head, it's an extension of the "strong, silent" stereotype, which is often regarded as positive. Women, on the other hand, are (typically) socially conditioned to be more vocal about feelings in general. I wouldn't be surprised if these conditionings bleed over into how vocal people are during sex.

With that said: I'm a guy, and my gf likes it when I make noises. Once I got used to it, I also learned to enjoy grunting. Grunting is highly recommended.

I've never heard about women's skin being generally more sensitive, that's really interesting! I always thought the difference in temperature tolerance had to do with women having a thicker sub-skin fat layer (might not be the correct English term for "underhudsfett"). Have you noticed any other physiological changes that you think can be attributed to the transition?

Sorry if I'm a bit direct, I just think the biology of the human body is fascinating, and I've never really before thought of the insight that we can get from people that have experienced "both sides" of the spectrum, so to speak.

I agree that moderators have an important job, and I appreciate the effort you put into it, but is

Subsequent comments on the topic will be deleted.

really necessary? I can't see how it hurt to let them explain themselves in the comment section where everyone can see.