Saturday, March 31, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 2 topics

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 31 01:44PM -0700

Notice how there is an acquire barrier inside of the CAS loops within
the enqueue and dequeue functions of:
 
http://www.1024cores.net/home/lock-free-algorithms/queues/bounded-mpmc-queue
 
?
 
Well, fwiw we can get rid of them by using stand alone fences:
 
 
Btw, sorry for the membar abstraction. I can quickly get sick and tired
of having to type out (std::memory_order_relaxed) all the damn time. ;^)
 
 
Anyway, here is the simple code using Relacy:
 
___________________
/* Membar Abstraction
___________________________________________________*/
#define mbrlx std::memory_order_relaxed
#define mbacq std::memory_order_acquire
#define mbrel std::memory_order_release
#define mb(mb_membar) std::atomic_thread_fence(mb_membar)
 
 
template<typename T, unsigned int T_N>
struct fifo
{
struct cell
{
VAR_T(T) m_data;
std::atomic<unsigned int> m_ver;
};
 
std::atomic<unsigned int> m_head;
std::atomic<unsigned int> m_tail;
cell m_cells[T_N];
 
fifo() : m_head(0), m_tail(0)
{
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < T_N; ++i)
{
m_cells[i].m_ver.store(i, mbrlx);
}
}
 
bool push_try(T const& data)
{
cell* c = nullptr;
unsigned int ver = m_head.load(mbrlx);
 
do
{
c = &m_cells[ver & (T_N - 1)];
if (c->m_ver.load(mbrlx) != ver) return false;
 
} while (! m_head.compare_exchange_weak(ver, ver + 1, mbrlx));
 
mb(mbacq);
VAR(c->m_data) = data;
mb(mbrel);
 
c->m_ver.store(ver + 1, mbrlx);
 
return true;
}
 
bool pop_try(T& data)
{
cell* c = nullptr;
unsigned int ver = m_tail.load(mbrlx);
 
do
{
c = &m_cells[ver & (T_N - 1)];
if (c->m_ver.load(mbrlx) != ver + 1) return false;
 
} while (! m_tail.compare_exchange_weak(ver, ver + 1, mbrlx));
 
mb(mbacq);
data = VAR(c->m_data);
mb(mbrel);
 
c->m_ver.store(ver + T_N, mbrlx);
 
return true;
}
};
___________________
 
 
There is no need for any membars within the loops. The version count
keeps everything in order.
 
:^)
Andrey Karpov <karpov2007@gmail.com>: Mar 31 11:50AM -0700

A new version of the PVS-Studio analyzer 6.23 is working under macOS, which allows you to check the projects written in C and C++. Our team decided to perform a XNU Kernel check to coincide it with this event. https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0566/
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Digest for comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 2 topics

computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 30 10:26PM -0400

Hello,
 
Read this:
 
Here is how to increase "productivity", but also how to increase quality
by smarter R&D funding
 
1- MORE COMPETITION
 
Competition promotes productivity growth through increased incentives
for innovation and through selection.
 
2. BETTER SKILLS
 
3. SMARTER R&D FUNDING
 
 
Please read more here to understand better:
 
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/09/20/four-ways-to-speed-up-productivity-growth/
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 30 07:34PM -0400

Hello..
 
Read this:
 
 
My following projects were updated:
 
My Parallel archiver was updated to version 4.68
 
And my Parallel Compression Library was updated to version 4.28
 
I have updated the Zstd shared libraries for Windows and Linux to the
newer version 1.3.4
 
You can download them from:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/parallel-archiver
 
and from:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/parallel-compression-library
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, March 30, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 7 updates in 5 topics

"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Mar 30 08:49AM +0200

On 29.03.2018 18:18, Latimerius wrote:
 
> It's not compilable as the constructor call in main() is apparently ambiguous. Two things that I don't understand about this:
 
> 1) why does the second C's ctor even apply? Shouldn't the corresponding std::tuple ctor be explicit?
> 2) assuming both C's ctors are applicable - shouldn't the first one be a better match? I guess it only requires a single conversion (from lambda to C:::Fn) whereas the second one requires two (lambda to C::Fn as before and then from C::Fn to std::tuple).
 
Both `tuple` and `function` have templated constructors that can take
just about any argument.
 
One way to disambiguate is to use a templated constructor that checks
the kind of argument (e.g. via a traits class like below) and forwards
to a constructor with explicit mention of the kind of argument:
 
 
#include <functional>
#include <tuple>
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
 
namespace arg {
struct Some_type {};
struct Tuple {};
};
 
namespace c_arg {
template< class Arg > struct Kind_ { using T = arg::Some_type; };
template< class F > struct Kind_<std::tuple<F>> { using T =
arg::Tuple; };
 
template< class F > using Kind = typename Kind_<F>::T;
}
 
struct C {
using Fn = std::function <void (int )>;
Fn mFn;
 
C( arg::Some_type, Fn fn )
: mFn{ std::move( fn ) }
{ mFn( 1 ); }
 
C( arg::Tuple, std::tuple <Fn> t )
: mFn{ std::move( std::get<0>( t )) }
{ mFn( 2 ); }
 
template< class Arg >
C( Arg&& arg )
: C{ c_arg::Kind<std::remove_reference_t<Arg>>{},
std::forward<Arg>( arg ) }
{}
};
 
auto main()
-> int
{
auto lambda = [](int i) { std::cout << i << std::endl; };
std::tuple<std::function<void(int)>> t{ lambda };
 
C c1{ lambda };
C c2( t );
}
 
 
In practice this technique is used to disambiguate
 
* rvalue reference versus reference to const, for templated type,
* raw array versus pointer, for templated type.
 
Cheers & hth.,
 
- Alf
Latimerius <l4t1m3r1us@gmail.com>: Mar 30 01:32PM -0700

Thanks for the advice on how to disambiguate - this is going to be useful. Could you also help me understand why the constructor call is ambiguous in the first place? Apparently I need to fix my understanding of overload resolution.
 
