shash

The 30% spending is from government numbers in the last budget, so let’s get that out of the way.

How many people do you think could conceivably work in manufacturing? And who buys all those manufactured goods? The social problem isn’t solved by quotas.

Actually, legally, caste doesn’t exist. It’s been abolished, except for schemes for socially eradicating it (which are controversial but conceptually no different from any other affirmative action).

Not to say it isn’t a problem. But race is still a problem elsewhere too.

Thirty? Try more like 10, and that’s only for the advanced nodes. Everything else, we will have capacity coming online soon enough.

Design, the gap is nonexistent in terms of talent deployed (though we have some way to go to have homegrown product companies). Which puts us roughly where Europe is.

Also consider, a tiny percentage of the Indian population is a ridiculous number of people. Dwarfing pretty much any other country except China.

Your last point on welfare and corruption is also false; 35% of government spend is on interest payments (which is kind of normal for most countries?) and 30% is on infrastructure and other capex. Defence is 8% and central welfare schemes plus co-sponsored schemes with the states are only 26%. The point being, while corruption is definitely a problem, it doesn’t significantly come out of the central budget. And welfare is smaller than infrastructure spending even if it’s quite significant (and it better be, in a country like this).

It’s not like GC isn’t a massive part of RVA23 - those are the basic instructions that handle 80-90% of all uses (including most of what CPython needs).

I’m sure one could do some optimizations on RVA23, but is it really worth it?

We ran it 4 years ago (including numpy) and it wasn’t a massive uphill climb or anything. It’s gotten a little easier since then if anything.

For RISC-V that would functionally be RV64GC then. And you go incrementally from there as required.

It’s more about failure. It’s right there on top.

And industrial accident investigation (except the ones with low regulation or whatever). And market or supply chain collapse, and civilization collapse (late Bronze Age anyone?)

I think, part of the point is that it’s not possible to have a recipe to prevent failures. They are cascades of many events coming together to fail in an a priori non obvious way.

Or so I read the [site? article?]

Again, depends… I have appreciated my seniors’ notes in some textbooks - especially where the book itself isn’t clear.

Learning and figuring out the meter and rhythm of a new passage? If you don’t have someone who knows to chant it for you…

Besides, it’s a fun exercise, so why not?

Wealth is not finite, but it does have to obey physical limits and real world implications. If person A takes a piece of lumber and carves it into a dresser, and person B, seeing that, buys up lower quality lumber that cannot become a dresser, is that wealth generation? What then, of the guy who buys up lumber futures and dresser futures, on something that won't actually ever happen (say, those lumber futures are for trees that are completely not viable) and then claims to be creating wealth? And asking the stock market to value him on the basis of hype?

There's real wealth and there is all of the manipulation to drive up prices.

Of course. But,

1. So are most other encyclopaedias, and most don’t even give you references or citations for an article 2. We are literally decades from that point now. Surely you must agree that times have changed.

TBH, "Don't trust anything on Wikipedia" was always just stuck up posturing. Plenty of badly sourced, badly edited and biased articles in regular encyclopedias too, but because Wikipedia is contributed to by the unwashed masses, don't trust it.

"Don't use Wiki as a primary source" is much more to the point - it's not meant to be. Use it to find the primaries.

Also, I don't see this as "reducing breadth" so much as attempting to hold to a minimum standard of "has this been written up anywhere by someone other than the people who started it?" which isn't perfect, but it's been the stance since the beginning.