Nerds skipping the opportunity of telling someone is wrong? That's some mirror parallel dimension stuff :) Being sort of a nerd myself, I tend to ignore minor mistakes that have no impact on the actual message, but I can say (from my own experience) that age plays a huge role in that. Younger people tend to nitpick, older people tend to point out the broader issues.

Science, yes. Academic careers, research grants and sponsorship, no.

I'd argue a flaw may not seem major when detected, and because there is almost zero incentive to re-do what sometimes is the flagship research of an entire department, I'd wager there is a huge incentive to not publish it. And even if gets published, who wants to be a paria in their field, at least until the flaw is confirmed?

I'm talking about people in general, and I wasn't attacking science - I was making the point that the way the climate science results are portrayed are misleading, by cherry-picking what fits the narrative and what serves specific political agendas. And scientists themselves play a role in passing this message - and this is the problem I see. When scientists play politics, nothing good comes out - and by playing politics, I mean presenting a dumbed down, trimmed version of the findings with a punchline (like we need to do X to avoid Y). And this happens because at the end of the day, science is done by scientists, and they have to eat too; they have their lives and their careers - and very few will jeopardize that to pass a message that may collide with the current policy on the subject.

Will it? As far as I'm aware, earth's temperature never reached an equilibrium, even considering a small timescale (eg. 50 years). Why should now?

Adding to that, "carbon credits" is just planting trees. That will decay and re-release most of the retained CO2 back to the atmosphere. See, there is big money in going green - the difference is, you now know that the crap you buy is built somewhere else, because you voted for emission capping - but not with your wallet. You'll do what the media tells you will help, you'll feel good about yourself, and blame the acid rain and the acidification of the oceans on the "others". Guess what, the bad guys are always "them".

Replace Solar with nuclear or fusion and it still sounds the same.

It didn't. All those things reduce emissions. It doesn't do jack for the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd wager most of those institutions aren't studying climate, they are verifying previous studies. How many of them are actually studying against the grain? How many of them aren't focused on *antropomorphic* climate change?
How many people you know that are worried about climate change acknowledge that climate change is a recurrent event (even in small timescales, like 100.000 years)? How many of those climate changes enthusiasts actually are aware that extinction is a huge part of the evolutionary process? And that mass extinctions - as much as we are aware - aren't that rare considering the age of the earth?
Look, I'm no denier, and I do believe (it is my conviction, by reading the studies of others) that human activity plays a huge role in global warming - when I say huge, I meant "its responsible for". But I don't identify with the f***** hysteria and paranoia around it. No, you won't solve (or help) the problem planting more trees. No, you won't solve the problem (or help) by switching to vegetarian food - you actually may worsen it. No, the world will not end. It will be different, but nature adapts, as it has done so many times before. Everyone wants to "save" the planet, but no one tells them that pandas should be extinct. As dinosaurs are, and other creatures that didn't make the cut.
And talking about believing, I believe temperatures will still rise even if we cut emissions to zero today. Because there is no plan to actually remove all that CO2 from the atmosphere, or to reduce power from the furnace (sun). In the end - even with zero emissions - the temperature will rise if the atmosphere can trap enough heat.

So new versions of the linux kernel finally get some sort of securelevels, huh?

If you don't really know the answer to this, you probably shouldn't be calling anyone an idiot. You should probably have a look at classical thermodynamic systems such as Carnot engine and the Peltier effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and tone down your atitude.

After you are familiarized with the basic concepts of eg. Peltier devices, you'll notice there is the need to have an electric current. The current is usually non-trivial compared to the water output, specially in dry environments; That ratio is called efficiency.

A rock is a device that costs nothing to operate, and can still retain moisture if you keep it cool enough. And given the huge amount of scams on this particular area (capturing water/co2 from thin air and transforming it in something useful), I'd be a bit skeptical about practical results. Specially considering that mold and bacteria just loves hot moist devices, in such a way it is mandatory in many countries to have regular inspection and cleanup of apparel like industrial water heaters and air conditioning units.

With this, I'm assuming you're a 13 year old. That explains your ignorance on common scientific principles, and the hormone induced rage against anyone that doesn't share your views or point a gap in your rudimentary, deeply flawed argumentation. One day you'll grow, and you probably will be able to confront people in real life - instead of venting your frustrations online - and hopefully you'll learn that debating ideas and discussing them is not a confrontation.

Systems with sequential boot order tend to be more consistent in terms of hardware enumeration, but its nothing "trivial to fix".