My current understanding leads me to believe that the tuple-taking constructor should require one more argument conversion and thus be a worse candidate. However, both g++ and clang++ disagree...
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Mar 29 11:49PM -0700


> I suppose cbor::value (msgpack::value) would be an option, but value by
> itself seems uninspired. Or perhaps cbor::packed (msgpack::packed), as
> these encapsulate packed arrays of bytes.
 
I've kept all the context so as not to have to decide what to cut.
 
I think 'cbor' is a good choice for the name of the namespace (in
case it needs saying, given the context with parallel namespaces
such as msgpack, etc).
 
I think 'value' is a poor choice for a class name. It doesn't
say anything, kind of like 'cbor::thing'. The name 'packed' is
at least more descriptive than 'value', but still IMO a poor
choice.
 
If I were charged with proposing a name (and following the rule
of no uppercase letters), I think my first suggestion would be
'encoded_item'. (Needless to say that assumes that an instance
of the class does indeed hold an encoded item.) My rationale
is this name leaves no doubt in the reader's mind what an
instance of this class represents. It doesn't require any
guessing, imagination, or outside context, to undrstand what
is meant.
 
Does that all make sense?
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 30 10:40AM -0700

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 2:50:07 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> guessing, imagination, or outside context, to undrstand what
> is meant.
 
> Does that all make sense?
 
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I think all the comments agreed
that the namespace name should be cbor (singular).
 
For class name, 'encoded_item' could work, but I'm also inclined to a little
repetition as suggested in Richard's post and include "cbor" in the class
name. I agree with your comments about value as a class name.
 
I tentatively went with boost's approach for tuple, iterator, and bimap
(subdirectory singular, namespace plural, class name singular), hence cbor
(subdirectory), cbors (namespace) and cbor (class name). But I'm not
enthusiastic about it (partly from reflecting on comments on this thread)
and am thinking of changing it to cbor, cbor, and packed_cbor.
 
Daniel
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Mar 29 11:27PM -0700


> I know better than to engage with a known troll, but....
 
but... some days you just have poor impulse control?
 
(just a friendly rib - I must plead guilty to the same
offense :)
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Mar 29 11:23PM -0700


> So in the end, if everyone had been writing mostly ~50 line routines,
> I don't think the lack of structure within those routines would have
> attracted too much attention.
 
I pretty much agree with all of the above. I might emphasize
that it is the drive for understandable programs that leads to
small routines, and not that a drive for small routines will
necessarily lead to understandable programs. (And which I
believe is one of the points you were making, or at least would
agree with.)
 
> arbitrary set of rules. I'm good with whatever makes a program
> clearer. On occasion, that involves a goto. We know you *can* always
> do without, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
 
Yes. Even Dijkstra said he wasn't dogmatic about avoiding goto.
My point though is about size. Routines of 50 lines can be
manageable, and certainly they are more likely to be manageable
than routines of 100 or 200 lines. Still, 50 line routines should
be rare rather than typical. Average function length normally
should be under 20 lines, and median length closer to 10. A
length of 50 lines should normally be 95th percentile or better -
anything worse is a strong indication that some refactoring is
needed. Like what you said, I don't mean to make an arbitrary
rule, but to give a useful empirical guideline for after-the-fact
assessment.
 
>> and hope you will explain.)
 
> My experience is that those usages are pretty much interchangeable in
> the field. Although I'd agree that in linguistic terms they're not.
 
I agree that misusage is common, but still deserves being called
out. There are two problems. The first is that different people
use the term in different ways - does it mean usual, widespread,
normal, typical, common, well-understood, generally accepted, or
some combination of those, or perhaps something else entirely?
There are arguments over whether some construction is or is not
"idiomatic". Or, another example, someone asking for "/the/
idiomatic way" (my emphasis) to write a particular program. There
is never a single good way to write a program (and yes sometimes
"idiomatic" is used as though it were synonymous with "good").
Being precise is an important habit in software development;
continuing the definitely imprecise use of "idiomatic" is
cultivating a bad habit.
 
The second problem is more subtle. The word "idiomatic" sounds,
by virtue of its length and narrow application, like a high-brow
word. Characterizing a pattern as "idiomatic" lends an air of
legitimacy that often is not deserved. At some level this kind of
usage is intellectually dishonest (even if not always consciously
or deliberately): it sounds objective, but as often as not boils
down to nothing more than "a pattern I think is good". That kind
of rhetorical trick is best left to the domain of politicians
(where for better or worse it appears to be inescapable).
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 29 09:30PM -0700

On 3/27/2018 8:55 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> function.
 
> Here is my C++11 code [1]:
 
> https://pastebin.com/raw/KAt4nhCj
[...]
 
> Thanks.
 
> [1] code:
> ___________________________
[...]
> ___________________________
 
Perhaps I can explain this through a series of questions. Let me try to
start...
 
Question 1
 
How many people want to iterate over a shared data-structure without
using a read/write mutex? In other words, would making the writers run
concurrently with the readers be beneficial to you at all? Readers can
run full steam ahead, while the writers do not interrupt them. This can,
increase concurrency and overall performance, and can get rid of certain
bottlenecks especially if the problem is mostly read based.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Fwd: May happy thoughts and Spring flowers brighten all your Easter hours!

The message of resurrection is written not only in the Bible, but in every leaf
> and flower in the Spring.
>
Posted by at No comments:

Digest for comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 4 topics

computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 29 06:41PM -0400

Hello,
 
 
Here is a serious book that is scientific and more mathematical about
software reliability, you can read it and download it from:
 
http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~lyu/book/reliability/
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 29 05:12PM -0400

Hello..
 
 
The Power of 10: Rules for Developing Safety-Critical Code
 
Read more here:
 
http://spinroot.com/gerard/pdf/Power_of_Ten.pdf
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 29 05:11PM -0400

Hello..
 
