🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@sdgathman

Yea my last project i tried moving to pypy for exactly that reason. It turned out i couldnt move because of some dependency problem or something... We had tons of people trying to figure out how to multi-cpu out application and it was one dead end after another and would have effectively required a rewrite.

@skyblond

@skyblond

Python is a nice little language for somethings... The more i use it the more I personally dislike it.. the lack of multi-cpu is a deal breaker for sure.. but i also just fine the language a bit ugly and hackish in its presentation.. which i could have gotten past if it wasnt for the cpu issue.

For high level stuff I much prefer java if i need something rigerous and formal, or ruby if i need something fast and loose... of course thats for traditional OO high level stuff.. For other categories stuff like Haskell is a lot of fun too.

@sdgathman

@skyblond

And to your other comment.. usng a thread pool to run coroutines doesnt get you anything here because multi-threading in python wont spam multipleCPUs.. youd have to use multiporcesses still.

@sdgathman

@skyblond

Agreed, while python's biggest shame-to-fame is its inability to leverage multiple cpus through multithreading (or coroutines).. the flip side is that it is so trivial to interact with C-code that it makes up for that in a unique way that has its own value.

IF you need a language where you need to do a lot in C but what the convience of high-level language where you can get away with it, python is great... if you need a high level language that is cpu-intensive and effecient and easy to write without wanting to touch C, then python is a horrible choice.

Me personally, I use python a lot (just finished a 2-year project in python)... but over the years have found it just isnt a suitable language for most things, because of these very reasons.

@sdgathman

@skyblond Yea in java multithreading with the purpose of leveraging multiple CPUs is pretty straightforward and similar to any other language.

Python really is the odd one out where multithreading is a bit of a cop-out as it doesnt actually run in parallel and across CPUs and thus requires either C-python to bypass the GIL or multi-process handling.. which is quite ugly to do efficiently.

@sdgathman

> The key limitation of co-routines is that other "threads" do not have a chance to run until the current code hits a "yield". This also means you don't need to bother with locks and stuff like with true multi-tasking, hence the efficiency for an interpreted language.

The whole point of multithreading in this discussion is its ability to leverage mutlicpus like it does in other languages... This sounds like they are sharing one thread since only one is running at a time.

@skyblond @trinsec

@skyblond JVM? Thats Java, thought we were talking about python?

Sounds like you implemented threading poorly in java and moved to a language where the way you built it was more appropriate to that language... I mean sure, they might be able to write code on Rust better than in Python simply because they are better at writing code for Rust than they are for Python... but thats not the language's fault.

> Also, I always prefer strong typed languages when co-op with other developers. Python makes me panic when I don't know what the type of variable x

Based on the context here you mean staticly typed, not strongly typed

@admitsWrongIfProven

> With a time frame chosen, the resources are more or less clear. Expand the time frame too far into the future, we will get some vagueness. But we can work with that, as we can at least take a guess.

Well no, the resources are only clear over very short time periods, or where the total supply has little relevance. Entier countries worth of wealth can be destroyed in a matter of months in some extreme cases.

> I do not agree that there was no ethical reason to equalize access to resources, but if it is not fundamental to the reasoning you want to do here, we can ignore it.

Since its not clear what you are disagreeing on I cant even state if its relevant here. The main premis we covered and agreed to: wealth is not a zero-sum game.

So the real question now is, what is it you are trying to assert, and is it even something we disagree on?

> Should it be relevant, i would point out that unequal access to any natural resources is a kind of “right of the strongest”, just with money instead of brawn.

Well no, because I (or my parents) had to earn and work for those resources. So its not a right to the strongest, its a right to reap the rewards of what you, or your ancestors, invest time into.

The fact that I can invest time into something and get a reward that makes my future easier is **exactly** the behavior we want in a society, because it encourages people to build for the future and invest that time rather than to just sit around and contribute the minimum.

@skyblond

multithreading is ugly, but not exactly heavy... you can do threading without multiprocess but you have to disengage the GIL, which involves a little bit of magic... its an ugly pattern to be sure, but not resource intensive.

@trinsec

@skyblond

That I have no idea.. But if they think go automatically means faster then it will probably be an abysmal failure.

@trinsec

@admitsWrongIfProven

> I do not understand why you want to leave the time parameter completely open.

Because thats the reality.. in the real world time moves forward. Therefore I insist we talk about things how they are, and not based on some model that doesnt reflect life.

