I get hit with 1-2 job opportunities every day or two from LinkedIn alone...

Some are good, some are cruft... it all becomes noise since I'm not looking for a job right now.

I liked Soros' point that a reason for having an "open" society is that you can never be sure if the fantasy you're operating under, is actually going to do more benefit than harm, so one is always trying to remain not too sure of oneself, hence the "openness". For example, don't have a death penalty, because you can never be sure you're not making a big mistake (you might still jail the person, but basically try to be as available to correcting mistakes as possible). Try to be softer, more open, which I guess, can at the same time appear more liberal and more conservative.

I gather it is due to child survival. If one in six survive, you need to have twelve. As mothers start to see two in two survive, they start having two. It takes a while but that's the effect.

Religion, also, assimilated from other sources, and humans have, over the aeons, developed their ability, whether that individual belonged to a religion or not.

The religious often like to say that their reason led them religion, so you see, our ability to see the value in some moral teaching, is linked to our capacity to reason. And our capacity to reason has slowly developed, and it has developed over a much longer timespan, it actually predates the major religions. That's where our morality "comes from". It all arose together, and so I don't think you can just separate one area (religion) from the rest of society and claim that it was only religion which drove things.

Consider, I can't actually feel the pain another person feels, especially if they are living on the other side of the world and I have never met them. But I can perform a cognitive trick, and I can ask myself rationally, "If I was them, would I be suffering?"

That's the Golden Rule, and it is very old rule. The key is that it relies on our ability to rationally ask a question which then leads to an imaginary leap of empathy.

I can't feel what it is like to be that person, in their shoes, but I can rationally pose the question, and then consciously bring it up in my imagination, to try to see a story, about what I might be feeling if I was that other person. Cognition is key.

And cognition is hard. Over time we gradually learnt to apply that rule to more people. We didn't used to apply it to slaves, you know, the slaves who had very religious owners. Did religion stop slavery? Doesn't look like it. No, we gradually applied the golden rule, rationally, to more and more situations. Today we use it even when imaging the biosphere.

So atheists, insofar as they have a brain, can very well think about morality and ethics and come up with answers, and our answers today are better than the typical answer you got 2000 years ago. Which isn't to say that a Buddha or a Jesus or a Lao Tzu couldn't still best us today, but they were ahead of their time.

Of course, thinking rationally about ethical problems, is hard. It is hard to try to act in the interests of the whole world. And so people can and do disagree. But that doesn't mean it is hopelessly relative and self-indulgent. Humanity is gradually pulling itself up to become better. Now, this doesn't preclude an afterlife and so on, but we have almost NO evidence for such, and all the major religions disagree on this anyway, some say you have original sin, some say you have your previous karma, some say you can be saved, some say you can only save yourself, and so on, so until we get some real evidence, we are simply having to make do with not knowing.

And that's ok, because maybe, if you wonder that there is more to life, maybe us not knowing is part of the situation, and you'll be tested at the end, and maybe they'll ask, so what did you think of the golden rule, did you use it much?

Interesting dilemma. I guess the key is to raise people's intelligence, for whilst the "experts" might be doing a good job, the wider populace has to be able to correct their mistakes. So we hope that for every nut who makes a truly awful reading of some moral issue, there are hundreds around who can come up with a better reading and then let the best ideas compete and spread. And as more people are exposed to more ideas, they (hopefully) become smarter.

For example, many people have the notion that there is something "wrong" with life, and so they turn to religion, on that basic belief that life is "wrong", and so some end up wanting something "pure" and "holy" which, by definition, is not part of normal life, because normal life is "bad". That then leads to them coming up with ludicrous fantasies about what is "pure". So they come up with their "pure" idea, and they notice then that 99.999% of people will think they are wrong, and really, the more people say you're wrong, the more "pure" your ideas seem to be, so you must be on the right track to being the chosen one.

The idea that you have to declare life "bad" and then toil and suffer to "achieve" purity and salvation, is pernicious and a key assumption of the monotheistic religions, and some other ones also. Yet also an idea that is very easily undone:

Consider the lilies of the field...

You can't read game files faster because the process that reads the game file is single threaded vs multi-threaded... so it can only read as fast as a single thread can read.

A fully saturated CPU has enough lanes to do about 26-28GB/sec, but a single I/O thread might only be able to do 100-200MB/sec.

There was never any reason in the OS before today to make that any faster because the spinning disks that fed data to the CPUs couldn't do more than 100MB/sec.

Now that we have all this great flash, code needs to be re-written to be able to use other idle CPU time to spin up more threads and read the data faster.

It's worth remembering that 98k IOPS will be at a very small block size and will rapidly drop as you increase block size to 4K-1MB as the larger transfer size will directly equate to less I/O.

The real problem is that apps are not written for multi-threaded I/O which is what you really need in order to take advantage of the throughput provided by PCI-e flash.

Booting from RAID is more supported, and the support is baked into nearly every BIOS out there... booting PCI-e over NVMe or UEFI is brand new and very few things support it and all the code is new.

Booting through a raid card that has it's own BIOS is nothing like booting off of a native PCI-e device.

Booting from pci-e uses either a UEFI driver or NVMe today, two technologies that are kinda in their infancy.

The code is not yet fully optimized/etc and you may see reduced speeds at least until you can get into an OS layer and load up a more feature-full driver.

The PCI-e native SSDs are indeed faster, the problem is, the code reading data off of them (your application/os) isn't written to take advantage of the increased speeds. Single threaded reads cap out at the read speed of a single thread, and that isn't that fast. This is especially true if they are 4K reads vs 1M reads, as you aren't going to saturate anything until you get up into larger read sizes.

To really take advantage of the bandwidth SSDs enable, you need to be running multiple parallel apps running multiple reads, or you need an app that can do multi-threaded reads.

This is because you get stuck leaving the CPU to handle all the context switching between virtual block storage in DRAM and memory. The CPU has to copy data out of block and into memory before it can actually use it, so by making a ram disk you end up giving the CPU 2-4x the amount of work to do for what should be a DMA read/write, which would normally be offloaded.

Also, your reads from your game are going to be single-threaded, and a single read/write thread is going to be pretty slow.

Kinda know the feeling. When I was 7 I drew a picture of a dog in a space capsule. The teacher said that dogs haven't gone to space.

It was a little early in life to conclude that teachers can't be trusted. Sigh.

Slight quibble: you might think it is safe ground to claim that, but we have no idea what sentience is nor how it works nor which creatures have it. Is an ape sentient? Is an ant sentient?

Claiming we are "human" or "ape" or "just an animal" is about as proven as claiming we are "God's children" or "living in the matrix" whatever other claptrap. We know we are sentient of the world, but we haven't located sentience IN the world. We know that what we experience can be altered by altering the brain, but what is doing the experiencing is unknown. The brain is the TV. But what is experiencing the TV picture? This is not a trivial problem to be overlooked. We don't know what we are. Would you still feel you if you were not sentient, but otherwise a human going about behaving like any other human? Just "human" instead of "human being"?

But that aside, yes by all means let's go to space.

Would it help if the people who came up with a password policy were then tasked with thinking up 100 passwords (each one to be used for one day) ?
And then check back with them at the end and see what they chose for the last 20?

So what did He say?