JayDee

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.

Cat so homophobic it's not even comfortable with homochromia.

O

L

It needs to capture sweat too.

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.

You were the one who implied that, by saying that not having children leaves it up to those who will.

You already have an entire vocabulary for solar time (sunrise, morning, noon, evening, sunset, night, midnight). This being all of a sudden assigned to a different time on a clock does not change things in any dramatic fashion. It would also be a consistent change for your current location, guarantee it only takes you less than a work week to acclimate.

All the things you've described I've literally been doing for 6 months now. It is not a noticable difference and does not impact me.

Also, a book that says "it was 5 o'clock" is objectively more boring than one that describes the shadows of twilight blanketing the scene in a checkering of shadow. Also TV shows show outside, where solar time is visibly apparent. The specific time is not nearly as relevant.

Also, you already look up time zones when scheduling international meetings, and those aren't going to tell you about siestas or other local practices which might affect scheduling. Maybe just actually ask the person what times will work when trying to schedule, and now since you're both using UTC, you both can figure it out together without looking up timezones.

Adoption. Community building. Helping the disenfranchised.

These are all methods of bettering the future without pumping another child into this world. And arguably, they're morally better than having a child.

I agree that bringing life into the world is morally bad. I also agree that eating other animals is morally bad, as is killing, always. However, that does not mean we should not do these things at times. You just need to understand that you are still committing an immoral act for personal gain. There is no such thing as a perfectly moral existence, as the world is a cruel place which cares little about morality and often forces you to be immoral. You should instead work towards being as moral as in out can when you can, and accept that sometimes morality is out of your hands.

In the case of the child: you are bringing a human consciousness kicking and screaming into this world you know to be dangerous and cruel. That is immoral, and you did it either by failing precaution, or out of personal want or instinct. I think to repent, you are morally obligated to give that child a good life at minimum and ideally the best life you can. You are beholden to them until they can live on their own happily, and you are obligated to help them even after that. I also think that if that child resents how you've cared for them, you have no grounds to hold that against them, as you were the one that forced them into this world.

If you cannot do the above, you are should reconsider whether you are fit to have a child.

It is also arguable that to do justice without injustice, the only option is to adopt or guide another person who has no one providing things they need, and I don't think this kindness should be limited to children but children are the most vulnerable.