Expecting Satoshi not to be libertarian is like expecting Karl Marx not to be socialist. Satoshi devoted his life to creating uncensorable money outside of government control!
I understand but that’s a strange hope a bit based on his twitter bring too right-wing or libertarian than he would prefer, yet those beliefs are actually very consistent with a lot of Satoshi’s known leanings and beliefs. The block zero comment is pretty libertarian for example and many of his comments on email lists are also. So it’s a bit illogical for the OP to hope for otherwise.
I guess I missed the xenophobia and racism in his twitter feed. That wouldn’t surprise me however I’m just not sure what you are referring to specifically.
In the 1970s there were lots of libertarians that were marxists or socialists, they saw no conflict in the terms because libertarian is such a loosely defined term that it can encompass almost anything you care to stuff into it. Even today libertarianism has no strict prescription, the political movement takes all manner of refugee into it. In discussions I routinely run across libertarians that believe in fully functional centralized government judicial and policing systems; on the flip side, I also run across libertarians that are more of the anarchy wing and believe in private police systems.
What does liberty mean to you? That's all libertarianism actually is, and that has always plagued the movement.
If forcibly implemented marxism means liberty or freedom to you, good enough, you can call yourself a libertarian now if you see fit. The Hayek wing will always disagree with that, however their disagreement is also entirely irrelevant as they don't have much control over the term or the movement.
Well, that shouldn't be that surprising since the term was Socialist in its beginning before the current US right-wing tendencies co-opted it to mean Propertarianism.
Exactly so clearly if you even are willing to consider the possibility that SARS-Cov-2 escaped, you are crazy and a right wing nut ok. See how that works.
Yes. Plenty of experts. Actual virologists, epidemiologists and other scientists who've spent their lives researching infectious diseases like Covid. What actual experts have you actually read anything from?
I’m curious if you have done any research at all into Covid’s origin? For me it would be very surprising to find someone who has now expressing your implied distain for those who are considering the possibility it originated in the Wuhan lab. This isn’t a political topic or at least shouldn’t be.
No, sorry. You can't float a conspiracy theory, cite an unrelated point as "evidence", and then demand that I be a professional virologist before being allowed to tell you the argument is inapplicable.
This doesn't make sense because nothing the Russians did in 1977 (before the invention of PCR!) to culture an existing wild virus tells us anything about what the Chinese were doing in this virology lab.
Is that really true? Do you have any reference for that, I’m curious how different it is. FWIW I use InfluxDB and haven’t really thought it was a huge resource hog.
InfluxDB may require big amounts of RAM when working with high cardinality data. It works OK with up to a million of time series. Then it starts eating RAM as crazy [1]. How many time series does your InfluxDB setup contain?
I’m assuming because you are sure having it once will give you some immunity? It’s really unclear if that is true and I respectfully disagree with those who same it is more likely than not.
We don't "know" that infection confers any sort of lasting immunity, but there's zero reason to believe it doesn't give you immunity at least for a few years.
This is all rooted in the media narrative trying to scare people to stay at home "you could catch it over and over again". It's not science, and it's counter productive.
Well, it's not science, but it may be productive. A lot of people will hear "it's not so bad" and "healthy people should get it and get over it", and go out and make others sick (including people that could die or be hospitalized).
It's not science, it's crowd control. People don't exercise good judgement reliably, so that might be counterproductive.
Stop spreading misinformation, there were studies in South Korea that say you won't reinfect after you get it. That's why the strong and healthy can help by self-infecting.
Not exactly.
Some hundreds of patients were thought to have gotten rid of the virus during hospital stay and treatment and sent home after confirming through RT-PCR tests. But they were found to be covid+ve afterwards. Studies indicated that the +ve tests were 'likely' from the genetic material that lingered from the first infection and not from re-infection.
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-reinfections-were-fa...
However, they do not declare that you cannot get re-infected two months down the line or two years down the line. We don't have that information about immunity yet.
"The great bulk of evidence' in this situation would mean the data on the duration of presence of Neutralizing antibodies in the blood stream of people who got rid of the virus.
But this data is not there yet,as I said before.
Scientists are currently working to figure out how long the antibodies stay in the body and if they are potent enough to fight re-infections.
There is 'no great bulk of evidence' yet. Unless I'm wrong, and I hope I am.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
"For any country contemplating these issues, another crucial question is how solid is the assumption that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein equate to functional protection?Furthermore, if presence of these antibodies is protective, how can it be decided what proportion of the population requires these antibodies to mitigate subsequent waves of cases of COVID-19?"
"Furthermore, studies in COVID-19 show that 10–20% of symptomatically infected people have little or no detectable antibody."
We need more data, which I understand scientists all over the world are working relentlessly to deliver, to believe that 'you won't reinfect once you get it'
Most antibodies to viruses don't last forever, the question is not if you can get COVID19 twice (you almost surely can) but how long in-between are you protected.
