11600+ entries in 0.006s
mircea_popescu: this is much cheaper to maintain, code-wise, than some attempt at an otherwise useless "infinity" ; and in the situation where software's not really expected to work "by itself", ie, will always have someone in charge, the cost of "well, if situations change, alter the value and recompile" doesn't seem an overwhelming cost.
mircea_popescu: now, it seems to me the case that since there's little benefit in having more threads than cores, it is perfectly acceptable (in this situation) to hold these in an array set as to whatever maximum is reasonable. 32 or 64 or whatever count.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: this is of general interest as i don't expect eulora to be the last republican item with threads in it.
mircea_popescu: since we're doing adaisms : it came before the minigame board that we have to make some specific decisions re the threading model.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform latin america much more nation than spain, that's for damn sure.
mircea_popescu: (anyone even read lardner besides fitzgerald, faulker, me an' dorothy parker ?)
mircea_popescu: whereas us barbarian, because never actually raised its head out of its ass to date.
mircea_popescu: thus therefore, venetians long after "enhabsburgated" nevertheless nation, because venetian whores won in the bedroom the "war" charles' soldiers "won" on the field.
mircea_popescu: in any case, besides this distinction, i don't see any way to meaningfully divide people at the scale here contemplated.
mircea_popescu: i'm not even sure either ; though by the fruits i judge former.
mircea_popescu: but, back to the problem, i dunno why i should credit chinese history more than i credit any other imaginary characters history. there's a history of desdemona, you know, as "brought to life" by various gals over the ages and the stages.
mircea_popescu: so, to bring it back to the chinos : "they agree it serves them right", of course, of course. do you know why ? because they've seen the adults do it.
mircea_popescu: this is the "economic cycle", and it's been playing out since 1800, ie, since these schmuckls got together in a burg and read newspapers.
mircea_popescu: and also privately agree they'll personally be damned if they forward this inhumane and anti-business aggenda "of other [unknown, now] morons".
mircea_popescu: at which juncture, all teh merchants in the burg ~publicly~ agree it's a bad thing (in general, mind you!) for anything to get in the way of business and therefore clothing the poor naked whores and feeding candy to their crying spawn ;
mircea_popescu: then nature resumes its course, and guess what ? c) turns out to be costly, and getting in the way of business!
mircea_popescu: generally this takes the refinment of "more general", just for good measure. cuz they're not a bunch of morons, see. women and children and everyone else do well to follow their wise lead!
mircea_popescu: so, whenever some unpleasant shit happens, such as the merchant fleet stepping on a rake, all the merchants in the burg agree : a) that nobody could have predicted it ; thus therefore b) that, individually and personally, none of them could possibly be blamed ; and thus c) some agreement should be made to in the future avoid such unplesantries.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform let me tell you a story about regulation.
mircea_popescu: "this train is too loud and it priviledges the speed of sound over other speeds much more important to us" ~cixi, 1800s.
mircea_popescu: but now, short men with pig noses that can't use maps.
mircea_popescu: seems to me "china" as the mythical beast went to join "egypt". yeah, sure, used to be tall men with elegant noses that invented mapmaking.
mircea_popescu: if you redefine all words to mean simply "i love you", you will "live" in the most loving world imaginable.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: no, i'm just saying the expression is ~constructed~ so as to ~by itself~ provide the universality.
mircea_popescu: much like "chinese have word for this european phenomenon, it's she cow pig had kittens."
mircea_popescu: mno, they'd be "oh, rose is bush because in this poem they're used interchangeably".
mircea_popescu: this is the fundamental chinese approach, "oh, x=y" randomly everywhere.
mircea_popescu: it's not even clear kingdoms are sufficiently similar to be discussed in those terms.
mircea_popescu: not so clear it's for this rathjer than "bad luck with cards", but w/e.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform so then, british empire was "enhabsburgated" because albert the dick ornament clearly too dumb to tie own shoes ? or was it asteroided, seeing how, well, the germans fucked them.
mircea_popescu: cuz what the fuck do you do, when "dude, get the fuck out, i was there, IF IT HAPPENED I WOULD HAVE SEEN IT" doesn't come out ?
mircea_popescu: guy liked playing bacarrat. guy was present at a table. others (wjho didn't like, and didn't play) picked a cheater. king... ABDICATED
mircea_popescu: this was future king going "five twerps in me enturage agreed SO THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO" in court of law.
mircea_popescu: did you, incidentally, read up on this tranby croft affair ?
mircea_popescu: anyway, it's deeply untrue "kind had trouble tying own shoes". the habsburg empire (to this date a model for wanna-bes, from bahamas' crowd to merkel etc) ended very much by bombsteroid dropping. but other than that, the last emperor franz as the last emperor albert-edward had a lot in common : very socialist outset.
