gammagoblin's comments

>The headline is potentially misleading. There are already "nuclear power plants"

It is not potentially misleading. This is just you being pedantic about a connection that very few people make. When you say "nuclear power plant", people tend to think of nuclear fission reactors, not RTGs or fusion reactors. Both of these are applicable to the term "nuclear power plant", but only one is commonly referred to by the term. A lot more people would feel misled if it actually referred to RTGs when it said "nuclear power plant."

The only group that it could potentially mislead is people who know RTGs exist. Most of those people would instead think "I wonder what kind of nuclear power plant it is" instead of "wow, what a misleading headline!" unless they were intending to be pedantic (like you).

>seems the article implies EveO probably copyright/trademark/trade secreted that obvious idea so no other game can have it.

>That sucks. Nothing impedes technological and economic progress quite like IP laws.

What the fuck are you talking about? Where does it imply anywhere even close?

I'd definitely agree that IP laws impede technological progress, but you're leaping to ridiculous conclusions.

>Linux had (has?) exactly the same problem. I don't know how much progress has been made on either MacOS nor Linux to deal with this.

All my AMD GPUs have been issued GPU resets for years. I know that in 2013 my Radeon 5870 (the card I had at the time) was issued soft resets, which was logged in dmesg as a success. The problem with that is that whatever program caused the GPU lockup would continue to run (unless it crashes, which is frequently the case) until the kernel had reset the GPU so many times, the only option left is a hard reset.

On Windows, the way GPU lockups are dealt with is also by resetting the GPU, and it's the same there too, if it keeps locking up several times within a certain time span the kernel panics and you either get a BSOD or a complete system lockup.

It has a constitution, it's just not on a single document because unlike the US the country was not formed in 1776. The UK is one of the oldest political systems in the world, and already had enormous political and legal complexity at the time the United States declared independence, because of long legal history and the fact that it was running a global empire at the time.

It is completely non-sensical to expect such a nation to have a single document where the constitution is written. It's fucking easy to just write a constitution on a single piece of paper when it's done upon forming the country. It is extremely hard when you have laws going back to the 13th century and you ran a global empire up until the 1950s. It absolutely does have a constitution, and it's a constitutional monarchy, but it simply doesn't have it written on a single piece of paper.

What I'm far more interested in criticising about your idiotic comment is instead that it's just logically flawed. The critique itself originates from Princeton University, which is not a British institution, and the BBC is simply writing an opinion piece on it. Furthermore, what exactly does the BBC have to do with the politics and history of why the UK doesn't have a single piece of paper outlining its constitution? Your comment is practically just an ad-hominem.

>I don't want to be defending Rust but your post has so many misconceptions. May I ask where you got all that information and what your background is?

I am primarily a systems programmer and write software for the petroleum industry in my country. I work with C++ and in some (rare) cases C, and I've been doing that for the past 4 years. I have my own WIP hobby unix-like microkernel project written in C as well.

>Rust has #[no_mangle] and extern "C" and those two guarantee that ABI stability you're looking for.

I admittedly did not know this before it was pointed out to me.

>That's actually a breeze in Rust, including cross-compilation (which is relatively painful in C/C++).

It really isn't. Have you looked at rustc's compiler targets? It's not a very long list. Support is improving, but there's still a lot of key areas that are completely missing. To my knowledge it supports x86, ARM, MIPS and POWER. That's not a long list.

>There's work towards that: https://gitlab.redox-os.org/redox-os/relibc

That's good, and is genuinely what's necessary to put Rust in key components.

I see, I admittedly didn't know that. Thanks.

>Is there a reason that command line tools cannot be re-implemented in Rust and maintain GNU and POSIX compliance?

No, there isn't, but what "re-implementations" that I know of don't even try to do that.

>If not then the fact that ripgrep is not compliant is irrelevant to the larger point that Rust command line tools could eventually replace existing C command line tools.

Of course it's possible. You can go ahead and re-implement them in BASIC even. The point is that it hasn't been done, and until it has been done then such a replacement will not happen.