 
The Power of 10: Rules for Developing SafetyCritical Code
 
Read more here:
 
http://spinroot.com/gerard/pdf/Power_of_Ten.pdf
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 29 03:11PM -0400

Hello,
 
 
Here is something about software reliability very interesting to read:
 
Structured Testing: A Testing Methodology
Using the Cyclomatic Complexity Metric
 
 
http://www.mccabe.com/pdf/mccabe-nist235r.pdf
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdeane.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 7 updates in 2 topics

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 29 05:46AM -0700

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 2:00:59 PM UTC-4, gwowen wrote:
> orders of magnitudes more precise than the measurements driving the
> model -- doubly so when the process your modelling is the poster child
> for sensitive dependence on those initial conditions.
 
The initial value will be whatever the source data provides, but
when you are dealing with calculations in series it is desirable
to conduct your work out to a much greater decimal place, so that
in each calculation (where you lose significant bits), that bit
loss accumulation does not consume your desired significant bits
at the level of your original source data.
 
Your calculation shouldn't be a limiting factor in precision, even
if your source data may be the limiting factor.
 
128-bits to 256-bits is able to handle nearly everything we need.
But not in all cases, which is why I think it's important to provide
an arbitrary precision numeric processing engine in a CPU, so the
limitation on utility of use is not in the hardware. And, if done
correctly, it will be faster than software libraries which do the
same. And, as Terje Mathison points out in the comp.arch thread,
there may be a way to provide features which enable a software version
to drive the compute ability through a few new features added, which
would then not require the numeric processor to do all the work, but
just to be flexible enough to easily allow the software to use it for
arbitrary precision calculations.
 
> Back when I did a bit of it professionally, we'd run the same models and
> multiple architectures, and the variation in FP behaviour was just
> another way to add the ensembles.
 
What does this mean?
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 29 07:37PM +0200

On 28/03/18 17:27, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> Weather modeling uses the double-double and quad-double libraries,
> which leverage x87 hardware to chain operations to create 128-bit,
> and 256-bit computations.
 
That's fine - but weather modelling is not an example of "most uses".
As I said, some cases need more about their numerics, but /most/ do not.
 
 
> http://www.mpfr.org/pub.html
 
> And John Gustafson discusses the shortcomings in his Stanford video
> you didn't watch I posted above.
 
I haven't bothered watching the video. I know that some people like
them as a way of learning about a topic, but I usually find them
extremely inefficient compared to a webpage or a paper that I can read
at my own pace, spending more time on the parts I find difficult or
particularly interesting.
 
I have read a little of Gustafson's stuff on unums. I am not
particularly impressed. As far as I can tell, it seems to consist of
two ideas - making the number of significant bits variable, and allowing
for a limited form of ranges. A variable number of bits makes hardware
and software implementations painful and inefficient. Until you are
getting to very large sizes, such as beyond octal precision IEEE (256
bits, or 32 bytes), it the simplicity of always dealing in a known fixed
size outweighs the extra calculations needed for when a smaller bit
length would be sufficient. The use of ranges sounds like a reasonable
idea, but is only partly handled, and again it is more efficient to know
that you always have a range pair rather than having to figure it out
for each operation.
 
There are definitely uses for other formats than standard floating
point, or where you want to track ranges, error sizes, etc., as part of
your number types. But any attempt at making a "universal number
format" is guaranteed to fail - anyone who thinks they have made one, is
wrong. IEEE floating point formats and calculation standards are a
solid compromise between working for a wide range of uses and being
efficient to implement, and have stood the test of time. They don't
cover all applications, but no alternate format would do so either.
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Mar 29 07:48PM +0100

> at the level of your original source data.
 
> Your calculation shouldn't be a limiting factor in precision, even
> if your source data may be the limiting factor.
 
That's why I said "many orders of magnitudes". You need more precision,
but you don't need about 64 (or more) bits of precision.
 
>> multiple architectures, and the variation in FP behaviour was just
>> another way to add the ensembles.
 
> What does this mean?
 
Well the first bit means "I used to work running weather modelling programs".
 
So listen up.
 
Due to the non-linear nature of fluid dynamics, the equations have
sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
 
So, imagine you start with (say) a sea-surface-temperature of 3.0
degrees at some point area your grid and run the code. Of course no-one
measures temperatures to 3 decimal places - its idiotic - precision
without accuracy. And even if you had perfect information, you're going
to have to discretize that onto a fairly-coarse grid to model it, and
now you've lost all the precision that no-one collects in the first
place.
 
Now imagine your discretisation/interpolation changes so you have an SST
of 3.05 degrees in that area (which would be just a different
interpolation of your temporally- and geographically-sparse
observation). You run the code again, and in just a few days or weeks of
time (in the model, i.e. predicting a few weeks ahead) the results have
diverged *qualitatively* from your former run. This is exactly what is
referred to as the butterfly effect, which was first described in
weather modelling.
 
But this sensitivity isn't just on initial conditions, its also on
rounding. So you use the same inputs, and a different rounding mode --
or a processor that uses a weird 80-bit FPU -- and in a finite amount of
time, your results are quantitatively different.
 
So to get a good idea of what might happen you run the model multiple
times with similar-but-different initial conditions, and on
similar-but-different FPUs. This collection of models is called an
ensemble, and they are "averaged" in some sense to give an overall
estimate of what will happen, and bounds on how wrong that prediction is
likely to be.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 29 12:13PM -0700

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 2:49:08 PM UTC-4, gwowen wrote:
> > if your source data may be the limiting factor.
 
> That's why I said "many orders of magnitudes". You need more precision,
> but you don't need about 64 (or more) bits of precision.
 
I think you need 1 bit per calculation, because every calculation
will potentially introduce new rounding and decrease your precision.
 