And the evidence is unclear, and in some cases worrying:
As @tpnCC and @seppin said, there is significant clinical & scientific uncertainty about covid19 antibody response and duration, partly because there hasn't been enough time to collect the relevant data (for covid19) and partly because of prior resarch indicating reduced human antibody response to SARS.
Lower in this thread I commented about a 2011 resarch paper that demonstrated anti-SARS antibody levels fell by half 2 years postinfection and were undetectable 6 years postinfection in 21 of 23 SARS patients tested.
There is a big problem with optimistically assuming immune systems will respond like SARS even, because we know in general terms the more severe the symptoms the longer the immunity lasts, but wait ... huge huge numbers of people with Covid-19 are asymptotic, that is not the cases with it’s SARS and MERS relatives! wake up people, herd immunity is delusional and dangerous. more likely is very short immunity, just like the other 4 Corona family virus which cause many of our common colds, high asymptotic rates, and reinfect us very very frequently and NOT due to mutations!
If those SARS numbers are in the same vein as what is true for COVID19, the only answer is a vaccine. Otherwise our current state of affairs is the new normal for the foreseeable future.
It's estimated that ~14% of common cold cases are caused by coronaviruses (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63)... so although it seems particularly difficult, if we do manage to discover how to develop effective vaccines against Covid19, perhaps the silver lining is that vaccines against the related viruses responsible for a significant fraction of the common cold will be in reach.
In that case COVID19 will play out like the 1918 flu, it will hit in waves that only mass quarantine will help mitigate, until enough immunity is reached. Likely 18 months - 2 years.
Just to spell it out: herd immunity depends on sustained immunity postinfection. It seems possible, perhaps probable, that covid19 "immunity" may have an unusually short duration or attenuated response, resulting in an effective herd population that is a fraction of the theoretical herd population. I.e. if 60% of Americans have been infected and recovered after 12 months, but antibody levels drop 25% after 12 months, the true number of immune americans comprising the herd will be less than 60%.
If so, we may need to consider pursuing a relatively slow and steady relaxation of lockdown to tune the rate of new infections such that herd immunity is kept as stable as possible - i.e. flatten curve into truly flat-but-nonzero line
But the bespoke language has some benefits. It’s concise and specifically designed for the problem. Also Nix has more contributors and that is very important to have a large collection of recipes to start from.
Ok I’ll give another reason. Nix community is more relaxed and doesn’t downvote just because they don’t like some comment or somebody disagrees with them.
Do Nix and Guix expressions not interoperate? Is that a fundamental limitation of the system (at lest as fundamental as, say, dpkg
and rpm) or could one write a source-level translator?
There are obviously some differences between the two, but I'm not really perceiving any real verbosity gap between the two, one way or the other.
Here is a guix package declaration for tmux:
[Edit: fixed indentation]
(define-module (gnu packages tmux)
#:use-module ((guix licenses) #:prefix license:)
#:use-module (guix packages)
#:use-module (guix download)
#:use-module (guix git-download)
#:use-module (guix build-system gnu)
#:use-module (guix build-system trivial)
#:use-module (gnu packages)
#:use-module (gnu packages bash)
#:use-module (gnu packages libevent)
#:use-module (gnu packages ncurses))
(define-public tmux
(package
(name "tmux")
(version "3.0a")
(source (origin
(method url-fetch)
(uri (string-append
"https://github.com/tmux/tmux/releases/download/"
version "/tmux-" version ".tar.gz"))
(sha256
(base32
"1fcdbw77nz918f7gqc1ga7zlkp1g112in1h8kkjnkadgnhldzlaa"))))
(build-system gnu-build-system)
(inputs
`(("libevent" ,libevent)
("ncurses" ,ncurses)))
(home-page "https://tmux.github.io/")
(synopsis "Terminal multiplexer")
(description
"tmux is a terminal multiplexer: it enables a number of terminals (or
windows), each running a separate program, to be created, accessed, and
controlled from a single screen. tmux may be detached from a screen and
continue running in the background, then later reattached.")
(license license:isc)))
Here is (roughtly) the equivalent in Nix:
{ stdenv, fetchFromGitHub, autoreconfHook, ncurses, libevent, pkgconfig, makeWrapper }:
let
bashCompletion = fetchFromGitHub {
owner = "imomaliev";
repo = "tmux-bash-completion";
rev = "fcda450d452f07d36d2f9f27e7e863ba5241200d";
sha256 = "092jpkhggjqspmknw7h3icm0154rg21mkhbc71j5bxfmfjdxmya8";
};
in
stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
pname = "tmux";
version = "2.9a";
outputs = [ "out" "man" ];
src = fetchFromGitHub {
owner = pname;
repo = pname;
rev = version;
sha256 = "040plbgxlz14q5p0p3wapr576jbirwripmsjyq3g1nxh76jh1ipg";
};
nativeBuildInputs = [ pkgconfig autoreconfHook ];
buildInputs = [ ncurses libevent makeWrapper ];
configureFlags = [
"--sysconfdir=/etc"
"--localstatedir=/var"
];
postInstall = ''
mkdir -p $out/share/bash-completion/completions
cp -v ${bashCompletion}/completions/tmux $out/share/bash-completion/completions/tmux
'';
meta = {
homepage = http://tmux.github.io/;
description = "Terminal multiplexer";
longDescription =
'' tmux is intended to be a modern, BSD-licensed alternative to programs such as GNU screen. Major features include:
* A powerful, consistent, well-documented and easily scriptable command interface.