At that point there are further considerations. The C linker is ubiquitous, and remains a strong, underlying presence even on Windows, the one platform where C stands the weakest. The reason that the C linker is so widespread is that while C has no standard ABI, the platforms have very strongly defined ABIs (e.g. systemv abi), and those ABIs are extremely stable and haven't had a single change in over a decade. Those ABIs are also very, very simple and the result is that writing any type of software towards a C library in any language is dead simple.

C++ at least has extern "C" going for it, which disables name mangling. Rust doesn't have that, nor does it have a stable ABI. C/C++ are the two most interoperable language out there, with an extremely mature and reliable toolchain. It's simply not justifiable to replace C/C++ with Rust as a systems programming language until this serious problem is fixed.

Then furthermore, a vast amount of effort has been put into these tools over the last years to ensure that they run on any *nix and any architecture, and even so they can be ported with relative ease. For example, how do you suggest implementing glibc in Rust? You might argue "why would we need the C standard library when we're porting things to Rust", and the answer is that if you want to make a move towards rust, having a C library (particularly the GNU one, a lot of software depends on GNU extensions) is of utmost importance until that goal has been achieved.

>The question is whether we will end up using their efforts or whether we keep on going back to the same monolith kernels we have been using for the last thirty years or so. Whether it is NT, Linux, or any of the BSD kernels, they each have decades of history behind them.

Please just... stop. You are using terms that you clearly don't understand the meaning of. What is a "monolith" from your point of view? Because I can tell you that Windows NT is most certainly not a monolithic kernel. Its architecture is very much that of an impure hybrid kernel. You're using the term "monolith" as some sort of buzzword in a realm where that exact term already has a highly specific meaning.

>At the same time, we are seeing Rust pop up in a lot of places that used to be the exclusive domain of C. People are already re-implementing libraries, popular command line tools,

Yes, but some (e.g. ripgrep) don't actually do the same thing as the programs they are supposed to "re-implement". Most Rust "re-implementations" don't actually re-implement programs, they are new programs doing a similar-but-not-quite-the-same thing to the older C implementations. For example, ripgrep is neither GNU or POSIX compliant, and therefore it is not a re-implementation.

>I could see linux evolve to a point where integrating drivers like that is both possible and common. Once that happens, it will be a hybrid kernel effectively.

Hybrid kernels have absolutely nothing to do with the language they are written in beyond the fact that they're written in it. Monolithic, hybrid, microkernels and exokernels are all terms to describe the architecture of a kernel.

>So one outcome would be a lot of Rust code running in a wasm sandbox on top of legacy kernels.

So then Rust and wasm isn't a part of the kernel is what you're saying.

I went into this thread expecting to find Commons Clause apologists, and you did not disappoint.

>Calling it Apache 2.0 + Common Clause makes sense, it's an extremely well known license and it's easier to start there and then say "but with some restrictions"

And that is exactly the problem. You are not interested in the Apache 2.0 license, so stop attaching your own terms to it and undermining it like a parasite. Find another license that has the terms you're interested in or write your own.

You don't want a FOSS license, and you aren't interested in writing FOSS software. You do not care about the Apache 2.0 license, you just want to slap it on your software as if it was a brand. You are interested in the marketting opportunity that branding your project with such a license brings to you, not the actual terms of the license itself. That is exactly the point of the blog post, and so you should stop using it.

You are undermining FOSS. These licenses were written on the good faith assumption that people would not go and add restrictive terms to them that are directly opposed to the principles and ethics of the license. You are doing that, and that means you are undermining the license and the efforts of all FOSS licensing by legitimising this kind of parasitic behaviour.

Just fucking stop, and write your own god damn license.

>The facts are sobering: 86% of consumers suffer from banner blindness and only 14% of users are able to recall the last display ad they saw.

Ah, yeah, we suffer from banner blindness. It's such a bad thing for those consumers, they don't care about our useless ads anymore!

