Before posting this have you checked the state of preservation [0] in the West? The real issue IMHO that if stolen good are returned to their rightful owners, Museums will be empty and libraries will be half empty.
Thanks for the pointer. I will give it a read later on. If I understood correctly, eBPF is a guard rail for writing relatively bug free code. But it will still run in the processor[0] ring 0 which essentially is the same level as the kernel itself.
I am not sure why nobody talks about the fundamental flaw in the design of the operating systems. Monolithic kernels were chosen at a time when CPU context switching was a serious penalty on the performace.
So IMHO isn't it time to rethink this idea of putting every single shit into the kernel space?
In other words Linus won then, and its now time to think about Tanenbaum too.[0]
I had to deal with pediatricians and Neurologists for last couple of years. My general experience is that their training is severely deficient in the empathy. I don't think it should be hard to accommodate it in their training plan.
> Nothing is unlimited. But just as we over-fished lobsters and moved onto other food sources, so we will with everything else. Don't panic. Innovate.
While it is true that nothing is unlimited and humans have historically adapted their behavior when resources become scarce, the argument of not panicking and relying solely on innovation to solve resource depletion concerns is overly optimistic and potentially dangerous.
Firstly, the comparison to over-fishing lobsters and moving on to other food sources oversimplifies the issue of resource depletion on a global scale. While localized shifts in consumption patterns are possible, the depletion of critical resources like fossil fuels, freshwater, and certain minerals poses more complex challenges. Merely assuming that innovation will provide an easy solution overlooks the significant time, effort, and investment required to develop and implement sustainable alternatives.
Secondly, relying solely on innovation to address resource depletion ignores the urgency of the issue. Natural resources are not infinite, and some of them, once depleted, cannot be easily replaced. Delaying action in the hope that future innovations will come to the rescue can lead to irreparable damage to the environment and exacerbate existing global challenges like climate change.
Additionally, innovation itself can be a double-edged sword. While it has the potential to create more efficient and sustainable solutions, it can also contribute to resource depletion when not guided by responsible practices. For example, the rapid advancement of technology can lead to increased electronic waste, which is already a significant environmental problem.
Rather than dismissing concerns and promoting blind faith in innovation, a more prudent approach would involve a combination of strategies. We should focus on both responsible resource management, such as conservation and sustainable practices, and continuous innovation to find alternative solutions. Emphasizing a diversified approach can help mitigate the risks associated with resource depletion and foster a more balanced and resilient future.
Innovation is an essential component of addressing the resource depletion. But we must not overlook the severity of the problem and the need for urgent and responsible action. Relying solely on innovation without taking immediate measures to manage resources responsibly can lead to irreversible consequences for the planet and future generations.
> In modern times, most scarcity problems are supply chain not actual exhaustion, diamond mines and gold not withstanding. Rare earths aren't rare. Uranium isn't rare. We aren't running out of lithium. Erlich/Simons explores the reality of abundance in the earths crust.
Everything eventually becomes rare if not used judiciously. This mindset of unlimited supply is flawed. It leads to the eventual destruction. Probably that's why most ancient civilizations had rules to only take what's needed from the nature.
For example in Western Countries, crabs and lobsters were once seen as "poor man's food". They are now a gourmet luxury item.
Am I contesting the historicity of Shah Jahan? On contrary, I am contesting the statement of the article which tries to portray that India was made rich by Mughals.
Silliness actually lies in your knee jerk reaction.