For most of the civilized world, and if you're transferring reasonable amounts, taxes do apply. Its called currency export for some reason...

You may want to check the micro:bit platform http://microbit.org/

Still, the problem exists, and their documentation is wrong. I'm not nitpicking, I do maintain a legacy Galera cluster and this are the kind of issues you can't easily control on a prebuilt application or with eg. ORMs.

If you're using Galera, I'd recommend you to read this - https://aphyr.com/posts/327-ca... . Depending on your application requirements, you may have unwanted behaviour from your cluster.

Well, I did quite some work in assembly. I didn't have any thread mechanism available as a core feature of the language, so I'd assume you'd also say CPUs are poorly designed.

No, there's not. What is wrong is the notion that you can only accomplish this by using threads.

Sometimes I want to be able to issue syscalls. Its a legitimate thing to be able to do, and PHP doesn't allow me to do it easily. Or manage how memory is allocated. Or see an assembly dump of what's being executed. Well, its a limitation. So what?

I have great difficulty in having a valid discussion with someone that only performs a naive syllogism when reading a sentence, but I'll bite. If you're deferring tasks to be background processed so you can continue execution, it IS about performance, even though it wasn't what I wrote.

You mean, a package? Like basically every functionality available in every other language or operating system? Hey, PHP doesn't support Memcache also. Its an external package. And in Linux, bad luck - all those basic I/O functionalities are also available in a separate package. You know, like the one the JVM uses (GlibC).

Ahh the ad hominem attack. Well, I could say that if you cannot solve your problems without using threads you should be doing something else instead of programming, it doesn't really add nothing to the conversation, does it? By your reasoning, I'd say you're against using eg. PostgreSQL as a database server because isn't threaded. Oh well.

PHP also has Sybase and Oracle support. I'd guess most developers don't really need that, and the language itself doesn't really need that, but exists. At this point I realize why you prefer to stay anonymous.

Yah, probably not. I usually don't cater to smart-asses in the internet.

So, it's the newbies fault, huh? I often see shitty production code done in Java or C# than in PHP, but it's obvious we have a different definition of shit.

Well, since you're so full of certainties, can you demonstrate it? If you have a look at http://www.computerworld.com.p..., you'll see that while the defect ratio of PHP is high, it is tied to a very specific set of defect categories. But hey, lets not spoil your rant with facts.

Replace PHP with any language name. It's not about the language, its about the algorithm. And yah, I've seen some shitty algorithms done in "good" languages like C# and Java, and they weren't coded by amateurs.

True, dynamically typed languages favor a specific set of defects. So why don't we write everything in Haskell? Why are you wasting time with Java or C# when Haskell is clearly superior?

The market says otherwise.

That's a bold statement. Are you comparing to Java? Yah its faster to develop with. Are you comparing to eg. Ruby? Maybe not.

Compared to what? It has a smaller memory footprint than equivalent solutions in Java, so it really depends on what you mean by "efficient".

I can do web programming in assembly. I don't, but its not that hard. There are a bunch of obvious reasons why I don't do it. One of them is that, in most web cases, it doesn't really matter if the application takes 0.1ms or 5ms to execute.

It does. A top PHP programmer can be upto 40% cheaper than a top Java programmer.

I'm currently finishing an application able to withstand 100K simultaneous users on a small cluster. I'd hardly call that cheap hosting, but hey, I'm not using wordpress.

If you think programmer's talent is tied with the language, you're in for a big surprise.

This one made me laugh. I will take a hint from your book and assume - I'll assume you never managed developers nor designed a software product from scratch.

No one is forcing you to use it. Hey, I can't stand Python, does it make it a bad language? Hardly.

Bullshit. Efficiency has nothing to do with code size. And if you want that kind of efficiency, you're going to have a bad day with Java.

As god intended, right? you're aware that most modern processors use out-of-order execution, right?

This fails more often than you might think, regardless of the language.

So, shall I infer that those problems only occur in PHP?

Well, AFAIK you cannot perform processing affinity on Java threads. And also AFAIK it's not part of the POSIX standard, so it's often up to the system scheduler (depending on whether you're using a userland implementation or a kernel-based one) to decide that. You ASSUME it will use all cores.

The realistic case is that you have no control over this in Java or a standard POSIX implementation. However, eg. Linux does provide extensions for this.

I'd suggest you look at some async subsystems to realize this often isn't really an advantage (GIANT was removed from Linux in 2011, not that long ago), and add it the complexity of syncing thread state and application state.