"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Arthur C. Clarke
To preface this, I agree with you, per our current scientific understanding, this isn't possible.
That being said, we would be fools to look at our level of technology and think we could grasp everything in the universe. I'm not saying what we saw in the video is real. I just think dismissing something because it doesn't fit our understanding of reality in the current moment, is not in our best interest.
Take almost any piece of advanced tech we use everyday back in time far enough, you will get a similar response.
Maybe seeing an object doing this in real life gives enough information to work backwards and realize we made some mistakes. When we adjust our understanding it not only seems possible but helps explain other things we couldn't before.
Maybe some other country is fucking with us, somehow, advanced hologram tech or something.
Who knows, I think being skeptical, but approaching it with an open mind is the best way to go about it.
> Who knows, I think being skeptical, but approaching it with an open mind is the best way to go about it.
The problem with fantastical explanations for phenomena is they are not testable or falsifiable. You also need to keep adding new fantastical explanations whenever an observation runs into the bounds of the last fantastical explanation. Once you invite in magic you need more magic to explain the other magic. It's asinine and intellectually bankrupt.
> The US has the highest preventable death rate in the developed world.
>> They also have by far the highest obesity rate in the developed world.
So... I am sure that is one reason of the highest preventable death rate. doesn't invalidate GP point.
> I'm supportive of universal healthcare, but this is a huge exaggeration.
Sadly in a way its not an exaggeration at all, will doctors and nurses literally watch you die of course not. If you go into the ER they legally have to stabilize you. But that's it. If I have cancer and and really sick, If they take to me to the ER, they will stabilize me but they want start treating the cancer. Even if its still early, they will watch you die over time as the cancer advances and makes you worse.
To be fair, I am certain the doctors and nurses want to treat you. But the hospital won't/can't allow it for bullshit reasons.
> You can buy human insulin for $25 a vial at Walmart. It's not as good, but it's what people used a couple decades ago.
I can't believe your defending poor people having to use worse insulin. How is that okay for you? We are talking about peoples lives, can the richest country on earth aim a little higher then throwing decades old medical knowledge at poor people to shut them up?
> I'm supportive of universal healthcare,
No you aren't, after that claim about supporting it, you spend the rest of your post shooting down universal healthcare.
> Countries with nationalized healthcare often have long backlogs for treatments. The cancer backlog in the UK is over 2 million people and it's continuing to grow [1].
> Also, if you are insured, you're typically going to get new and more sophisticated treatments on the US compared to most places with nationalized healthcare.
The UK has its issue, but from what I can see its because they are purposely starving it of money so they can ultimately privatize it.
America's health care is fucking garbage. There is no defending it, I'm so tired of spending my time calling several different companies to figure out why I am getting billed for something I shouldn't be. I'm not exaggerating either, literally one or twice a month I get the joy of calling my insurance and whatever doctor sent the bill and try and solve why my insurance won't cover it.
I agree, but it's not for a lack of spending. The US government actually spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK in total. I'm not opposed to universal healthcare. I'm opposed to politicians throwing money at a problem to buy votes, but that is the only thing that can result from a universal policy that results from healthcare at all costs rhetoric.
Completely agree, maybe if the USA got rid of the FDA and the whole concept of prescription medicine we'd be able to buy cheap medicine without the all the protectionism that the state bolts on.
> We are teaching youngsters to never persevere and push themselves to the limit, ensuring they’ll never realize their full potential and spiraling downwards in a low quality life of lethargy and resentment towards those who succeed.
I think you vastly misunderstand the entire point of antiwork. Its not saying go sit on a couch all day. Its to recognize you have a life outside of work and its okay if work isn't your driving factor in life.
You can learn to persevere and push yourself many many ways. Work is not the only way. Not excelling at your job does not mean you are lethargic and resentful.
Success is measured many different ways, by many different people. You seem to measure it by how hard you work, that's great. Doesn't mean everyone has too.
How? If I do what is asked of me and no more, then go spend my free time with my family, or go hiking, or do a million other fun, fulling things I could enjoy. How is that destructive?
I meant what you’re saying is normal and great; but that’s not the antiwork culture and does not describe it accurately. I have an extremely cynical view of it and I’m convinced that’s people don’t have the best intentions. Not a single comment on HN in last few years encourage hard work and mentally exhausting yourself. Your brain is far more capable than the current zeitgeist tells you. We are raising a generation that will revel in lethargy and smoking weed all day.
> Not a single comment on HN in last few years encourage hard work and mentally exhausting yourself.
I am astounded that not pushing yourself to mental exhaustion is what you consider anti-work. If I'm not willing to abuse my own body for the good of a company I'm destined to be lethargic and smoke weed all day? What the hell kind of scale is that?
