I'm just not entirely convinced of the premise that energy consumption on that scale would be necessary for an advanced civilization. Particle accelerators would be a reasonable possibility though.
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of what Summers is saying. He's talking about a current slowdown in growth, and arguing for expansionary monetary policy. This article is claiming that there's a limited amount of growth that we can expect in the longterm, because we'll run out of sources of energy. But Summers isn't talking about energy as a limit..indeed, he's saying commodity prices are depressed.
The other article isn't entirely arguing that energy is a fundamental limit, although the example it gives is pretty hilarious. It's ultimately arguing that there are fundamentally limited things for capital to invest in and grow.
The only argument I see is that energy places a limit on growth. Now, one might think that if energy is one limit, there must be others, but I can't find that argument actually presented.
> Economist: But I have to object to the statement that growth must stop once
> energy amount/price saturates. There will always be innovations that people
> are willing to purchase that do not require additional energy.
I think you're getting this backwards--this is not an argument that there's more limits, it's an argument over whether limited energy actually implies limits to growth. What the economist says is "even if energy is limited, growth is not" and the physicist goes on to rebut that claim.
The rebuttal has to do with the definition of economic growth (assuming it isn't connected to energy consumption and gdp), which the economist argues has to do with quality of life. The rebuttal is that quality of life can only objectively improve to a certain point, and that the remaining measures aren't really quantifiable.
So the last, albeit minor, argument is that there would be a point where there isn't anything to invest in to grow, which essentially describes the ultimate form of secular stagnation. I think the economic counter-argument goes something like the money supply isn't inherently finite. I could see that being an interesting argument.
> [...] especially because you can't type it anymore without waiting
This was my thought when I saw this mapping for the first time, and when I started customizing my vimrc I opted for using caps lock as well. It didn´t take long for me to change that and start using kj instead -- in the end it was more common for me to type constants in all-caps than typing "Reykjavik."
Are you claiming that he could handle all of this by himself? Because unless you're claiming it, you'll have to agree with me that he would have to trust someone at some point. And calling Greenwald a so-called respectable journalist doesn't make justice to the reputation he built. I'm curious to know how would you select a better fitted person to this job.
I also don't think that comparing this to privacy violation is a valid comparison. The government is not a person, you're not violating any civil rights by getting these documents.
I'm confused about what kind of straight answer you're expecting. Why isn't this considered a straight answer?
> Snowden didn't decide which document's to publish - journalists did. He handed over a trove of information, among which was damning evidence that our government was/is doing something they shouldn't, and gave journalists the responsibility to publish relevant documents appropriately.
Had he pre-selected which documents to hand over to the journalists, how would this be any different than if he just published them by his own? Snowden knew that he was not supposed to handle this task alone by passing his judgement on these documents by himself, and that he needed someone to help him judge what to disclose and what not to disclose, so he delegated this responsibility to journalists with a reputation he could trust. IMO he was as responsible as one could be: he didn't handle this trouble all by himself, he didn't let any biases he might've had affect the decisions, and he delegated the task at hand properly to american citizens (this is important, he was dealing with national security after all) he judged to be trustworthy. It just boils down to teamwork.
Selecting only the documents he thought described wrongdoings would put too much of his perspective and his biases on the end result. Too much for a single man to decide.
He didn't have the right not to make a decision. As a responsible citizen he had the obligation take action and decide how to approach the issue, and he did the best he could as a single individual. Deciding who to trust is doable; filtering all the information on those docs by himself is not.
Yes, he could have disclosed the obvious things, but how would that work out on the long term? Would he be able to address by himself all the questions that would follow up? How much information would he be able to disclose? Too much information and he'd risk disclosing legitimate operations, too little information and he'd soon get discredited.
In the long term, it would have meant that people like me who think there is a legitimate reason for nation states to have intelligence agencies could support him with clear consciences.
He did not disclose all the documents. He made a pass through first to protect people primarily. The vast majority of what he passed on were power points and lists of devices.