Shut the fuck up, you stupid moron. They're statistics, not "MRA bullshit". Do they show any correlation with suicide at all? No. Are they implicitly MRA statistics because they highlight disparity between genders specifically for men? No. Does highlighting the difficulties one gender faces neglect another gender's difficulties? No.

So, please shut the fuck up. You are doing absolutely fuck all to help ANY gender. Your polarised views and divisive attitude is only making it far, far worse.

>Before European hegemony africa was the slave hunting ground of muslims

The fact that Africa has been an absolute shithole for the past thousands of years is no secret, nor is it news.

>Then, under European leadership after WWI, you have colonialism in Africa.

Yes, I do in fact know about it. What's interesting to note is that while the conditions weren't good, there was in fact several places where people willingly worked for a decent wagei such as modern-day Ghana (Gold Coast). Slavery had already been abolished by the time the Scramble for Africa began (within the British Empire anyway). Belgium is in much worse light.

I know what went wrong too, but the point I'm making is that the colonisation of Africa wasn't all that bad. Lots of the infrastructure that exists there today was originally built during the colonisation of Africa.

And no, I am not British.

>I assume you know what was wrong with that, defending socialist viewpoints like you do.

What views is it I have that are socialist? Anti-interventionism? Because that's really all I'm arguing against.

>Now, under American hegemony, and largely thanks to constant American milirary and economic support, and just plain free food,

You must be ignorant to not know that all the European countries also contribute with foreign aid and food. This is not unique to the USA. Even bloody Russia does. Please point out where this American "hegemony" in Africa is.

Africa is a continent, excluding a few countries in North Africa, South Africa and one on the western coast, divided by religion, social inequality and corruption. It is the only place in the world that petty tribal wars even happen in the modern world. Do you honestly believe that the major population of Africa even knows where USA is on the map? Some of these countries have a literacy rate of just 20%. Sudan, Chad and Niger are all countries completely torn apart by internal conflict, and you call this American "hegemony"? Educate yourself.

>there's a large number of democracies, an >1000% improvement in money earned for the people living there. I wouldn't say it's stable but it's definitely an improvement.

Yes, Somalia, Eritrea, Congo and Ethiopia are truly great places to live compared to what they were before.

How about no? This assistance is not specific to the USA nor is it helping that much when all the money goes to the wrong people, that is, corrupt officials who take it all for themselves. The only African countries that are managing fairly well are places like South Africa who have had vast development spurred form colonial times.

I daresay current China is doing a lot more for countries like Angola than western foreign aid money does good. What is needed in Africa is not money which goes into corrupt hands. I think foreign investment is much more urgent, and profitable for both. Currently China and organisations like the Red Cross are the ones doing the dirty work. Not USA, and not Europe.

>After WWI, British forces took over and administered India. Whilst I'm not quite ready to say this was a universal good, it was a definite improvement over the previous situation. This united India like it had never been united since over a millenium and built the state infrastructure that made the current India possible. This changed the life of 10-20% of India from subsistence farming to an actual reasonable existence.

Yes, it really was an improvement from the old.

>With American (mostly economic) and British (mostly military) support the current India was created : the world's largest democracy. It was recently celebrated that 50% of India has been lifted out of destitution.

The UK has invested billions of pounds into supporting the current India for decades now. They've not provided military support, because India is VERY capable of doing that themselves. Need I remind you that India's strongest allies have been the UK and the Soviet Union (now Russia) for several decades now? Need I remind you that Indian military equipment is either exclusively Russian, or developed by themselves?

The USA has done about nothing for India. In fact, during the cold war, the two were enemies.

>Do you really believe the idea that liberals espouse, that forward progress happens automatically in all circumstances because the clock is advancing ?

I have not made that claim. I have made the claim that particularly after WW2 the world is entering a repeatedly globalised state due to ease of commerce and free trade agreements. This can easily be reversed if something triggers the reverse, but I really doubt it will turn around unless we end up in a new global war.