If you take a value through 64 separate calculation operations to
arrive at the final value, you need the extra 64 bits to start with.
Of course, as you say, it will greatly exceed the accuracy of your
starting values, but that's a separate issue. Were you to improve
your data set or modeling ability, then by having the extra precision
already in there, nothing else would have to be changed. Each of
the calculations would proceed as they did before, and now you'd have
a better model.
 
> ensemble, and they are "averaged" in some sense to give an overall
> estimate of what will happen, and bounds on how wrong that prediction is
> likely to be.
 
Understood. I thought it was something like that with your use of
the word "ensamble," but I didn't see how you were generating those
"ensambles." I presume now there are the many models which then all
get input and weight-averaged to produce a "central result" which
the one broadcast on the evening news that night. :-)
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Mar 29 11:12PM +0200

Am 29.03.18 um 21:13 schrieb Rick C. Hodgin:
> will potentially introduce new rounding and decrease your precision.
 
> If you take a value through 64 separate calculation operations to
> arrive at the final value, you need the extra 64 bits to start with.
 
No, this is nonsense. Lookup "error propagation" or "uncertainty
propagation". There is a simple textbook model to incorporate
uncertainties of values into computations, by calculating a quadratic
sum of the input errors times the partial derivatives. Simple examples
for demonstration are catastrophic cancellation or square roots.
 
Catastrophic cancellation means that you subtract two close values and
get much less precision. E.g. if you know
a=3.05 +/- 0.01, b= 3.00 +/- 0.01
then
c = a - b = 0.05 +/- 0.014
SO even if ou knew a and b to 0.3% precision, a-b is known only to 20%
precision. That's a loss of 6 bits of precision!
 
OTOH if you take a square root, the number of significant figures
increases by 1 bit. Yes - the square root is more precise than the
radicand, which can be seen by expanding (1+epsilon)^(1/2) into a series.
 
What Gareth describes is known as "Monte-Carlo error propagation" in
metrology, and it is more accurate than the simple model, because it
doesn't assume which statistical distribution the errors follow. Another
way is to use the textbook model or special rounding rules to propagate
the uncertainty with the data - this is known as interval arithmetics.
 
Christian
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 29 02:33PM -0700

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 5:13:06 PM UTC-4, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
 
> > If you take a value through 64 separate calculation operations to
> > arrive at the final value, you need the extra 64 bits to start with.
 
> No, this is nonsense.
 
The results of every floating point calculation cannot be determined
quite exactly. As a result, you take two values of 53-bit mantissa
precision and perform some operation on them, and you then have a
result where the 53rd bit is no longer certain. It has been rounded
to the nearest bit, resulting in 0.5 bits of error max, but that last
bit is no longer reliable. You're now down to 52. Repeat again, and
that 53rd bit now affects the result which will be in the 52nd position,
and both and 53 are now uncertain, leaving you 51 bits.
 
And it continues.
 
It's a side-effect of the last digit rounding on an FPU. The hardware
designers have actually gone to great lengths to maintain greater bits
internally so that when you perform a few calculations in succession,
the rounded bits are beyond the ones that can be stored, therefore the
final bits written out are all correct.
 
Another such example is the fused_multiply_add operation introduced in
IEEE-754-2008. It allows a multiply and an add to take place without
intermediate rounding. This results in a value using FMA which will
nearly always be different than if multiply, then add operations were
performed in serial.
 
Floating point is a good approximation of real numbers, but it has
many flaws. If you want to maintain precision over many successive
calculations in series, you need to have high precision computation
so the ULPs being affected at each stage are way out there, and not
close to your target bit requirement for your required precision
when converted to base-10.
 
> doesn't assume which statistical distribution the errors follow. Another
> way is to use the textbook model or special rounding rules to propagate
> the uncertainty with the data - this is known as interval arithmetics.
 
I'm only speaking about FPU hardware losses of precision. There is
the last bit in computations called the ULP. One half the ULP is
potentially lost with each calculation depending on whether it can
be represented accurately or not.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_in_the_last_place
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html
 
Once you lose the guarantee of reliability of the last bit, the
next calculation cannot be accurate to the bit before that, and
so on.
 
In many cases, however, the rounding will round up here, and down
there, resulting in a reasonable answer out to most mantissa bits.
But you can construct purposeful series that will demonstrate the
loss significantly.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Latimerius <l4t1m3r1us@gmail.com>: Mar 29 09:18AM -0700

Hello,
 
please consider the following code:
 
 
#include <functional>
#include <tuple>
#include <iostream>
 
struct C {
using Fn = std::function <void (int )>;
Fn mFn;
 
C (Fn && fn) : mFn (std::move (fn)) {}
C (std::tuple <Fn> && fn) : mFn (std::move (std::get <0> (fn))) {}
};
 
int main ()
{
C c1 ( [] (int i) { std::cout << i << std::endl; } );
}
 
 
It's not compilable as the constructor call in main() is apparently ambiguous. Two things that I don't understand about this:
 
1) why does the second C's ctor even apply? Shouldn't the corresponding std::tuple ctor be explicit?
2) assuming both C's ctors are applicable - shouldn't the first one be a better match? I guess it only requires a single conversion (from lambda to C:::Fn) whereas the second one requires two (lambda to C::Fn as before and then from C::Fn to std::tuple).
 
Thanks in advance!
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Digest for comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 4 topics

computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 28 03:40PM -0400

Hello,
 
Read this:
 
 
More profond about philosophy now..
 
I said before that:
 
cleanliness generate morality
 
But what about Donald Trump that said that:
 
Haiti and many african countries are shithole countries.
 
Is Donald Trump "cleanliness" to say so ?
 
You have to understand better "cleanliness", cleanliness
is knowing how to "balance" the "requirements", so
you have to take into account "security" and be less
provocative than Donald Trump, this is why Donald Trump is
not the right requirement of "security" to say the above
about many african countries and about haiti, because
Donald Trump is more "virility" that is more "violent"
and that does not balance with the other requirements
of "sensibility" and "morality" to be better security.
 