mircea_popescu: sure, if we're doing the romans dun seem to fit. but we were doing " still waitin' for the counterexample"
mircea_popescu: "your technology leverages you 193.446, too bad you're outnumbered 6.023e23"
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform demographic breakdown is what happened the first time europe nearly got wiped. "oh, you have towns and writing ? cute, here's 10e19 orcs from middle earth."
mircea_popescu: seems to me that if i take a flamethrower to a beehive or if the queen bee just fucking dies one morning you'd have DIFFERENT situations. not even then ?
mircea_popescu: in fact, hussein bahamas could wake up tomorrow ~and no longer be~ socialist. for the simplest of reasons -- no longer meeting teh definition. whereas...
mircea_popescu: i don't fucking posit, "oh, they were all people, and here's how peopledom goes, on basis of this example i misrecollect"
mircea_popescu: gimme a break, just because an (unrelated) demented fellow built some great palaces and schonnbrun is well painted dun make some sort of answer to the questions of life.
mircea_popescu: but "the habsburgs" aren't a fucking item. who, which ? die kaisrin, habsburg ? her mother ? her eldest sister ? her eldest brother ?
mircea_popescu: nothing wrong with "the model", especially if you have no intention of being historian nor any serious interest in history.
mircea_popescu: it's the sort of understanding of history of the sort of people who'd rather be done with it than anything else.
mircea_popescu: and i do not believe china meaningfully "cycled" because "oh, look, habsburgs!!!"
mircea_popescu: i do not believe "the grand truths" of european descent have much import outside of a world seen through european eyes
mircea_popescu: i am unpersuaded "man" as such is the "transnational" universal socialists want it to be.
mircea_popescu: i don't even disagree! everything ever will match this model!
mircea_popescu: "even the study of math, mp, note you i said the study not the object studied, flourishes and dies as described by my model!"
mircea_popescu: so man is this bipedal animal without feathers and with flat nails who's historical existence is the model for all things, stars, continents, societies and any other ideal object ?
mircea_popescu: no dood. fails to distinguish as in, fails to distinguish. the partition it enacts upon the world is into two sets : the set of the items you invited over to play tea time with, and the set of the items you didn't [yet] so invite.
mircea_popescu: that i didn't permit that proposed transitivity, and i explained it in terms of hotpants, doth not mean anything about what we were discussiong.
mircea_popescu: you can't "give examples" as to the welfare of chickens by "accidentally having happened to pick" only cows.
mircea_popescu: the hotpants discussion was when you were trying to pass me chickens for cows.
mircea_popescu: the discussion went "oh, you're saying it tells you nothing actionable ?" "no, i'm saying it doesn't distinguish anything" "oh, so you're saying it tells you nothing actionable"
mircea_popescu: all hail to me, the discoverer of the last word in math.
mircea_popescu: all hail to me, the discoverer of the last word in math.
mircea_popescu: in exchange i'll give you this great tool : math is a great model for math. because whenever math works, math works, and also -- when doesn't... doesn't.
mircea_popescu: at which you'll say that "sure, the model of life includes this also" and i'll congratulate you on your great model and move on.
mircea_popescu: consider the armenians ; or the venetians. both encountered the exact same problem (not invented by them, either) : bad demographic breakdown. do you know for a fact the machined-down zulus had "enhabsburgated" ? there is such thing as "cut down in prime", why not.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: well, this'll quickly devolve into semantics. how would we establish what passes ?
mircea_popescu: the objection is that in being an universally arguable, it therefore is an universal waste of time.
mircea_popescu: objection was that it doesn't distinguish between anything and anything, not moreso than, at the most, between "the set of things about which i could be arsed to think the five minues that;d produce support for it and the set of things i wasn't yet so arsed"
mircea_popescu: you understand this, if i and you are florentines, and you teach me the facts of life, there's a very fundamental difference between "a. get boat ; b. use lodestone, navigate ; c. find curio ; d. bring back home. e. trade for lots of dough and good things, including a desdemona ; f. strangle her for being a whore" whether i say "i don't know this lodestone model be worth my time" or i say "i dunno this strangling be worth my
mircea_popescu: address it out in teh open, talk of models for human society not of models for reality.
mircea_popescu: yes, but you were adressing it by yourself in the closet.
mircea_popescu: there's no objective truth'll get you into a girl's hotpants. you realise this ?
☟︎ mircea_popescu: you don't perceive the difference between the things we're discussing ?
mircea_popescu: in short, i don't mean that it dun persuade me "it's the case". it dun persuade me it's worth my time as a model.
mircea_popescu: "it broadly works" "yes, it does. you know what else broadly works ? everything else children do to coo themselves to sleep"
mircea_popescu: what else. planets, too, stars also, everything ? what's the use of this unviersally applicable model, precisely ?