Mostly memory. Go can run a full web server in 30 mb. Java's equivalent would be around 128 or more. Essentially you can do more PoC on smaller, more affordable hardware using Go. Here's a benchmark for calculation implements. Most of the time Go uses less memory while executing near Java's performance. https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/go-vs-jav...
> Is anyone else noticing that for several 5 year blocks (pentad) the world just seems to get markedly worse? It's like no body seems to give a shit about anyone except themselves anymore. Whats the cause of this? What's the solution?
I used to think that random people on the internet could be trusted, now my attitude is (essentially) "if I don't know you, then fuck off and fuck your opinion too"
I'm not saying this directed at you OP, I've felt the same thing you've felt about the world becoming worse off
In 2018-19 I'd think about making a blog connected to my IRL credentials. Now, this isn't really something I'd consider doing. I used to want to write an autobiography, now I'd rather not say anything
And with respect to this:
> And at the same time, we get these cases where a dude like Tyre,
That whole thing makes me feel physically ill. If people are capable of that kind of cruelty, what does that say about our society?
> Aligning society along a hierarchy of "intelligence" is really just aligning it on a hierarchy of access to education, which is just a function of economic class privilege (or racial class privilege really, these are tightly integrated even today in many societies for historical or otherwise reasons).
This is the claim: intelligence is just some combination of education, class, and race
Let's state the obvious here: genetics. Why did you conveniently leave that one out? Are you in denial about (inherently) stupid people existing or something? Can you prove that they don't exist?
Also, before you assume I'm being more specific: I'm not saying equal access to education is a wasted endeavor. Sure, make the public school system good in rich and poor areas
But we're talking about intelligence in general here, so leaving genetics out is just avoiding the obvious because it isn't politically satisfying
Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned?
I doubt this can be demonstrated to have a much stronger effect than educational opportunities, which is a function of class, which in some societies, such as American society, is a function partially of race, for historical and contemporary reasons, as well as a function of economic condition (the two are inexorably linked for reason of generational wealth).
> leaving genetics out is just avoiding the obvious because it isn't politically satisfying
I'm very much of the opinion, and as far as I understand it research backs me up here, that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics, the overall outcomes are vastly more affected by things we have lots of control over, such as the egalitarianian-ness of our society, than things we don't really have control over, such as each individual's genetics (and do we want to go down the path of structuring our hierarchies around this? shall I go get the swath of sci fi warning against this?)
You seem to disagree, not sure why, though I'm curious!
> Are you in denial about (inherently) stupid people existing or something?
Nope, just seems mostly irrelevant in this conversation. What's the point of talking about genetics here? How about we do achieve educational access egalitarian, truly, and we find out some people aren't doing quite as good of art, or writing quite as good as poetry, or dreaming up quite as interesting apps, or doing engineering quite as fast, because they lost a genes lottery. Do you think it's a good idea to start structuring hierarchies around this? Seems cruel and pointless to me.
> that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics
Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't right
> Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned?
Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted
Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable
> Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted
It really is just that.
Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. "But genetic factors!!" Eh, it's mostly just about how much you work out. It's not really worth talking about genetic factors when the majority of the population can't do a single pullup. Are we moving goalposts, or rather just doing actionable conversations?
> Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable
I'm not going to do your work for you. For some reason you really wanna talk about genes. I'll be honest, I'm going to take you at good faith here, but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.
Why are you more interested in talking about genetic factors of intelligence than the far more significant factors in economic conditions? What's the deal here? Where you going with this?
> Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out.
Some people can get shredded really easily because of genetics. Some people are just naturally more fit than others
> but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.
My point is your initial point is an oversimplification. If you throw the same resources at the same group of people from a similar socioeconomic status, there will still be a difference of ability. Some people will move faster than others
So the crux of my argument is this: just because there's an inequality of outcome does not imply that the cause is purely socioeconomic. Given constitutional differences, striving for equality of outcome is a sub-optimal use of resources
Should there be standards or some kind of baseline? Yes. But striving for absolute equality of outcome at the expense of everything else is a net negative for society
Nobody is talking about equality of outcome except you. Why did you bring it up?
It is good and right to provide good and equal educational opportunities to people regardless of economic status. Countries like the USA aren't, and should. What are you arguing for here, some kind of genetic evaluation first to make sure we aren't "wasting resources" on a kid that will do math a little more slow? Why not just redirect abundance to the point it doesn't matter?
This is cope. Nobody goes around denying Down's syndrome exists, so when you say "they're denying genetics" you actually mean "they're denying it except for all the times they don't".
Nevertheless I do deny it. Genes don't cause anything, they just sit there in nucleuses. If you don't include the entire causal chain you're not serious either.
> The investors and the engineers and all the workers at Reddit will become rich, but the people who do the most important work, as outlined by the brief, are the anonymous moderators that create the culture of every subreddit.
This article just makes me more reluctant to ever use it for anything
But if Google wants to ruin their own lang, sure by all means