Now i give you another example:
 
Neo-nazism is saying that arabs are not
as beautiful as white europeans, so they want to discriminate
them and to be more violent with them, but this neo-nazism is an
immature morality, because we have to know how to transcend it towards
a better world that takes into account "usefulness" and
"security" and "economy", so this is why the requirements
of today is to have a more interconnected economies
around the world, even with arabs and with africans,
this is because we have to take into account
the economic growth of arab and african countries that
is for example more attractive for economic investment,
also we have to take into account the consumer
confidence index globally and locally,
so we have to know how to be "respect" towards arabs
and africans, and we have also to take into
account the "usefulness" of arabs and africans, because
many western countries bring arab and african immigrants
because they are useful for jobs and because they are also
useful for low birth rate of white europeans , and also you have to
know, like have said Fordism, how to give the necessary wages to
others(even globally) to be able for them to buy
your products and services, so i have also proved and said that:
cleanliness generate morality, but as i have just explained that
"cleanliness" must know how to take into account the right requirements
as i said above, and it must know how to balance the "requirements".
 
 
Read the rest:
 
 
More precision about philosophy..
 
We have to get into more "calculations" and more "precision" to
understand better, this is what we call also philosophy, so i said
before that:
 
==
And the "set" of morality contains: cleanliness.
 
And from cleanliness we get decency and cleanliness generate also
a more scientific mind, because to be more cleanliness we have to
know how to think better, and from cleanliness we get security too,
and cleanliness generate morality.
==
 
 
Here is my logical proof about: cleanliness generate morality
 
Since morality is all about what is bad and what is good,
so a weaker definition of morality is the act of distinguishing
between the good and bad, but this is a "weaker" definition,
because to be able to distinguish between the good and the bad
we have to be more rationality and/or more science, but
as i said before that "cleanliness" generate also
a more scientific mind, because to be more cleanliness we have to
know how to think better, so by less espressiveness we can
say that cleanliness contains the "requirement" of being a more
scientific mind, this is like "inherent" to cleanliness, because
"cleanliness" needs to be more and more "perfect" so that to avoid
the "bad" of imperfection or weakness, so this is why
the right requirements are inherent to "cleanliness", so it makes my
following affirmation correct and true: cleanliness generate morality
 
 
Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better:
 
I will get into more philosophy..
 
As you have noticed i have said that morality is defined as: reliability
or by more expressiveness by: performance and reliability.
 
Now to "model" better humans, we have the following:
 
sensibility, morality, rationality, virility, intelligence, and language
 
And the "set" of morality contains: cleanliness.
 
And from cleanliness we get decency and cleanliness generate also
a more scientific mind, because to be more cleanliness we have to
know how to think better, and from cleanliness we get security too,
and cleanliness generate morality,
 
Now from "sensibility" we get love and we get security too.
 
And from "rationality" we get a mind that is more rational and more logic.
 
from "virility" we get more performance , but if virility is not
"constrained" by the others such as morality and sensibility and
rationality, we can get violence and insecurity.
 
I think this is how we can "model" better humans both "genetically" and
"culturally".
 
Here is my other new thoughts..
 
What i am doing is finding the essence of things like in philosophy
and i am using the tool of logic that permits also to "measure"
and to "calculate" precisely like in mathematics and it permits to
reason better, so what is my new thoughts of today ? as you have noticed
i have defined previously what is morality, it is like finding its
"essence" that i have done in my previous post, now an important
question is inferred from this act of thinking, is that what is
the essence of our "civilization" ? finding its essence with more
"precise" thinking is an act of "philosophy", so what is its essence ?
i think its essence is coming from the fact that a process or a thing
can have an advantage and a disadvantage, and the general "reference" is
morality that is, by more expressiveness, "performance" and
"reliability", or simply "reliability" that can model morality correctly
as i have proved it in my previous post, so the essence of our
civilization is the act of coordinating and organizing those advantages
and disadvantages on each of us or on each thing or in each process to
be capable of giving an efficient morality that has as an essence
"performance" and "reliability", and as a validation of my model, you
will notice that we are decentralizing "governance", and each of the
decentralized parts of the governance are grouping the "advantages" and
trying to minimize the disadvantages of each of us that do the
governance , democracy is also the same , because democracy is a system
that wants to escape a "local" maximum towards a global maximum
like in artificial intelligence, and democracy is doing it by
applying itself to selecting the best among the actors of
politics etc. to govern us, this is the essence of civilization,
is the act of maximizing the benefits or the advantages by optimization,
as i have just explained to you, so hope you are understanding
my new thoughts of today. And about what is the essence of morality,
here is again my own post that speaks about it ( i have corrected few
typos in it):
 
What is it to be morality ?
 
This is the most important part of our humanity !
 
I have proved before that performance is inherent to morality,
and i have showed also that my definition, and that i have
proved, that morality is reliability does show that it ressembles
serious computer programming, and to be more expressiveness you see that
performance is inherent to reliability , so reliability
does model efficiently, and we are feeling it like serious
computer programming, because when you define morality
like this by "precise" words , you begin to feel our
essence and you begin to feel the essence of our humanity !
and you become aware that morality is also being capable
and being capable to comprehend ! because this makes us
distinguish the essence of morality ! so you have to not be fooled
by inferior thinking ! because morality is reliability and
reliability is performance too and the application of morality
is part of morality , so the case is closed that morality
of today must be also scientific disciplines and technical disciplines
and morality is the measure of morality that must be reliability
and performance in itself ! this is what is amazing ! you have
to feel it like this and be responsable about it.
 
Read the rest:
 
From where can we infer that "performance" is inherent to morality ?
 
Philosophically we can say that the essence of organization is: we are
organizing because of our weaknesses to transcend our weaknesses, so
from this we can feel the essence of our humanity and we can feel our
essence , because the essence of humanity that is perfection and
strongness is dictated by survival too ! and is dictated by the fact
that we must transcend our living conditions towards a better world ! so
this is part of morality, so then we can say that performance is
inherent to morality.
 
