skew-aberration

I'm all for decarbonization, but 'refuse' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. These are very hard problems with a lot of people working on them. Dropping fossil fuels today would kill people too.

Submit a wish and get a video of the next locally visible shooting star

Ok if you define message passing that broadly then I would agree, but I think that definition is also broad enough to bring in the downsides of shared memory such as deadlocking.

We're also now talking about patterns which are common in other contexts, but I don't have a problem with that. io_uring for example - is it shared memory, asynchronous, message passing, or all three (probably yes)?

I'm no stranger to this but there is nuance. Thoughts on my other comment below?

Yeah, there's plenty of high-profile academic politicians in Europe with debatable legacies including Thatcher and Merkel. Time will tell.

A quick search suggests the economists associated with this movement are fairly 'mainstream' institutionalists of the type that's popular with government these days in the west. I don't think there will be big changes soon beyond dealing with corruption/nepotism.

Later on, I imagine they will push for faster EU integration on possibly slightly worse terms. Serbia may become marginally less independent in terms of fiscal policy at least and the markets might become even more exposed/beholden to foreign capital. This process has been in motion for years now and I don't expect the student movement to care - the upsides are broadly popular with younger people globally. Personally, I think it is deeply ironic that in the age of tariffs and huge government spending by the superpowers, small countries like Serbia are still signing up to be bound by the 'free market' consensus which is rapidly disintegrating globally.

Every copy is a performance downside. There's plenty of applications where it is essential to use shared memory. You could not rewrite Linux to avoid shared memory between threads.

The line is fuzzy though.

You might say that each RAM access is really a message over a bus, and so is each cache access. Conversely, you could write a message passing style key value store and create race conditions by using like shared memory.

Transactional memory is also 'message passing' like -> you bundle up access of shared memory into a single transaction 'message'.

A lot of shared memory code uses constructions like FIFO/queues which are really not too distinct from message passing except when ownership is shared or goes back and forth. Perhaps that's just an 'implementation' of message passing.

It's interesting that we've gone from cooperative to preemptive to cooperative multitasking again.

I agree that blocking threads is generally more natural / obvious. Cooperative multitasking was always done for performance reasons and more recently for simplicity (in single thread implementations with no locking) and/or scaling reasons.

Message passing concurrency is going even further though, and never really seems to have taken off wholistically. Again, primarily for performance reasons. When we do pass messages (across networks, too/from RAM or disk, etc) we usually add caching and other optimizations which make concurrency even harder to reason about.

My reading of the above was that at the time of LZB going down, PZB could not be enforced immediately, because its assumptions were violated (multiple trains in the same zone). Hence the trains are stopped.

The question is then what does manual operation entail? Do they just continue operations, driving slowly and communicating through other channels while allowing PZB rules to continue to be violated, or do they have a protocol to re-establish PZB as quickly and safely as possible? Asking as a layman.

Surely a better fallback is possible. Like if a train is known to be in a PZB with other trains ahead of it, then when LZB goes down it has to slow down/wait/follow some different protocol until PZB rules can be enforced again.

It's so platform dependent though, for many FreeRTOS targets I think you're just gonna be integrating against a vendor specific stack

Yes. Pre-o1, it didn't seem to be improving as rapidly as expected.

Yes, it is speculative and subjective - but so is all value. You can't factor that out, because it is inherent to every transaction that humans ever make. We make decisions based on our own valuations of expected future outcomes.

Even the value of the bridge is not realized until people cross it. It takes decades for such investments to break even, if they ever do - far longer than a GPU (which probably costs less than a mere boardwalk across a ditch).

Accountants are doing exactly what they should - every asset and liability is broken down by its market value (speculative) which investors then use to inform their speculation about the value of the company. If they think the company is more valuable than the current market price, they buy more stock. If you think the market value of a GPU is too high, don't buy it.

The market can be (and frequently is) wrong - but it's not an accountant's job to predict that.

Also, even GPT-3 (6 years ago) was a very powerful search tool for exactly these kinds of problems. You needed some result that would give a bound on some obscure property, and it instantly gave you five different applicable theorems from three different domains of math. Usually, the theorems even existed.

I was taken aback by the progress in 2025/2026 because late 2024 did seem to be a plateau, but 5-10 years seemed inevitable.

Even when I first studied automated theorem provers in around 2013, the 10-20 years to automating proofs (not theory building) seemed inevitable. They were already superhumanly fast and generating real results, and neural networks were making massive progress on translation, image processing, and games. Someone just had to work out how to stick a neural net inside an ATP. The surprise was that it happened the other way around, and that it solved even more than just mathematical proofs.

AI has only just begun to expose the depth of willful human ignorance.

Yes, values are inherently speculative - the S&P is just measuring current market values though - something like the market consensus of the net present value (profits further in the future are treated as less valuable than profits today). As this consensus changes, the S&P goes up and down.

Servers are locked down these days too, are they not? They may have an encrypted boot image, with keys in TPM, and boot from a PXE provisioning system. Would this offer a path to modify that boot image?