Used to do this sort of thing for computations that needed to run in the 10 microsecond range (HFT stuff), circa 2008. Had very predictable results because:
a) language was not garbage collected (C++)
b) we avoided heap lock contentions in critical paths by pre-allocating object pools at startup
c) I/O operations were offloaded to separate threads, connected by mutex locked linked lists
d) processing thread was bound to its own CPU core
Was this a glass test tube? I understand why glass is probably the best material for the inner lining of containers that hold biological material, but I'm surprised that there aren't better solutions for hazardous material (e.g. an unbreakable, transparent polymer outer coating).
I believe the biggest reason to use glass is that it doesn't react with much stuff, but I've yet to see an explanation for why your idea wouldn't work. I imagine there could be problems with autoclaves (i.e. degradation of the polymer) and fear of chemical leaching.
Polymer coated glass is commonplace in chemistry labs for large containers of hazardous reagents held in storage. There's no chemical leaching concern because it's on the outside.
If anything, disposable plastic test tubes are the norm in microbiology labs at this point. No need to autoclave because they come sterile and you throw them away after a single use.
Plenty of plastic that's designed for it goes through the autoclave. For example micropipette tips. Nearly all of it is disposable single use so it only has to withstand a single cycle.
Disposing of and throwing away are two different things. Throwing away is a subclass of 'disposing of' and there are many other such subclasses including safe destruction, for instance by incineration.
Somewhat related, but probably more fascinating: a time lapse animation of stars orbiting the blackhole at the center of our galaxy (Sagittarius A*) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF8THY5spmo
In the modern world, to deprive someone of access to the banking system, internet connectivity, or access to their digital identity, is similar to depriving someone of housing or clothing. They're necessities for participation in modern society, so this amounts to a civil death sentence or civiliter mortuus.
The problem with "engineers will review" is: Critical review requires expertise. Expertise requires experience. Experience comes from building. Builders build because they like to build. So when builders are asked to do nothing but review, they will eventually tire of their jobs and leave, sometimes not just the job, but the industry entirely. The lower the quality of the agents' output, the faster this will happen.
Why does this sound very much like the argument toward full self-driving? If drivers need to be watchful of mostly autonomous ones, they get bored and lose attention or sometimes take nap in front of the steering wheel. Waymo came out of an extension of this argument..
> So when builders are asked to do nothing but review, they will eventually tire of their jobs and leave, sometimes not just the job, but the industry entirely.
I do agree that a lot of engineers who want to do everything the old manual way are about to get really frustrated.
I don't think this is as universal as you say. There are a lot of engineers who are excited and happy to use these tools. Leave the bubbles of Hacker News, Lobsters, and similar sites and a lot of people are embracing these tools.
You also skipped the step where someone needs to direct the design. In the pre-LLM era it was commonly accepted that engineers who advanced to very senior roles would become less connected to the implementation details and more connected to steering, reviewing, and directing. Only a few years ago Hacker News was full of anecdotes about staff engineers who barely wrote code any more. Those people will have no problem switching to a new world where LLMs are handling implementation details.
The point stands, though. Senior engineers can detach themselves from implementation details because more junior engineers still do the hard parts. In the AI case, agents are the "engineers". Eventually all competency will be within AI domain and none within human one.
Why people are so eager to surrender their birthright to the machines for the mess of pottage?
In cartoons you'd have this concept where someone is sawing away with great energy on a branch while sitting on the dead side of the saw. This is that concept, but on a much larger scale.
If people want to build stuff they can, they just may not be paid for it. But if we don't need to pay anyone to do anything then it also doesn't matter that you aren't being paid, as you'd have all you need, and you can spend your time tinkering away on low tech/cottagecore enterprises like designing an ASIC or making bread.
In a world of continuous population growth, there is some excuse (but not justification) for running governments at deficit, which is essentially a bet that future generations will produce enough to meet their needs and fulfill debt obligations from past generations. When population growth halts, so should deficit spending. Smith himself, in The Wealth of Nations: "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom."
> Six weeks before my daughter was born, my employer of 13 years laid off my entire division. Ramses had just put up the down payment on a bigger home for our growing family. My unemployment meant he was facing the mortgage payments and managing a remodel on his own, while we prepared to welcome another child.
i thought that too, but that's not really a story, that's just normal for the US. in europe (most of the EU i am sure) and china and probably elsewhere it's illegal to lay someone off while they are pregnant. (exceptions exist, and if they apply insurance works also for the unemployed)
Does anyone remember a Windows game called Yoda Stories? I had such fond memories of it that I tried to find the game or an emulator version multiple times. No luck. It was an elegant game from a more civilized time where resolution, shading, texture and frame rate did not define how good a game was.
There was also Indiana Jones Desktop Adventures which used the same engine. Both were rather harshly reviewed at the time for being "pointless" - presumably the reviewers didn't like the random generation - while "rogue" (and Nethack, etc) existed, the idea of a "roguelike" hadn't quite gelled as a concept in pop culture yet.
I remember it fondly. My family had a lower-end 486 and it couldn't run a lot of games but it ran Yoda Stories great! Loved that game as a kid. LucasArts really was a gem (loved Grim Fandango, Dark Forces, Jedi Knight, Full Throttle, etc.).
Tim Schafer of Grim Fandango, Full Throttle and Day of the Tentacle runs Double Fine Productions, newly released from Xbox Game Studios to independant status. They're running a kickstarter to extend their runway right now around their 2 week internal gamejam "Amnesia Fortnight" and documentary. (not fortnite related at all).
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doublefine/amnesia-fort...
They could really use some support if you're a fan of his work.
I loved Jedi Knight. There still isn’t anything quite like logging into the Zone and having light saber battles where the saber model is replaced with a full size star destroyer :)
Note: I had very good luck with DosBox on a pile of games from that era and older lately. (Edutainment mainly). I didn't try this one though. Now I want to...
Yes. The user of a machine is responsible for due diligence before the decision to use the machine. Unless the operational limitations and fault rate of the machine is withheld from the public.
a) language was not garbage collected (C++)
b) we avoided heap lock contentions in critical paths by pre-allocating object pools at startup
c) I/O operations were offloaded to separate threads, connected by mutex locked linked lists
d) processing thread was bound to its own CPU core
That's about as deterministic as we could get.
reply