[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgy4w221z5o

Why that is the case when we have faster CPU, RAM, and SSDs etc.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring

So IMHO isn't it time to rethink this idea of putting every single shit into the kernel space?

In other words Linus won then, and its now time to think about Tanenbaum too.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deb...

Isn't it a little bit myopic ?

Why this shit is even allowed?

While it is true that nothing is unlimited and humans have historically adapted their behavior when resources become scarce, the argument of not panicking and relying solely on innovation to solve resource depletion concerns is overly optimistic and potentially dangerous.

Firstly, the comparison to over-fishing lobsters and moving on to other food sources oversimplifies the issue of resource depletion on a global scale. While localized shifts in consumption patterns are possible, the depletion of critical resources like fossil fuels, freshwater, and certain minerals poses more complex challenges. Merely assuming that innovation will provide an easy solution overlooks the significant time, effort, and investment required to develop and implement sustainable alternatives.

Secondly, relying solely on innovation to address resource depletion ignores the urgency of the issue. Natural resources are not infinite, and some of them, once depleted, cannot be easily replaced. Delaying action in the hope that future innovations will come to the rescue can lead to irreparable damage to the environment and exacerbate existing global challenges like climate change.

Additionally, innovation itself can be a double-edged sword. While it has the potential to create more efficient and sustainable solutions, it can also contribute to resource depletion when not guided by responsible practices. For example, the rapid advancement of technology can lead to increased electronic waste, which is already a significant environmental problem.

Rather than dismissing concerns and promoting blind faith in innovation, a more prudent approach would involve a combination of strategies. We should focus on both responsible resource management, such as conservation and sustainable practices, and continuous innovation to find alternative solutions. Emphasizing a diversified approach can help mitigate the risks associated with resource depletion and foster a more balanced and resilient future.

Innovation is an essential component of addressing the resource depletion. But we must not overlook the severity of the problem and the need for urgent and responsible action. Relying solely on innovation without taking immediate measures to manage resources responsibly can lead to irreversible consequences for the planet and future generations.

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/72/suppl_1/i7/62044...

Everything eventually becomes rare if not used judiciously. This mindset of unlimited supply is flawed. It leads to the eventual destruction. Probably that's why most ancient civilizations had rules to only take what's needed from the nature.

For example in Western Countries, crabs and lobsters were once seen as "poor man's food". They are now a gourmet luxury item.

1. What are the hardware specifications you would recommend for running Language Models?

2. What are the building options available for Language Models and which one is the easiest to set up?

3. Is it better to rent or buy hardware for running Language Models?

4.What are some cost-saving strategies that have worked for you when running Language Models?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35759469

Points: 9

# Comments: 7

Silliness actually lies in your knee jerk reaction.

You do need to provide some evidence to support this claim. AFAIK slavery became unnecessary in the industrial era. So it morphed into Indentured servitude. Bible followers didn't hesitate from pillaging the world.

> Women were considered to be "in the image and likeness of God."

Could you quote something from Bible on this topic.

> the Romans didn't care how much you suffered. It was the Roman Empire where Christianity took off first.

Christianity tool off when Roman king understood it's political power and decided to use it. He then forced it down the throats of unorganised pagans who got eliminated brutally.

> But the tendency for many donors to use such legal instruments for self-glorification, personally advantageous politicking, and the conservation of family wealth did little to help larger numbers of the destitute in growing Roman imperial cities.

If that is the case then why GDP of Europe was declining?

On the contrary, before the advent of Christianity Greek and Romans had dialogs on various topics. IFAIK Science and Philosophy came to a stand still for a thousand years till renaissance happened. If you evidence to the contrary, please do share some references.

Bible divided the world in believers and heathen so claiming it promoted universal brotherhood is laughable. World was never a perfect place, Christianity made it worse.