So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on
"performance".
 
I have wrote previously this:
 
Is performance inherent to morality ?
 
This is good philosophical question !
 
This is why you have seen me modeling efficient morality
by only one word, by saying and proving that: efficient morality
or morality is: Reliability.
 
Or by more expressiveness by saying that:
 
Efficient morality or morality is: Performance and reliability.
 
So this definition that i have proved shows clearly
that performance is "inherent" to morality or efficient morality.
 
So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on
"performance".
 
Please read the rest of my post to understand better:
 
What is the essence of reliability?
 
Can we model efficient morality without it as being also "performance" ?
 
This is a good philosophical question !
 
I think the right definition of "reliability" is that of not being "bad".
 
So not being efficient is also being not being good, so reliability
can model efficiency, that means performance too.
 
This why also we can define efficient morality by only one word that is:
 
RELIABILITY.
 
 
Please read all the following to understand better my thoughts:
 
About Wise egoism
 
I have showed that the essence of tolerance is:
 
The essence of tolerance is consciousness of our weaknesses !
and it is an act that is caused by consciousness of our weaknesses
or by our weaknesses.
 
So wise egoism dictates to be a "usefulness" or a "utility" to the other
because of the essence of tolerance, so this is why we have to be more
useful to sell our products or services to others internationally
and locally, and this usefulness give rise to consumer confidence index
that constrain egoism to be more "tolerance" and more "respect" towards
others and constrain it to share more with others.
 
 
About tolerance..
 
What is it the essence of tolerance ?
 
Does it has an essence ?
 
It is this what we call philosophy..
 
When you become more smart you will find the shortest path to the
solution..
 
So i will answer it like this:
 
The essence of tolerance is consciousness of our weaknesses !
and it is an act that is caused by consciousness of our weaknesses
or by our weaknesses.
 
Its essence is the same as the essence of "organization" !
 
We are organizing because of our weaknesses too !
 
because if we were Gods, the need of organizing as a group will be
"much" lesser !
 
This is the essence of our humanity that is perfection and strongness,
and perfection and strongness is also saying that efficient morality
is performance and reliability. It is like serious computer programming,
you can also model efficient morality with only one word that is:
"reliability", but to be more "expressive", i have said that efficient
morality is performance and reliability, and you are feeling it
when you become a more serious programmer like me.
 
So what is the essence of efficiency?
 
Efficiency is part of optimization, efficiency is: you have the
ressources that is our universe(we are part of the universe) and our
other universes, and you have to produce an output from this input that
is our universe or universes that is performant, it is performance.
 
But what is the essence of reliability?
 
Reliability is the quality of performing consistently well.
 
Does efficiency model correctly portability in software programming ?
 
I think yes because we are this portability because portability is
performance of portability that is to be able to run your software
in different hardwares or operating systems, and that's i think also
performance.
 
And does efficiency or reliability model correctly usability?
 
I think yes.
 
Does "reliability" model correctly beautifulness ?
 
I think more beautifulness can mean a "good" thing, and if
it is a good thing , it is not a bug of saying it is a bad thing
, so reliability do model beautifulness correctly.
 
And we can generalize and say:
 
Because morality is all about what is bad and what is good, so
what is bad is like a bug that causes the system to be bad, so
if it is bad, it is like a bug that makes the system not "reliable",
and it is related to reliability.
 
This is why i have modeled efficient morality with two words by saying:
 
Efficient morality is performance and reliability, and it is
like finding the essence of morality.
 
I said above that:
 
The essence of tolerance is consciousness of our weaknessess !
 
So the essence of tolerance is related to security, so it is
related to reliablity, so "reliability" do model tolerance too.
 
 
Here is my new and extended post about philosophy and politics..
 
Yet more precision and more calculations , please follow with me:
 
The essence of Class Struggle
 
An idiot will say that Class Struggle such as of communism
is not correct !
 
But philosophy is not the same , in philosophy you have
to be more rigorous like in mathematics !
 
I will get on more philosophy..
 
I think the nature of Class Struggle of communism
has changed a little bit in the West, i mean Class Struggle
of communism has soften, but it is still Class Struggle !
i mean that "Democracy" and "usefulness" or to make
yourself a "utility" or to make yourself "useful" are also Class
Struggle ! and consumerism do bring the counter-power of consumer
confidence index that we have to higher internationally and locally, so
this counter power of consumer confidence index is like Class Struggle
also, this is what i have said bellow that the essence of compassion is
the essence of humanity that is perfection and strongness. And this is
why i have spoken about the essence of Israel in a such
way, because making yourself "useful" is also a wise egoism
that lesser egoism of nationalism and egoism. Here is what i have said:
 
About the essence of Israel...
 
You have seen me in my political philosophy introducing to you what i
called guidance of moral as embellishment of humanity, and i have
defined it as being like: happiness and tolerance that are parts of the
set of our essence ! because we are capable of knowing them and feeling
them and measuring with them.
 
So now there is an important question related to the essence of Israel..
 
Do we have to judge Israel by this guidance of moral, by saying
for example that Israel is not tolerance and is not happiness
of guidance of moral ?
 
This is not the right way to measure, you have to be wisdom that knows
how to measure ! so efficient morality that is performance and
reliability must be used as a soft way also that constrain the
spirit of Israel, so Israel must know that efficient morality
must be capable of "balancing" well or "tuning" well if you want, i give
you an example: today we are trying to be efficient morality
that is taking into account not just our today but also taking
into account the future of our planet earth that we have not to hurt
with excessive
computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 28 02:35PM -0400

Hello....
 
 
More precision about philosophy..
 
We have to get into more "calculations" and more "precision" to
understand better, this is what we call also philosophy, so i said
before that:
 
==
And the "set" of morality contains: cleanliness.
 
