leononame

My siblings have covered most of your points, but I think one gets overlooked easily:

> Think of it as one paying 5$ for Netflix and other paying 50$ to watch the same shows with no change in service offering.

This used to be the norm before department stores made fixed price popular. People would haggle, and more wealthy people usually paid more because they couldn't be bothered to haggle as much.

Ok, got it, thanks. The wording in the comment I was responding to confused me and made me think it was possible to also change the overcommit behavior for a cgroup, not just the limits.

Interesting idea. How does that work in practice? If I've got 64GiB RAM, and PostgreSQL has 32GiB memory usage, and Go has 32GiB of memory.

If the database requests more memory, it gets ENOMEM, but if the backend app requests more memory, it does get some more because it can overcommit?

Sounds dangerous, if the go program then writes to the overcommitted memory, you'd still trigger the OOM killer, right?

I was aware of GOMEMLIMIT, but it didn't cross my mind in this case, thanks for pointing it out. It could be really useful! I'll have to check our specific use case

This has bitten me multiple times. The problem I have is that at work we deploy the application (written in Go) and PostgreSQL on the same machine. The backend app allocates a lot of virtual memory, and initially we had overcommit to 0 (heuristic). This caused crashes on big queries in PostgreSQL and we set it to 2. The whole system became a bit unstable because the backend would still allocate a lot of virtual memory and at some point we ran into errors when allocating.

For now, we have overcommit_ratio set to a value that is stable from experience, but there really seems to be no silver lining. Go is very happy to allocate a lot of virtual memory, but so are most managed languages. The best solution would probably be to host the backend and the database on separate servers.

Sure. But Occitaine is also incredibly different to Normandie, so it'd be a fairer comparison.

Romania and France are different in a way that Oregon and Florida aren't. They have the same federal government, the same official language and relatively similar culture. Yeah, there are differences, and they can feel huge if you're in the western bubble, but differences like those are also found in other countries.

I will concede that the US is more ethnically or racially diverse than most parts of Europe, but that's about it. Saying that Oregon and Florida are as different to each other as France and Romania is, in my book, incredibly incorrect and it feels a bit insulting, though I can't out my finger on why exactly.

A US state is not a country. I get that there is a lot of federalism in the US and that states often have different laws and regulations, but the same is true for European countries. You can compare the US to Germany, or Sourh Carolina to Bavaria, by your own logic.

Yeah, but only if you take the arguments fully out of context and only if you view a subset of the arguments.

First, the argument of your garden-variety nerd atheist don't always map so cleanly to negative theology. I've seen plenty of arguments in the realm of "The bible contradicts itself, so you're stupid if you believe in it. Checkmate", etc. You get the idea. Just some of the arguments map well to negative theology.

Secondly, the context is missing. In my original comment, I was talking about how being very literal is seen as poor social adaptation because subtext, inaccuracies etc are part of social communication. Pretending to not understand that, or not understanding that, does not make one a logical being, it just makes you look like a dork.

Your argument is applying a very literal take of the hypothetical garden variety atheist we've brewed up. This is the same as taking the bible very literal and then calling people stupid when they believe in it. It's not arguing the main point, but picking out something that's easy to criticize and building your argument around it. My point is that taking something very literal is exactly a sign of poor social adaptation when there is a relatively big agreement on not taking it literally by society.

Now, your garden-variety nerd's arguments hold up very well against people who actually do take the bible literally, but I'm getting to a point where I want to get off the religion debate, because that's not really what I wanted to point out originally.

Circling back to my original: Logic and reasoning is not against social norms. Being a dork who pretends to not understand or actually doesn't understand social norms just to make a point is. Being hurtful just to feel superior is against social norms. Pretending you're interested in "truth" and that's why you are not conforming to social norms is also a pretty stupid take, imo. Yeah, social norms aren't always great, and they certainly don't work for everyone and a lot of people are left out being the "weird" ones, it sucks. But the reason these people are the "weird" ones is not because they're on a noble crusade for truth and logic.

