JayDee

Hierarchy, being a chain of command in which an individual above, privvy to more information, gives you instructions to follow. This includes military organizations, but is just as applicable to a doctor-patient relationship.

Coercion, meaning the threat of retaliation, through physical force, revoking of freedoms or privileges, or denial of resources.

Voluntary, meaning of one's own means, with no coercion or realization of coercion, with the clear option to opt out being present whenever possible.

This does not leave things in question, I believe. Currently, we all operate within hierarchies at work with explicit threats of destitution being held over our heads, through the denial of currency. Meanwhile, there is no coercion from your physician despite it still being hierarchical in nature, because the hierarchy is entirely based on trust and is voluntary.

I think that is a misreading of why moral codes come into being, and I am not trying to preach moralism.

Moral codes are not universal truths, but instead rules of engagement for maintaining order within a system, and they exist within every social scope, though their level of detail tends to decay as the scope becomes more interpersonal. They're not really a tool of the state, but instead just a human tool. The state just codifies its own and disseminates it into the social collectives it rules.

My statement above is a moral observation about political morality within the US, and which I view is generally a useful rule within any democratic political system (I am referring to systems which have a structure and voting system associated with democratic processes, not necessarily ideal or actual democracies).

I am also not saying that this moral code is necessarily good for us or the system itself at any given moment, but stating why this moral code exists in the first place, and why anyone who is apart of our system and wants that system to survive (whether that be for avoiding personal turmoil or political ideology) will continue to condemn assassination attempts from any side.

By weighing all violence as immoral you are not ruling it out completely. You make it a last-resort, where you avoid one great injustice with a lesser injustice - a lesser injustice which you still face consequences for.

The alternative is morally sanctifying some murders, which leads to 'morally justified' murders being done by all political sides (since they each view themselves as 'the moral ones'), and which eventually gets twisted into the party in power murdering their opponents with impunity because it's 'morally justified'.

There were times when individuals did not work for someone higher than them on a pecking order, though that model is physically not possible in an industrial society, I think.

That being said, hierarchies can be made voluntary rather than enforced by threat of violence, and I'd argue that requiring all servitude to be uncoerced would lead to a better future.

I understand some instruction expansions today are used to good effect in x86, but that there are also a sizeable number of instructions that are rarely utilized by compilers and are mostly only continuing to exist for backwards compatibility. That does not really make me think "more instructions are usually better". It makes me think "CISC ISAs are usually bloated with unused instructions".

My whole understanding is that while more specific instruction options do provide benefits, the use-cases of these instructions make up a small amount of code and often sacrifice single-cycle completion. The most commonly cited benefit for RISC is that RISC can complete more work (measured in 'clockcycles per program' over 'clockrate') in a shorter cyclecount, and it's often argued that it does so at a lower energy cost.

I imagine that RISC-V will introduce other standards in the future (hopefully after it's finalized the ones already waiting), hopefully with thoroughly thought out instructions that will actually find regular use.

I do see RISC-V proponents running simulated benchmarks showing RISC-V is more effective. I have not seen anything similar from x86 proponents, who usually either make general arguments, or worse , just point at the modern x86 chips that have decades of research, funding, and design behind them.

Overall, I see alot of doubt that ISAs even matter to performance in any significant fashion, and I believe it for performance at the GHz/s level of speed.

Instruction creep maybe? Pretty sure I've also seen stuff that seems to show that Torvalds is anti-speculative-execution due to its vulnurabilities, so he could also be referring to that.

Marvel and Starwars have been taking heat for pumping out boring and poorly written films for a while now. I think Pixar's stuff is still mostly decent, though. That being said, I also expect a completely different standard of work from Pixar since it's for kids first and foremost.

Material phase changes are like a cheat code for humanity. Reusable chemical handwarmers are also black magic. You just click a metal plate inside and all of a sudden it's a hot solid.

NightHawkInLight made a video showing how you can mix two different salts together and it'll create a packet that stays at 65 degrees for hours.

Video in question

Miles is chill in my book. I appreciate what he is tackling, and hope he continues.

It seems that there are much worse issues with AI systems that are happening right now. I think those issues should be taking precedent over the alignment problem.

Some of the issues are bad enough right now that AI development and use should be banned for a limited time frame (at least 5 years) while we figure out more ethical ways of doing it. The fact that we aren't doing that is a massive failure of our already constantly-fucking-up governments.

MegaBytes fersher

Anyone have context for the photo?

Maybe it'll rebound