And from cleanliness we get decency and cleanliness generate also
a more scientific mind, because to be more cleanliness we have to
know how to think better, and from cleanliness we get security too,
and cleanliness generate morality.
==
 
 
Here is my logical proof about: cleanliness generate morality
 
Since morality is all about what is bad and what is good,
so a weaker definition of morality is the act of distinguishing
between the good and bad, but this is a "weaker" definition,
because to be able to distinguish between the good and the bad
we have to be more rationality and/or more science, but
as i said before that "cleanliness" generate also
a more scientific mind, because to be more cleanliness we have to
know how to think better, so by less espressiveness we can
say that cleanliness contains the "requirement" of being a more
scientific mind, this is like "inherent" to cleanliness, because
"cleanliness" needs to be more and more "perfect" so that to avoid
the "bad" of imperfection or weakness, so this is why
the right requirements are inherent to "cleanliness", so it makes my
following affirmation correct and true: cleanliness generate morality
 
 
Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better:
 
I will get into more philosophy..
 
As you have noticed i have said that morality is defined as: reliability
or by more expressiveness by: performance and reliability.
 
Now to "model" better humans, we have the following:
 
sensibility, morality, rationality, virility, intelligence, and language
 
And the "set" of morality contains: cleanliness.
 
And from cleanliness we get decency and cleanliness generate also
a more scientific mind, because to be more cleanliness we have to
know how to think better, and from cleanliness we get security too,
and cleanliness generate morality,
 
Now from "sensibility" we get love and we get security too.
 
And from "rationality" we get a mind that is more rational and more logic.
 
from "virility" we get more performance , but if virility is not
"constrained" by the others such as morality and sensibility and
rationality, we can get violence and insecurity.
 
I think this is how we can "model" better humans both "genetically" and
"culturally".
 
Here is my other new thoughts..
 
What i am doing is finding the essence of things like in philosophy
and i am using the tool of logic that permits also to "measure"
and to "calculate" precisely like in mathematics and it permits to
reason better, so what is my new thoughts of today ? as you have noticed
i have defined previously what is morality, it is like finding its
"essence" that i have done in my previous post, now an important
question is inferred from this act of thinking, is that what is
the essence of our "civilization" ? finding its essence with more
"precise" thinking is an act of "philosophy", so what is its essence ?
i think its essence is coming from the fact that a process or a thing
can have an advantage and a disadvantage, and the general "reference" is
morality that is, by more expressiveness, "performance" and
"reliability", or simply "reliability" that can model morality correctly
as i have proved it in my previous post, so the essence of our
civilization is the act of coordinating and organizing those advantages
and disadvantages on each of us or on each thing or in each process to
be capable of giving an efficient morality that has as an essence
"performance" and "reliability", and as a validation of my model, you
will notice that we are decentralizing "governance", and each of the
decentralized parts of the governance are grouping the "advantages" and
trying to minimize the disadvantages of each of us that do the
governance , democracy is also the same , because democracy is a system
that wants to escape a "local" maximum towards a global maximum
like in artificial intelligence, and democracy is doing it by
applying itself to selecting the best among the actors of
politics etc. to govern us, this is the essence of civilization,
is the act of maximizing the benefits or the advantages by optimization,
as i have just explained to you, so hope you are understanding
my new thoughts of today. And about what is the essence of morality,
here is again my own post that speaks about it ( i have corrected few
typos in it):
 
What is it to be morality ?
 
This is the most important part of our humanity !
 
I have proved before that performance is inherent to morality,
and i have showed also that my definition, and that i have
proved, that morality is reliability does show that it ressembles
serious computer programming, and to be more expressiveness you see that
performance is inherent to reliability , so reliability
does model efficiently, and we are feeling it like serious
computer programming, because when you define morality
like this by "precise" words , you begin to feel our
essence and you begin to feel the essence of our humanity !
and you become aware that morality is also being capable
and being capable to comprehend ! because this makes us
distinguish the essence of morality ! so you have to not be fooled
by inferior thinking ! because morality is reliability and
reliability is performance too and the application of morality
is part of morality , so the case is closed that morality
of today must be also scientific disciplines and technical disciplines
and morality is the measure of morality that must be reliability
and performance in itself ! this is what is amazing ! you have
to feel it like this and be responsable about it.
 
Read the rest:
 
From where can we infer that "performance" is inherent to morality ?
 
Philosophically we can say that the essence of organization is: we are
organizing because of our weaknesses to transcend our weaknesses, so
from this we can feel the essence of our humanity and we can feel our
essence , because the essence of humanity that is perfection and
strongness is dictated by survival too ! and is dictated by the fact
that we must transcend our living conditions towards a better world ! so
this is part of morality, so then we can say that performance is
inherent to morality.
 
So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on
"performance".
 
I have wrote previously this:
 
Is performance inherent to morality ?
 
This is good philosophical question !
 
This is why you have seen me modeling efficient morality
by only one word, by saying and proving that: efficient morality
or morality is: Reliability.
 
Or by more expressiveness by saying that:
 
Efficient morality or morality is: Performance and reliability.
 
So this definition that i have proved shows clearly
that performance is "inherent" to morality or efficient morality.
 
So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on
"performance".
 
Please read the rest of my post to understand better:
 
What is the essence of reliability?
 
Can we model efficient morality without it as being also "performance" ?
 
This is a good philosophical question !
 
I think the right definition of "reliability" is that of not being "bad".
 
So not being efficient is also being not being good, so reliability
can model efficiency, that means performance too.
 
This why also we can define efficient morality by only one word that is:
 
RELIABILITY.
 
 
Please read all the following to understand better my thoughts:
 
About Wise egoism
 
I have showed that the essence of tolerance is:
 
The essence of tolerance is consciousness of our weaknesses !
and it is an act that is caused by consciousness of our weaknesses
or by our weaknesses.
 
