Labor Rate at dealerships around me are over $200/h. Granted the mechanic doesn't get 100% of that but 200 * 52 * 8 is nearly 600k. It seems like you could go somewhere else and get the same amount of money as Ford (or more) and don't need to worry about future salary increases not occurring.

I did expect that this exercise would come after the first one though, and doing this on top of a solution to the first exercise is a bit harder. That said, I also don't mean to claim either are impossible. It's just tough to reason about.

As the author of the post, it's really gratifying to hear that this is your assessment nowadays. I agree, and while I'm not sure I had much to do with this turn of events (it probably would have happened with or without me), curbing the use of channels is precisely why I wrote the post. I felt like Go could be much better if everyone stopped messing around with them. So, hooray!

If you are intending to do something that has multiple concurrent tasks ongoing at the same time, I would definitely reach for Go (and maybe be very careful or skip entirely using channels). I also would reach for Go if you intend to work with a large group of other software engineers. Go is rigid; when I first started programming I thought I wanted maximum flexibility, but Go brings uniformity to a group of engineers' output in a way that makes the overall team much more productive IMO.

Basically, I think Go is the best choice for server-side or backend programming, with an even stronger case when you're working with a team.

Assuming the number of players are set up front, and players can only play or leave, not join. If the expectation is that players can come and go freely and the game ends some time after all players have left, I believe this pattern can still be used with minor adjustment

(please overlook the pseudo code adjustments, I'm writing on my phone - I believe this translates reasonably into compilable Go code):

  type Message struct {
    exit bool
    score    int
    reply chan bool
  }

  type Game struct {
    bestScore int
    players int // > 0
    messages    chan Message
  }

  func (g *Game) run() {
    for message := range g.messages {
      if message.exit {
        g.players = g.players - 1;

        if g.players == 0 {
          return
        }
        continue
      }
  
      if g.bestScore < 100 && g.bestScore < message.score {
        g.bestScore = message.score
      }

      acceptingScores := g.bestScore < 100

      message.reply <- acceptingScores
    }
  }

  func (g *Game) HandlePlayer(p Player) error {
    for {
      score, err := p.NextScore()
      if err != nil {
        g.messages <- { exit: true
      }
      return err
    }
    g.messages <- { score, reply }
    if not <- reply {
       g.messages <- { exit: true }
       return nil
      }
    }
  }

Since CSP is mentioned, how much would this apply to most applications anyway? If I write a small server program, I probably won't want to write it on paper first. With one possible exception I never heard of anyone writing programs based on CSP (calculations?)

CSP is really in the realm of formal methods. No you wouldn't formulate your server program as CSP, but if you were writing software for a medical device, perhaps.

This is the FDR4 model checker for CSP, it's a functional programming language that implements CSP semantics and may be used to assert (by exhaustion, IIRC) the correctness of your CSP model.

https://cocotec.io/fdr/

I believe I'm in the minority of Go developers that have studied CSP, I fell into Go by accident and only took a CSP course at university because it was interesting, however I do give credit to studying CSP for my successes with Go.

Without even going into the unsubstantiated assertion with #1, your comment on number 3 shows a dramatic misunderstanding of how compounding effects work. You can't use the last 20 years to linearly project like this. It is true that most scientists agree that humanity will likely not go completely extinct, but it is also true that most scientists agree that many, many individual humans will be impacted. It is tough to say just exactly how humans will be impacted, but think famine, war, major societal upheaval.

Here's a citation if it helps: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/71/9/894/6325731

Your citation is merely an advocacy piece, not science. For example the first diagram contains charts of fertility rates, institutional assets divested and world GDP whilst claiming they are "climate related human activities". Presenting a nearly random collection of metrics as evidence for your argument isn't a sign of robust thinking or argumentation.

So far, all data says that the climate scientists are dead on and have been very accurate: https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_eval...

What doom predictions from the last 20 years haven't come true? If someone says that doom hasn't happened yet, I guess what I want to say is that they haven't waited long enough.

I think the climate scientists are frustrated and giving up. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/climate/ipcc-climate-scie.... My initial link was an attempt to show where the Overton window is regarding the experts in this field, more than anything else. This comment is probably not the right place to bring someone up to speed with the climate science field when they can Google it themselves.

In the end, we just went with ubuntu for those nodes, and they all passed the certification. Shrug.

Since then, we don't even need the OS to be certified, since we are using confidential computing, and we stuck with ubuntu for our k8s nodes etc -- but we are forbidden from using rhel anywhere by our legal / compliance people now.

The bottom line really is plenty of auditors I've seen don't know how to check for vulnerabilities other than by checking a version... That's it.. Their tools or reporting only know package must have a version greater than x.y.z.

But a few thing I'm missing are: - second (higher) order availability: even if the hospital you need to go to is within biking distance, is the hospital itself sourcing it's materials (needles, plasters etc.) locally? Otherwise you might end up at a hospital that can't treat you - in your modelling you only accounted for weather effects and elsewhere assumed that, hopefully, immigration will somehow be managed well. Suppose it will not - how will you manage that and ensure you will not loose everything, when everyone suddenly moves to where you are and all wealth is taken from people who have some? Is Traverse city perhaps sufficiently insulated so that people won't easily reach it? Does it have a strong police?

Lastly, I'm recommending the "nodes of persisting complexity" article, if you're interested. They carry out an analysis like you do, but at country level. Sadly, the US doesn't score too high.