whoknw

That does not match my experience with alcoholics. In my experience they can stay functional in society for a very, very long time.

Not that that has anything to do with the original topic :)

The reason LUMI is advising against many files is that it uses the Lustre parallel filesystem, which is notoriously bad with small files. See here: https://www.lanl.gov/projects/national-security-education-ce... .

My experience with psychedelics is the following: they shift your perception of things temporarily. The way the "adjustment" works is that you are able to "see" and "touch" experiences you could not before, because they would have annihilated you. They open a door to re-living things and re-processing. Hard for me to see that you would come out of that "broken", if there's nothing to process your trip will be a pleasant high.

Which is not to say that psychedelics (LSD, 2C-B, Mescaline, Psilocybin) are not powerful stuff and that they allow for mental states that would be unlivable otherwise (clinically that would be schizophrenia or something like it). I do believe that their therapeutical and recreational benefits do outweigh the drawbacks though. There must be a better way to handle this than Schedule-1'ing the whole bunch.

That is why I prefixed my previous post with "in good faith". If you postulate that your speculations carry more weight without solid logical reasoning, that is not good faith to me.

Granted, that style of reasoning also has a long tradition in philosophers like Descartes, Berkeley, etc. Descartes famously postulates that "God is not a deceiver", and that we are dealing with a benevolent God. You make the same assumption. Back then, there had to be a God, because the church would have showed people how the afterlife looks like pretty quickly. I don't understand what necessitates such a stance today.

In any case: as long as you argue from the conclusion backwards, we can spare some ink and leave this be.

If you are willing to argue in good faith (no pun intended), I'd recommend for you to read Spinoza. Spinoza builds on your argument number one and argues that there can only be one substance, and this substance is God. In a nutshell: God is everything that exists, we do not exist outside of God (we are "modes" of God, if I remember correctly). Spinoza also argues that by virtue of being the only substance, God exists necessarily and does not have a choice.

The implications of this logic create problems for the Judeo-Christian stance. Absolute morality goes out of the window and a few other things with it as well.

We wouldn't know what to move to. Is there a direct replacement for the VMware vSphere offering on the market?

Second that question - did you do one of the ten day retreats?

It depends on where you work, but some employers extend mental health benefits to post-docs as well. Depending on the country, therapists have sliding scales too. The irony of looking for a therapist while you are burned out is that it can be a long process, but there is the chance of it being worth it and to see more options afterwards.

Thank you for that comment, as someone who has had exposure to the DOE as well (and LBL at that) I can only echo your sentiment. I'd even go further and state that is hard for me to believe that any innovation can happen in the calcified structures of governmental labs. Maybe the classified ones are different.

The "DOE made NVIDIA" myth is a story I haven't seen pushed outside the DOE complex. It is true that the supercomputers the DOE pushes could be considered industry subsidies, by providing industry companies with a steady customer with a very high tolerance for unfinished products. That applies to NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, HPE/Cray and IBM more or less equally.

I also want to stress what often gets overlooked: supercomputers are hell to operate and use. Aurora runs on Slingshot, a Cray interconnect. Those things look good on paper. Examples: Cray Aries (and "network quiesces") or Cray DataWarp. Who knows how Slingshot actually works in practice, for a hero run it only needs to hold things together for a few hours. As long as you get a high TOP500 ranking, a supercomputer is a success.

There is no market for those things anymore and they are beholden to the same economics as everything else, hence codes that can't afford an army of PostDocs to work around the bugs and design decisions that are only necessary due to scale of those systems are better suited to plain old mid-range clusters. And I haven't even mentioned the eccentric userland of supercomputers.

There are many reasons the DOE affords to run those behemoths. Some more trivial and petty than most people would like to believe. Like the author of the parent post, I have come to believe that the best bang for the buck on scientific output can be found elsewhere.