Pushing yourself to mental exhaustion, is stupid and pointless. It's been thoroughly studied, by the time you've hit mental exhaustion you are not doing anywhere near your best work. Hell I've seen it myself. I noticed my code quality and code output fell drastically the more exhausted I became. I can not stress enough how much better you are not doing that.
Looking through your own post history I see clear signs of trying to work while exhuasted.
> it takes me forever to make anything with code. Like hours to do something simple.
This was literally me until I learned to not push myself so hard. I had the exact same problem and it turns out for me at least trying to learn programming while exhausted did me no favors. I worked all day came home and tried to learn and struggled the exact same way you are. It wasn't until I was able to learn more during the day while not exhausted that it really started to click with me.
You more then anyone need to really reconsider what I posted earlier. Please for you own health.
This was a student receiving a monthly stipend from the government for their living expenses, which is normal in many European countries.
Wikipedia defines welfare as "a type of government support intended to ensure that members of a society can meet basic human needs such as food and shelter." That seems like a good definition to me, and this case definitely fits.
Edit: In fact, there is a conservative anti-welfare narrative that this post plays right into. If the author was waiting until midnight for the deposit to post so they could buy drugs, alcohol, or some other 'vice', this would certainly be picked up by a conservative politician or media outlet and used to argue against welfare.
I am actually looking for something just like this, I would have bought it right now, if there was a download option. Any chance of getting that enabled, seems like holloway supports it.
Pretty sure you should be able to download it, but I don't see the option either. I've reached out to my contacts at Holloway to see if there's a reason why the download isn't available.
My example was for non-prod and saving money there as I found that our development clusters tended to be the most under utilized per dollar spent. In development it was ok to put as many idle pods as possible on the nodes. If there was a spike, then yes you could get new nodes but I found that they scaled down nodes quite often.
My apologies in advance as the advice can be terrible depending on your environment and services. Below is not an exact science as you are dealing with requests and limits while trying to find optimal performance.
For production you need to calculate your minimum, average and max CPU/Memory for your a pod.
1) Set your replicas to 1
2) Determine what your true maximum CPU/Memory is for a pod.
Set your limits to very high and performance test against your pod. If your response time slows to a crawl then your limit is too high and your code may not be able to handle the load. If your response time is good while hitting the limit, increase the limit until performance goes down.
3) Get your minimum CPU/Memory for your pod to start.
5) Get your average CPU/Memory DURING THE SPIKES. You should be able to get this from past metrics. This can also be difficult to get because your load might be spread over several pods in your metrics.
6) I use the following formulas:
requests = (min + average)/2
limits = (average + max)/2
7) You now have a baseline for the future so that you can tweak the values.
8) Set your autoscaler to something high like 80% CPU. You want this value to stay constant. I think GKE sets it to 60% but I found that to be far too low and wasteful.
9) Observe and tweak the values to see if you can get things 'better' depending on your needs.
There are two other things I always do in production that help with stability and reliability.
- Set the autoscaler behaviour to scale up quickly and scale down slowly. It stops these cycles of add 3 pods, remove 1 pod, add 2 pods, remove 3 pods chaos in short periods of time during spikes. The behavior field was added to the autoscaler resource a couple releases ago.
- Set your minimum replicas to 2 for redundancy. I always do this in production.
I hope this helps and I apologize once again for the hand wavyness of things.
What are you talking about? How did you get all of that from 'Maybe I'm just pampered'. I think he means, I wouldn't order from a restaurant I have never heard from or been to in person.
I don't know anyone, at all, who does what you are suggesting in this comment.
> In case you weren't aware Wine is not an emulator, it is a compatibility layer.
Ehhh. I know it’s in the name, but I feel like the significance is debatable. It’s not a CPU emulator, true. It is emulating calls, which is emulation of a sort.
Usually when you say "emulator" people think there's an inherent performance hit because of a fetch-decode-execute interpreter loop somewhere. Reimplementations of things don't have that performance hit even though they are lumped under the same umbrella as actual interpreters and recompilers.
Related note: if WINE is an emulator why isn't Linux or GNU? They both reimplement parts of UNIX, which was even more proprietary than Windows is today.
On most of these architectures the software eventually executes as x86 machine code, and the distance between x86 machine code and the actual processes inside a modern CPU implementing the x86 code set is so vast you can call a modern CPU an "x86 emulator built in hardware."
I mean, it depends on the context. I don't think it would be wrong to say that Linux "emulates a UNIX environment" or some such, which is closer to what OP actually wrote about Wine.