I don't know if the documentary Into Eternity[0] is related to this task force, but it was the first time I was exposed to the idea of preserving information for thousands of years. Fascinated stuff. It never ocurred to me how hard it would be to instruct future generations to stay away of a nuclear deposit after so much time.
The same Wikipedia page on molecules that says they have "two or more atoms held together" also says this in the next paragraph:
In the kinetic theory of gases, the term molecule is often used for any gaseous particle regardless of its composition. According to this definition, noble gas atoms are considered molecules despite being composed of a single non-bonded atom.
"Recent revelations have called into question the integrity of some of the implementations of basic cryptographic functions and devices used to secure communications on the Internet. There are serious questions about algorithms and about implementations of those algorithms in software and particularly hardware."
I'm curious about that, does anybody here know about these recent revelations? I understand the feeling, but I don't remember seeing any news about the security of HSM recently, or ever actually.
I never took the time to try WebSockets, so please forgive me if this question doesn't make sense, but, does HTTP/2 supersedes WebSockets? I'm under the impression that HTTP/2 covers all the WebSockets' use cases, is this a correct observation?
There's not much you can do with a websocket that you can't do with a Server Sent Event stream plus AJAX requests. HTTP/2 just makes that design (relatively) performant by shoving all those together into one multiplexed connection.
Websockets are still important if you need something like real-time input-event streaming (e.g. for an online game); a properly-structured binary protocol sent over a websocket will be much lower-overhead than the equivalent HTTP/2 frames.
If you use WebSockets mainly because you want to multiplex many requests/responses over a single TCP channel, then HTTP/2 may be a preferable substitute for WebSockets.
If you use WebSockets for "realtime push", then HTTP/2's server push feature could potentially be used as an alternative (though I've not heard of anyone actually doing this yet).
If you use WebSockets because you actually want a bidirectional message-oriented transport protocol, well then you'll keep using WebSockets. :)
> If you use WebSockets for "realtime push", then HTTP/2's server push feature could potentially be used as an alternative.
One thing to keep in mind with HTTP/2 server push is that a server can only send a push in response to a client request. So this isn't a drop-in "real-time push" mechanism. To implement the equivalent of real-time push would likely require client/server to keep a stream within the connection in the "open" state whereby the server can send continue to send data frames on that.
One thing to keep in mind with HTTP/2 server push is that a server can only
send a push in response to a client request.
This was the difference that I was not aware of, thanks. So HTTP/2 server push is just opportunistic, while WebSockets are real-time push with a persistent connection.
From what I could find online, there are no plans to include websockets as part of HTTP/2 (according to this: https://webtide.com/http2-last-call/ ). HTTP/2 is meant to supersede all websocket use cases.
Hmm, do the HTTP/2 authors say that it supersedes WebSockets? The article you linked to says that there may have been a missed opportunity regarding consolidation of framing protocols, but that alone doesn't imply that WebSockets are obsolete. I'd assume HTTP and WebSockets would continue to exist as separate protocols, as they always have.
HTTP/2 does not allow communication from server to client. Server push is another matter, not really controlled by server or client. So you'll end up to polling server. This might be a bit more effective than HTTP/1 polling, but websockets will be better.
Sure it does. HTTP/2 streams are bidirectional. The websocket flow can be perfectly emulated in HTTP/2: make a websockety request, get a 200 HTTP response, then both sides keep the stream open and send data through it.
Time is a limited resource. As much as I'd love to learn everything that I find interesting, I can't find the time to learn all these subjects. The criteria I use to decide when to learn something or not are not like geoka9's, but I still have to ask myself why.
Isn't it the other way around? You are assuming that we can't observe nor measure an experience while noselasd is leaving the question open (we don't have any proof in favor or against it). The burden of proof is not his/hers.
We may one day be able to measure experience, but we don't know yet. Until then science is the best tool we have.