> If we want to answer a question like “can a specific person do x (create value, create wealth, bake corn bread), then the corn grown in 100 years or the heating energy available with fusion reactors in 20 years (always 20 years away!) is irrelevant.

I havent objected to any claims of this nature... If you claim you want to do something that takes 20 years to accomplish I have not, and would not claim you could do it instantly...

> We have some resources right now, and it would be reasonable to include next years harvest in our plans. But an open time parameter?

Huh? at no point did I say all things must be assumed with infinite time into the future... you seem to be getting into irrelevant meta. Time is considered, and it must be considered in line with the reality of the scenario we discuss, which has been the case so far. If you feel I am representing a 20 year time period as an instantanious thing than be specific where I may have done this and we can discuss.

> So today, the people that have access to the proper resources can create value and wealth. Those that do not cannot. For the future, we can change who has access, we can create some (limited) extra resources. Anything we can add has a limit, though. As you said, land has very strict limits, others are a bit more open.

Yes some people with access to more reasources can generate more wealth, others with access to less resources cant generate as much. This has never been in dispute.

Nothing wrong with this, there is no ethical reason to think everyone needs to have the same resources and identical abilities to generate wealth. In fact quite the opposite, people who have invested more time into generating wealth in the past, and thus have more wealth(or their parents did this for them) should reap the benefits of them and their parents hard work by being able to generate more as time goes on. It seems your idea that everyone needs to have the same amount of resources or its unfair is the fundemental flaw in your reasoning.

Well I think I finally got to the bottom of why the #QOTO matrix server has been slow in the past. Now that i have good stats on resources I can better address it... Should have matrix running much smoother soon.

@trinsec

@crowgirl And yet we still, knowing its use, only use gloves and a mask when dealing medically with a person (such as doing surgery)... why? because most of us would rather take the very real risk, knowing respirators are going to reduce it, because living our lives in hazmat out of fear, however real, is no life at all. I will take the risk if it means I can be comfortable and enjoy my day more.

Its like hyochondria with this stuff... like sure, if you never shake hands, wear a mask all the time, and wash your hands obsessively you will be at a marginally less risk.. but there comes a point where its just not worth the tradeoff.

@admitsWrongIfProven

Yes if you take a snapshot of the world at any moment the wealth in that moment is obviously fixed... how can anything change if time is fixed? The point? I dont think that was ever in dispute.

> I really wonder what you mean by "we can always grow more" in relation to gold. Have i been misinformed where gold comes from? Are you talking about waiting for supernovae to produce more heavy elements?

The amount of gold we have in circulation is not fixed... there will always be more in the earth to mine. As technology improves our ability to detect it or reach it improves too. For all intents and purposes it isnt finite given how vast the earth is and how little of it we have tapped.

The bigger issue with mining isnt if its finite or not, it has to do with the cost in environmental damage it takes to mine it. But even that too can be improved with technology (and has been).

> Saying these are infinite does not describe our world, it only says "we could do better", which i do not contest.

I am not saying they are infinite. I am saying they are effectively not finite given the vastness of the untapped resources still available to us in most cases. In other words, for the moment they are not behaving as finite resources, and wont be for a long time, at least from an economic perspective.

@SteelFolk i remember impatiently waiting just for the ascii art to render :)

Very interesting waterfall (spectrogram) of a dial up modem connecting. I can even picture where all the sounds come from I remember hearing as a child from the classic dialup connection.

#ComputerScience #CS #ComputerEngineering #STEM #Technology

@admitsWrongIfProven give me some time to respond, im workign on sysadmin stuff and context switching is a little rough at the moment.

@admitsWrongIfProven resources are not necceseraly finite, some are, some arent. Corn is not finite, you can grow more or less and can replace lost corn.

Even resources that are finite often act as non-finite resources. Like gold, there is a fixed amount in the world but in practice we can always grow more.

Land, that is a good example of a fairly fixed resource. I mean sure you can always find new islands or even make them from sand. But this is rare and hard to do so it is fairly fixed.

But when we talk about wealth fixed or mostly-fixed resources is only a small portion of that. But when a resource is fixed I do agree it needs to be handled differently than resources that are more easily generated.

@admitsWrongIfProven So we agree on that isolated point correct? Yes or no?

@admitsWrongIfProven Again we arent addressing (yet) who can create wealth or if wealth can be generated fairly by everyone equally.. thats a fair tangent we can go on in a minute... But we agree on the fundemental original point, wealth is not fixed and one does not need to take it from others, it can be generated (even if generating it may mean converting and having some wealth to start).