You've probably used a "terminal emulator" at some point today. ;)
In regular joe-schmo parlance, an emulator would be something that translates a hardware machine into software that is run on a different machine. Hardware being the important word here. Performance has nothing to do with how people use the term emulator in regular parlance.
That's still emulating the underlying API, and accepted usage of the word. Much like the FreeBSD linux emulator translates linux syscalls into FreeBSD ones.
You're exactly right, and the Wine project agrees.
> That said, Wine can be thought of as a Windows emulator in much the same way that Windows Vista can be thought of as a Windows XP emulator: both allow you to run the same applications by translating system calls in much the same way. Setting Wine to mimic Windows XP is not much different from setting Vista to launch an application in XP compatibility mode.
> [...]
> "Wine is not just an emulator" is more accurate. Thinking of Wine as just an emulator is really forgetting about the other things it is. Wine's "emulator" is really just a binary loader that allows Windows applications to interface with the Wine API replacement.
This is all really just a philosophical question as to how you choose to use the word. It's the same as people who get in a twist over every game with procedural generation and permadeath being called a "Roguelike" even though that particular subgenre used to be more specific to turn-based RPGs with procedural generation, permadeath and total loss of all progress between runs.
People who came into using the term earlier tend to think of it more narrowly, but colloquial use of the term has drifted to mean something more generic, e.g. "emulation" used to mean "making one piece of hardware pretend to be another", but now can sometimes just mean, "when one thing acts like another at all".
In this case, however, the term "to emulate" predates microprocessors, so it clearly can't have ever referred exclusively to ISA translation!
"Emulator" might be a more recent term—it would be interesting to see the etymology, actually—but it's reasonable to conclude that anything which "emulates" must be an "emulator". (Also, OP didn't actually use the word "emulator".)
Saying wine is an emulator is as wrong as saying docker (on linux) is a virual machine, even though you could say it allows you to run a “virtual environment” in the same hand-wavy way you're using the word “emulating” in your sentence.
> To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
It's the exact same way its used by FreeBSD for its linux compatibility layer. It's the same way that Wine even uses in their FAQ.
> That said, Wine can be thought of as a Windows emulator in much the same way that Windows Vista can be thought of as a Windows XP emulator: both allow you to run the same applications by translating system calls in much the same way. Setting Wine to mimic Windows XP is not much different from setting Vista to launch an application in XP compatibility mode.
> [...]
> "Wine is not just an emulator" is more accurate. Thinking of Wine as just an emulator is really forgetting about the other things it is. Wine's "emulator" is really just a binary loader that allows Windows applications to interface with the Wine API replacement.
The problem with this definition is that it's so broad it encompasses many many things that are never talked about as “emulators”. By this definition, Docker is an emulator, a VM is an emulator, an x86_64 CPU is an emulator (because it “emulates“, in the broadest sense, x86), a C compiler is an emulator (“emulating” the PDP-11 on modern hardware), etc.
Even your own quote reveals the issue:
> > That said, Wine can be thought of as a Windows emulator in much the same way that Windows Vista can be thought of as a Windows XP emulator
Yet nobody talks about the latest Windows as being an emulator for older windows …
In short, this definition is akin to defining humans as “bipeds without feather”, we definitely fit this definition but it's way too broad to be useful.
The creators also would not call virtual machines emulators because they don't translate CPU instructions, which is their narrow criteria for "emulator" that nobody else seems to use.
> is their narrow criteria for "emulator" that nobody else seems to use.
Except the people actually writing or talking about real “emulators”. You know, for things like NES or Gameboy on x86, x86 on WASM, etc.
Sure, you can argue that VMs or Wine are emulators in the broadest sense, but then I could argue that your CPU is an emulator too since it doesn't really runs ASM, and with that very loose meaning almost anything computers related is an emulator. And in practice that's never what people mean when we're talking about an emulator. (Even this thread started with the wrong postulate that WINE must have incurred a performance penalty because the commented believed it was an emulator).
When I was at Interactive Systems Corporation in the mid to late'80s and we were porting System V Release 3 to the 386 for AT&T, we wrote a Wine-like program called i286emul to run 286 System V Release 2 binaries. We and AT&T called it an emulator [1].
Later AT&T and Microsoft and Sun were involved in various projects to merge features from System V R3, BSD, SunOS, and XENIX into System V R4. As part of that they wanted a way to run 286 XENIX binaries, and Microsoft contracted with Interactive for that. We wrote another Wine-like program for that called x286emul. We and Microsoft called it an emulator too [2]
The XENIX emulator led to the stupidest meeting I have ever had to attend. Microsoft said there was an issue with the kernel that could not be resolved over the phone or email. So me and the other guy working on x286emul had to go to Microsoft for a meeting.
