mmirate3
mmirate3 on Hacker News
> nothing can matter beyond the spatial extent of your body
Insofar as the spatial extent of a body is extended by its brain's perception and knowledge ...
... the quoted words form a true statement.
> only without fully-automated checking
The fully-automated checking is precisely what allows one to write unmanaged code without tearing one's hair out.
Wow! A psychoactive substance that's actually
helpful!
(Even though it's clearly not net-helpful due to the serious physiological side-effects.)
That's amazing!
... why isn't there more research on isolating this particular side-effect?
Spoiler alert: nothing can matter to you once you die. (And everyone dies.)
Actually, you've just outlined one of the good arguments against social contract theory.
Thank you for being one of the few sane people in this thread.
Because, for most of these problems ... from the point-of-view of anyone with enough resources to solve them, they are non-problems and/or not severe enough for the solution to be worth the cost. While that remains true, there will never be any rational reason to solve them.
IIRC, it is intended to replace both Android and Chrome OS. And as shown by the Android Open Source Project, they don't need to close-source it to engage in worrisome behavior.
> we don't do enough OS research like we used to.
Don't worry; once they finish it in a few years, Google's new "Fuchsia" OS will let them take over the world (to an even greater extent than today).
Well that
is socialism. (As is our conflation of insurance and charity.) Being a form of price control, it also happens to not work very well.
EDIT: and if anyone can explain why forcing doctors and hospitals to provide their services at a loss, is not socialism, then feel free to reply; as that will be assuredly more enlightening than a simple downvote.
Medical Records and Practice Management are often two separate pieces of software, with only the latter one dealing with billing and insurance.
Information-security can be oversimplified as one big "holy grail" problem unto itself - and when someone presents some software and proclaims it is "the" solution to that problem, but in fact has presented only a partial solution, then we call it "security theatre" and denounce it with extreme prejudice.
I believe the comment you replied to, may be making an analogous argument here about distributed systems.
Oh, I read that comment as sarcasm. Wishful thinking, I suppose.
> You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak?
A nuclear arsenal is nothing without trained and loyal personnel to secure it and to operate and maintain it correctly. If your army is weak enough or makes bad enough decisions, enemy troops can blow the nukes up, kill the nukes' operators, or even sabotage them in a variety of ways.