* A window may be split horizontally and vertically into panes.
* Panes can be freely moved and resized, or arranged into preset layouts.
* Support for UTF-8 and 256-colour terminals.
* Copy and paste with multiple buffers.
* Interactive menus to select windows, sessions or clients.
* Change the current window by searching for text in the target.
* Terminal locking, manually or after a timeout.
* A clean, easily extended, BSD-licensed codebase, under active development.
'';
license = stdenv.lib.licenses.bsd3;
platforms = stdenv.lib.platforms.unix;
maintainers = with stdenv.lib.maintainers; [ thammers fpletz ];
};
}
I feel like (inputs `(("libevent" ,libevent) ("ncurses" ,ncurses))) is pretty bad compared to buildInputs = [ ncurses libevent makeWrapper ]; even if you go by token count. (I think it's 16 vs. 8.) A different problem is that syntactically the Scheme version looks like a call to a function called “inputs” and I don't think it is; that depends on context. In general in Lisps the interpretation of everything depends on syntactic context, so you have to do a lot of processing consciously that you can do subconsciously in languages that have a syntax.
(There's an indentation error in either your example or my browser that makes that input clause appear to belong to the origin clause rather than the package clause, btw. The extra redundancy of the different kinds of delimiters makes that error harder to make in Nix. I wrote about this more at length in http://www.paulgraham.com/redund.html )
The module imports at the top are a lot more egregious but that's because they're using Guile’s module system naked; it's not really the fault of Scheme's syntax per se and I think you could hack together some kind of macrological solution.
I think Scheme is brilliant and probably a better choice, but I think the syntactic cost is pretty heavy in your example.
When it comes to Nix and Guix, though, these are kind of minor details. More important questions are things like “does it have the software I want in it” and “how reproducible is it” and “how do I figure out what's broken”.
On the other hand you've got 'stdenv' all over the place in the Nix example, e.g. stdenv.lib.licenses.bsd3 vs license:bsd3. Also stdenv.mkDerivation is kind of an eyesore compared to define-public / package.
One is nicer than the other in a few different minor ways, but overall I think it's basically a wash. I'd not consider verbosity a factor if choosing between the two.
>(There's an indentation error in either your example or my browser that makes that input clause appear to belong to the origin clause rather than the package clause, btw.
Sorry about that, I botched the indentation when I pasted that into my scratch buffer, which had unbalanced parens in it. That's on me.
Those two package descriptions don't appear equivalent. The Nix one includes tmux-bash-completion and some extra build configuration compared to the Guix one, as well as a much more verbose description.
I meant both to be examples of the general look and feel of each DSL. They aren't precisely equivalent, but I do think they're illustrative examples of the two DSLs.
After deleting the bash completion stuff and replacing the verbose description with Guix's, it cut the package from 63 lines down to 36. Deleting the blank lines cut it down to a further 27. For comparison the Guix package (which had no blank lines to begin with) is 35 lines.
Here's the trimmed Nix derivation:
{ stdenv, fetchFromGitHub, autoreconfHook, ncurses, libevent, pkgconfig, makeWrapper }:
stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
pname = "tmux";
version = "2.9a";
outputs = [ "out" "man" ];
src = fetchFromGitHub {
owner = pname;
repo = pname;
rev = version;
sha256 = "040plbgxlz14q5p0p3wapr576jbirwripmsjyq3g1nxh76jh1ipg";
};
nativeBuildInputs = [ pkgconfig autoreconfHook ];
buildInputs = [ ncurses libevent makeWrapper ];
meta = {
homepage = http://tmux.github.io/;
description = "Terminal multiplexer";
longDescription =
'' tmux is a terminal multiplexer: it enables a number of terminals (or
windows), each running a separate program, to be created, accessed, and
controlled from a single screen. tmux may be detached from a screen and
continue running in the background, then later reattached.
'';
license = stdenv.lib.licenses.bsd3;
platforms = stdenv.lib.platforms.unix;
maintainers = with stdenv.lib.maintainers; [ thammers fpletz ];
};
}
That looks almost identical to the Scheme one with the only real difference being foo=bar; vs (foo bar).
Hardly enough of a difference to change anything "a lot" either way.
Guix package definitions were unreadable to me initially, as I had never used Scheme/Lisp before.
I've written a couple of them now and the definition above is extremely easy to read. Big part is just formatting & parentheses, I think my eyes just needed a little bit of adjustment time.