A flag needed to be added to the process data structure that would tell the kernel to make some slight changes to a system call or two, due to some differences between System V and XENIX. It was something like XENIX having separate error codes for some things System V rolled into one, or something like that.
The meeting was about how to set/clear that flag. Microsoft wanted to know if we preferred that it be done as a new flag to an existing system call or if a new system call should be added. I looked at the other guy from Interactive and said something like "A flag's fine for me", he said he agreed. We said "flag" to Microsoft, and the meeting ended.
That couldn't have been handled by phone or email?
Things like Wine used to be called emulator, but this usage fell out of fashion a while ago. Now the word “emulator” has been generally refined to mean a (inherently slow) hardware emulator, and most of the compatibility layers explicitly market themselves as not being emulators: “Wine is not an emulator” “Rosetta isn't an emulator”, “x86 compatibility mode is not an emulator”, “virtualization isn't emulation”, and so on.
And even the starting comment on that thread seems to abide by this definition, as it complains about some (imaginary) emulation overhead when using Wine.
Languages changes overtime as usages evolve: when 80286 was released, the French word «baiser» still meant “to kiss” for most people, now it means “to fuck”.
Every new user seems to think Wine is an emulator, and plenty still after, so I don't believe it's out of fashion. If they don't, it's only because someone tried to make them feel dumb about it with the WINE acronym, which seems to exist because so many people call it an emulator. Maybe if that many people are mistaken, they're actually right.
I especially don't know who's calling Rosetta 2 "not an emulator," given that it's software-emulating x86 arch and actually comes with a noticeable slowdown, not that emulators need to have big overhead.
> Every new user seems to think Wine is an emulator
Most new linux users think that Linux=Ubuntu, does that make it correct? Beginners comes with misconceptions and are then being corrected during their learning process, that's how it works.
> Maybe if that many people are mistaken, they're actually right.
This argument is fabulous, it's like fractally broken, let's have a little bit of fun with it:
I'm pretty sure Wine is niche enough that there's more flat-earthers on this planet than people believing wine to be an emulator, does that number makes them right?
And how about the other people, the majority who know Wine isn't an emulator, would you say “maybe if that many people are correct they're actually wrong”?
> I especially don't know who's calling Rosetta 2 "not an emulator,"
Well, Apple.
You're correct though that Rosetta is arguably an emulator (except, a really sophisticated one, with hardware support, to makes it fast enough) unlike all the other (that interestingly enough you don't address) but if you read my comment again you'll see no contradiction (hint: the key word in that sentence is “market”).
Yes, those people are writing hardware emulators. Doesn't mean they're the only "real" kind.
As for my Intel CPU, it isn't pretending to be another kind of CPU. Intel makes a leading implementation of x86. Wine follows Microsoft's Windows implementation and translates to Linux calls, and the entire point is so you can run programs intended for Windows on Linux instead. You can get relative about it, but it's not really, they're clearly different. Either way, doesn't support WINE's acronym.
> Yes, those people are writing hardware emulators. Doesn't mean they're the only "real" kind.
They're the only kind that doesn't involve a super broad definition of what the word “emulation” means (so broad that most computing actually fits in this definition).
> As for my Intel CPU, it isn't pretending to be another kind of CPU.
Until one day you realize that you can run an x86 program on a 64 bit CPU (but fortunately, this isn't done through “emulation” proper either).
> Until one day you realize that you can run an x86 program on a 64 bit CPU (but fortunately, this isn't done through “emulation” proper either).
It's reasonable to call that emulation if there's a separate layer for it translating to/from x86-64, rather than the hardware specifically supporting -32. My CPU isn't doing that cause I'm not running 32-bit software on macOS.
The Wii emulator is emulating the whole system including the CPU; WINE describes itself as not an emulator specifically because it's not doing anything about the CPU (hence not working on ARM Linux without extra work).
(I'm not 100% sold on this; I think "CPU emulator" and "ABI emulator" are both reasonable descriptions, albeit of different things, but that's the distinction that the WINE folks are making.)
By any well-known definition of an emulator, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator, Wine is an emulator. It's emulating a Windows system to Windows programs. It's not emulating hardware is all. That WINE acronym, other than being a slightly annoying way to correct people, is wrong. Reminds me of Jimmy Neutron smartly calling table salt "sodium chloride" when really he's less correct than the layman he's talking to, since there are additives.
According to the Wikipedia link given, emulation is for host and target computer systems. In a computing context, 'emulate' is not a synonym for 'impersonate' - it describes an approach for a goal.