>For the love of God, read some history

I have, and I know that German interventionism (that is, Kaiser Wilhelm II's "World Politics" idea) was one of the biggest causes of WWI.

>what would have happened in Eastern Europe if America didn't have nukes aimed at Moskow ? The short story : Germany would have a Russian border right now, which would be armed to the teeth. That would have destroyed the economic progress in Europe of the last 30-40 years at least.

NATO != Murrica

I am in complete favour of European military alliances. It defends European nations against invasions, and it keeps us together instead of making us fight each other due to split alliances all over the place like WW1 and WW2.

>Now imagine not just that one event, but like a reading of 20th century history will tell you, an event like that every 2-3 years. Can you imagine what would happen ? Can you imagine what would happen if Russia, or China, or Japan, or ... had global hegemony ?

India and China are both two nations that are more concerned with themselves rather than what some anti-American terrorist group is doing i Iraq.

>Do you really believe that ?

You do not understand the concept of globalisation. The very fact that right now there's dozens of planes flying an Europe-America route is a sign of globalisation. There's even more cargo ships sailing the same route, and you deny the increasingly globalised economy? For God's sake, more than 20% of American government debt is held across the Pacific Ocean, and this is not globalisation you say?

>Answer me this : why isn't the Central African Republic exporting loads of fish ? Do you think the problem is isolationism ?

No. I think the main reason the Central African Republic isn't exporting fish is because it happens to be in the middle of a desert with no access to the coast.

Aside from that, the economy in Africa in general is very poor. This is not news, nor is the African economies well-being necessary for increasing globalisation to take place.

>To read about a worst case scenario, read about the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, and the rise of islam and piracy and constant genocide in the centuries following that. It will show you what can go wrong with globalization, and it will show you how long such a problem takes to fix.

There were LOADS of problems during the existence of the Western Roman Empire. The world was full of conflict at that time too.

Even so, the Western Roman Empire was not christian. This religion spread in Europe after the collapse of that empire, mostly because the persecution came to a complete stop. Christianity, as I am sure you know, is in the same religious family as Islam and Judaism. Moreover, after the collapse there were still stable empires in the world, such as the Byzantine Empire that collapsed because of relentless Ottoman assault.

You also seem to ignore the Holy Roman Empire, which was established later, but also had many long periods of stability.

>But generally look up the situation at the end of the 19th century (that's 120 years ago, not exactly an eternity), and ask yourself why globalisation didn't happen, despite America, and quite a few other countries, really, really, really trying to make it work.

Define globalisation.

Regardless, this has gone FAR off the point. I have made the point that military interventionism is something that breeds instability. It did so leading up to WW1, it did so inbetween the two wars, and it did so in the modern Middle East too due to Soviet and American interventionism. Military interventionism to accomplish one nation's goals has ALWAYS fucked over everyone else.

I do not want globalisation, which seems to be your main problem with what I said. I simply made the point that one nation cannot lead all. Only if there was a global government would the entire world be lead by one entity. Currently, the only government which does intervene to a great extent happens to be the US government. Since the article was about the US and how it's "falling from its glory", I voiced my opinion on that I think it'd be a good thing if the USA stopped messing with others. It would be a good thing if no nations intervened excessively with others.

Interventionism by the USA has had many negative effects, some of which I mentioned in my first post. The USA has many internal problems that needs to be solved rather than having occupation forces in over 1000 US military bases around the world. I have made very specific points, and I don't see why I have to argue about the development of African colonies to discuss the points I have made.

Also, don't call people socialists just because they happen to disagree with you. That is beyond pathetic.

>Are you aware of the democratic peace theory? Check wikipedia. In short, [stable] democracies don't have wars.

Yeah. I actually mentioned it in passing.

"In Europe, I think the leading cause for no repeated big wars is European cooperation and the lack of other political systems than the democratic one."

Other than that I don't think democratic peace theory really holds water when the involved nations are not committed to peace (like Europe is). Russia, a democratic nation (though exactly how non-corrupt it is can be discussed), is currently intervening in Ukraine and so is the USA.