I'm pointing this out even though you're not the original commenter I was responding to because we kind of got derailed into the details of this thing that was more meant as an example than really the main argument.

As for the why, I don't have an answer, but I thought I addressed it with this:

> I'll admit that there are also groups of Christians that take the bible very literally, as I'm sure there are for other religions as well. From what I can see, these don't make up the canon of religion, and I kind of believe they're mostly concentrated in North America, but that might be my skewed perspective.

There will always be people falling off on one side of the spectrum or the other. Personally, I haven't met anyone who takes the bible literally, and I know a _lot_ of Christians, including pastors and priests. Some people simply just believe that there is something more, others have a feeling that you can sense that, some just need this believe to feel safe, etc. I guess it depends on where you're from, I believe biblicism is more common in North America, or at least more visible.

Additionally, the "everyone understands religion is not literal" was citing my parent. Usually, "everyone" is kind of understood not to mean "exactly 100%". It's a device to communicate intent.

> You could just as sensibly flip the argument and argue that the garden-variety 'nerdy' atheist is talking literally about atheism but really doing negative theology ("your idea of God is totally wrong and does not exist, because the true God is necessarily inaccessible to human reason") but that would be silly and make you look like a dork too.

Yeah, it'd make you look like a dork because it'd be obviously incorrect. The intentions of your garden-variety nerd talking about atheism are pretty clear, and it's not to make some greater theological point. When you talk to people who talk down on religion and believers, it's usually really easy to tell whether it's because only they themselves understand the True Intention Of God or whether they just think Christians are stupid and if you're smart you have to be an atheist. Said garden-variety nerd is the latter.

> Nerds were often seen as poorly social since "logic and reasoning" would go against socially accepted norms. This where the fedora tipping meme comes from: "everybody understands that religion is not literal, but we have to all accept the lie for social cohesion". But "nerds" would be the ones willing to take the ridicule and ostracism because truth would be more important than conformity.

I don't think nerds are/were seen as poorly social because logic and reasoning go against social norms. I'll bite on the religion focus. If everyone understands religion is not literal, being smirk about taking it literally is not logical or reasoning or making anyone look smarter. It just makes you look like a dork. Subtext and not being meant to read literally are a core part of social interaction.

I see the same in school, when some overly literal students argue about the interpretation of a book they are assigned to read. "the author can't possible mean that" or "show me where it says that on the page" is a common lazy criticism with little value. Some people are just like that, and (warning: personal observation) nerds tend to be a bit more like that. But the arguments I hear from that corner against religion are seldom great, they are just some minor gotchas.

I don't want to get into the whole religion debate, and I'll admit that there are also groups of Christians that take the bible very literally, as I'm sure there are for other religions as well. From what I can see, these don't make up the canon of religion, and I kind of believe they're mostly concentrated in North America, but that might be my skewed perspective.

It's quite sad that social mechanics in our society don't work well for some people, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and it doesn't make everyone except nerds "illogical".

The internet was different, for sure. But the post you are responding to just stated that they don't really believe arguments were rational and logical back then. I don't think any of your points refutes that.

Is that a good thing? I think getting stuck is an intrinsic part of the learning process and sometimes it's good that there isn't an immediate answer from a senior. For some things you'd never have solved yourself, sure. But pain and suffering is a big and important chunk of learning and I fear we just throw it all out of the window with asking AI.

That's not true. A heat pump produces 1.5 to kwH of heat per kwH of electricity consumed, so it's already much more efficient than a diesel generator.

Even in winter, electricity from the grid is greener than burning diesel. I didn't find specific numbers for winter, but wind is about 30% of Germany's (just picking the biggest country out of DACH to support the point, not trying to come up with exact numbers) electricity production year-round, and wind doesn't tank in winter like solar does.

So, in short. Installing a heat pump and just taking electricity from the grid is still better for the environment. Of course, having your own solar is great if you live in a house, but you don't need it.

Why not? Could you elaborate? I'd love to know more. I always had the feeling that supporting SteamOS basically meant that generic Linux Desktop support was almost implied because in the end it's almost always on Proton rather than native.