Wine does not aim to emulate a "Windows computer system" (aka a machine which booted into Windows). For instance, it doesn't allow one to run windows device drivers. WINE is taking an approach that ultimately means it is doing a subset of what is possible with full emulation (hopefully in return going much faster).
To put it another way, a mobile phone app with a HP49 interface that understands RPN is not necessarily a calculator emulator. It could just be an app that draws a calculator interface and understands RPN and some drawing commands. It doesn't necessarily have the capability to run firmwares or user binaries written for the Saturn processor.
The people who wrote Wine thought it was an emulator. Their first idea for a name was "winemu" but they didn't like that, then thought to shorten it to "wine".
The "Wine is not an emulator" suggestion was first made in 1993, not because Wine is not an emulator but because there was concern that "Windows Emulator" might run into trademark problems.
Eventually that was accepted as an alternative meaning to the name. The Wine FAQ up until late 1997 said "The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows Emulator, or Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right. Use whichever one you like best".
The release notes called it an emulator up through release 981108: "The is release 981108 of Wine, the MS Windows emulator".
The next release changed that to "This is release 981211 of Wine, free implementation of Windows on Unix".
As far as I've been able to tell, there were two reasons they stopped saying it was an emulator.
First, there were two ways you could use it. You could use it the original way, as a Windows emulator on Unix to run Windows binaries. But if you had the source to a Windows program you could you could compile that source on Unix and link with libraries from Wine. That would give you a real native Unix binary. In essence this was using Wine as Unix app framework.
Second most people who would be likely to use Wine had probably only ever encountered emulators before that were emulating hardware. For example there was Virtual PC from Connectix for Mac, which came out in 1997, and there were emulators on Linux for various old 8-bit systems such as NES and Apple II.
Those emulators were doing CPU emulation and that was not fast in those days. It really only worked acceptably well if you were emulating hardware that had been a couple of orders of magnitude slower than your current computer.
Continuing to say that Wine is an emulator would likely cause many people to think it must be slow too and so skip it.
No, not at all like that. One slight difference is that what you said is complete nonsense.
I'm using an accepted definition of emulation:
> emulate (transitive verb)
> To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
This usage is pretty common, for example FreeBSD has a linux emulation layer that takes Linux syscalls and translates them into FreeBSD syscalls. WINE saying it stands for "Wine Is Not an Emulator" is irrelevant to the fact that it is blatantly is one.
You're overthinking this a little. If Monsanto comes up with a new weedkiller, they have to prove that its safe for humans before its put into use. It has nothing to do with restaurants. Obviously stuff would be grandfathered in as well. But its a fantastic idea going forward.
If you require farmers to use "approved" processes for farming, but you don't require grocery stores and restaurants to use those farmers, then they will simply buy food from farmers that don't follow those principles.
If we're talking about domestic farmers, they're going to get caught at the same rate regardless of what you tell grocery stores and restaurants to do.
If you mean international farmers, I think it's obvious you'd have to apply the same rules to imported food, so no they won't simply buy food that doesn't follow the rules.
But also, even if we did require grocery stores and restaurants to use certified farmers in some way, that wouldn't be hard at all! That's not even in the same ballpark as requiring scientific proof of chemical safety.
They probably haven't thought through all the good chemicals have done. If we stopped all progress in chemicals 100 years ago our world would like a very different place.
A less wealthy place where more people died of starvation.
Great, so we're just going to need a few long term clinical trials assessing the impacts of each of ingestion, skin contact, inhalation, eye exposure, etc. separately for childhood exposure, adult exposure, exposure during pregnancy, acute exposure, chronic exposure, and so on. 100 billion dollars and thirty years later, maybe you can start provisionally selling your slightly better scotch tape.
That’s a little disingenuous. Something like an herbicide that’s broadly applied to fruits and vegetables that millions of people are eating should be under far higher scrutiny than a niche product that has limited human contact.
Things that don't have much human contact in the general population can have significant human contact during the manufacturing process of products containing or processed with them.
To preface this, I agree with you, per our current scientific understanding, this isn't possible.
That being said, we would be fools to look at our level of technology and think we could grasp everything in the universe. I'm not saying what we saw in the video is real. I just think dismissing something because it doesn't fit our understanding of reality in the current moment, is not in our best interest.
Take almost any piece of advanced tech we use everyday back in time far enough, you will get a similar response.
Maybe seeing an object doing this in real life gives enough information to work backwards and realize we made some mistakes. When we adjust our understanding it not only seems possible but helps explain other things we couldn't before.
Maybe some other country is fucking with us, somehow, advanced hologram tech or something.
Who knows, I think being skeptical, but approaching it with an open mind is the best way to go about it.