>Not even USA starts wars with (or intervene in) stable democracies.

I'm not sure I really follow. They seem to have a great time intervening in non-NATO countries.

>In short -- don't mix up packs of thieves stealing countries with the countries themselves. Or with democratic governments

I've not said that either of these nations have a clean plate, nor have I said that they're a good influence. I've argued that I dislike all interventionism, and since the article /was/ about the USA, I criticised them.

India and China sure as hell have a cleaner plate than USA though.

>Why would globalization necessarily be handled in a good way? We could get the military empire building back; Russia and China have started.

I don't think it is being handled in a good way. That's the god damned point. No nation should have global military police forces.

I don't know which part of my post said that I completely agreed with and thought everything that happened in the world preceding the American global control was good. You are criticising a non-existant point in my post.

I am criticising all interventionism, not just American interventionism. I sort of made this obvious when I criticised Soviet interventionism.

>I mean, I'm not saying America really is the "shining city on the hill", BUT let's call a spade a spade here : American hegemony has been pretty fucking great for America, for Europe, for the whole world. Denying that makes you a moron, nothing more.

For the whole world? Really? What parts of the world, exactly?

As far as I can see, about half the world's population is in the absolute shitter and still very unstable, not made better by the military interventionism of the USA in the middle east for example. The progressive attitude we have here in Europe and that they have in America is not consistent throughout the world. In fact, the socio-economic situation of a lot of the world is very, very bad.

American "hegemony" as you call it has only been good to the US' closest allies and trade partners. China, Russia and India to name three big ones have had to develop by themselves independent of American support. In Europe, I think the leading cause for no repeated big wars is European cooperation and the lack of other political systems than the democratic one. While the American support is relevant, Europe at the time committed to preventing future wars, and to be honest no doomsday prophecies like the Versailles Treaty was made this time.

>Let me state the blatantly obvious here : without American power being unassailable, maybe not globally, but at least on every ocean, our world will get a whole lot worse, very fast. Very fast. Once it happens it will take half a millennium to get liveable again. Can you at least consider for 5 seconds that knowing nothing about history and just having lived the last 30 years might not provide an entirely realistic view of how the world works?

What makes you able to say for certain what the world would look like if this and that didn't happen?

>And if by globalized society you mean the UN, I suggest you check out the UN's successes.

Globalisation is a process mostly independent from the UN. Come on.

>No offence but the "globalized society" is not just a disaster, many people would have been better off living under a dictator ordering a genocide against them than with the result of having the "globalized society" that is the UN interfere with their affairs.

Globalisation, unless EVERY single nation on Earth adopts isolationism both economically and socially, is unavoidable.

Personally I hope the USA quiets down and accepts that one nation cannot lead the entire world without a fully globalised society (and even then I doubt the idea is very good, but that's another discussion entirely). The problem I, as a European, have with the USA is that the government sees itself to have the moral authority to intervene in other countries' internal affairs to change our politics to their interests or pull us with them into their own wars. I've not spoken to a single person here in Europe who supports military intervention in the middle east, and to be honest I think the intervention of both the previous Soviet government and the current U.S. government is what breeds terrorism and threats from extremists.

The USA has - as a result of the cold war's and the current interventions in other countries - expanded the role of the NSA, set up extensive airport security programs such as the TSA, and through Homeland Security they scrutinise every tourist's history to the greatest of detail before actually letting them in. The ESTA application is only the surface of such. I consider the US government to be a very dangerous institution to safety and security for all human beings around the world.

I sincerely hope that the American public puts the US back on the right track. The current foreign policy is economically and socially unsustainable, the welfare state in the USA is crumbling and the middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. The government seriously needs a big change. I am not encouraging revolutionary action, as I believe any government that needs violence to be instated is inherently flawed, but there needs to be a change. There's a lot of focus on the wrong issues in the USA, especially amongst the youth, while the entire nation is heading towards economical and social regression.