So wise egoism dictates to be a "usefulness" or a "utility" to the other
because of the essence of tolerance, so this is why we have to be more
useful to sell our products or services to others internationally
and locally, and this usefulness give rise to consumer confidence index
that constrain egoism to be more "tolerance" and more "respect" towards
others and constrain it to share more with others.
 
 
About tolerance..
 
What is it the essence of tolerance ?
 
Does it has an essence ?
 
It is this what we call philosophy..
 
When you become more smart you will find the shortest path to the
solution..
 
So i will answer it like this:
 
The essence of tolerance is consciousness of our weaknesses !
and it is an act that is caused by consciousness of our weaknesses
or by our weaknesses.
 
Its essence is the same as the essence of "organization" !
 
We are organizing because of our weaknesses too !
 
because if we were Gods, the need of organizing as a group will be
"much" lesser !
 
This is the essence of our humanity that is perfection and strongness,
and perfection and strongness is also saying that efficient morality
is performance and reliability. It is like serious computer programming,
you can also model efficient morality with only one word that is:
"reliability", but to be more "expressive", i have said that efficient
morality is performance and reliability, and you are feeling it
when you become a more serious programmer like me.
 
So what is the essence of efficiency?
 
Efficiency is part of optimization, efficiency is: you have the
ressources that is our universe(we are part of the universe) and our
other universes, and you have to produce an output from this input that
is our universe or universes that is performant, it is performance.
 
But what is the essence of reliability?
 
Reliability is the quality of performing consistently well.
 
Does efficiency model correctly portability in software programming ?
 
I think yes because we are this portability because portability is
performance of portability that is to be able to run your software
in different hardwares or operating systems, and that's i think also
performance.
 
And does efficiency or reliability model correctly usability?
 
I think yes.
 
Does "reliability" model correctly beautifulness ?
 
I think more beautifulness can mean a "good" thing, and if
it is a good thing , it is not a bug of saying it is a bad thing
, so reliability do model beautifulness correctly.
 
And we can generalize and say:
 
Because morality is all about what is bad and what is good, so
what is bad is like a bug that causes the system to be bad, so
if it is bad, it is like a bug that makes the system not "reliable",
and it is related to reliability.
 
This is why i have modeled efficient morality with two words by saying:
 
Efficient morality is performance and reliability, and it is
like finding the essence of morality.
 
I said above that:
 
The essence of tolerance is consciousness of our weaknessess !
 
So the essence of tolerance is related to security, so it is
related to reliablity, so "reliability" do model tolerance too.
 
 
Here is my new and extended post about philosophy and politics..
 
Yet more precision and more calculations , please follow with me:
 
The essence of Class Struggle
 
An idiot will say that Class Struggle such as of communism
is not correct !
 
But philosophy is not the same , in philosophy you have
to be more rigorous like in mathematics !
 
I will get on more philosophy..
 
I think the nature of Class Struggle of communism
has changed a little bit in the West, i mean Class Struggle
of communism has soften, but it is still Class Struggle !
i mean that "Democracy" and "usefulness" or to make
yourself a "utility" or to make yourself "useful" are also Class
Struggle ! and consumerism do bring the counter-power of consumer
confidence index that we have to higher internationally and locally, so
this counter power of consumer confidence index is like Class Struggle
also, this is what i have said bellow that the essence of compassion is
the essence of humanity that is perfection and strongness. And this is
why i have spoken about the essence of Israel in a such
way, because making yourself "useful" is also a wise egoism
that lesser egoism of nationalism and egoism. Here is what i have said:
 
About the essence of Israel...
 
You have seen me in my political philosophy introducing to you what i
called guidance of moral as embellishment of humanity, and i have
defined it as being like: happiness and tolerance that are parts of the
set of our essence ! because we are capable of knowing them and feeling
them and measuring with them.
 
So now there is an important question related to the essence of Israel..
 
Do we have to judge Israel by this guidance of moral, by saying
for example that Israel is not tolerance and is not happiness
of guidance of moral ?
 
This is not the right way to measure, you have to be wisdom that knows
how to measure ! so efficient morality that is performance and
reliability must be used as a soft way also that constrain the
spirit of Israel, so Israel must know that efficient morality
must be capable of "balancing" well or "tuning" well if you want, i give
you an example: today we are trying to be efficient morality
that is taking into account not just our today but also taking
into account the future of our planet earth that we have not to hurt
with excessive pollution and exploitation ! this is the kind of spirit
that lacks Israel ! because nationalism must be constrained by the
essence of humanity that is perfection and strongness, so perfection is
that Israel has to know how to think the after and the after after with
arabs, so we have to be frank between us, i think like was saying it
Fordism, consumerism or economy between Israel and arab countries is the
right solution that will bring peace and prosperity, and arabs has to
know it and be capable of being useful to Israel and Israel has to be
capable of being useful to arabs , the interdependence of the two
economies of Israel and arabs will create good relations between arab
countries and Israel.
 
 
And i have said also that:
 
Is Donald Trump nationalism ?
 
We have to be smart, what do i think about Donald Trump ?
is Donald Trump nationalism ? i think it is a really good
question of philosophy ! so what do thinks philosophy about
it ? i think that we have to look at it from the perspective of
my philosophy that is in accordance with efficient morality,
because philosophy also must adhere to efficient morality to
be able to be called a high standard of philosophy, this
is why i think from my writing of before, that Donald Trump
do adhere to my rule that is: survival is usefulness ! and
as you have noticed that we are more lucky with empirical moral
inferred from experience, because the tools of today are
much more enhanced to bring more dignity to the table,
so if i just say that: survival is usefulness and usefulness
is egoism and survival is egoism.. so if you are less smart you will
think that it is not acceptable, but a smart person will say
that it adheres to the standard of efficient morality that is
as i have defined it: performance and reliability, this is
why we have to be more confident with it, and not be blind and
notice that when i say: survival is usefulness, it is said
in a "context" of today, so it brings many contraints that
provoke quality and bring more quality, usefulness do
cause the rise of different actors as powers and counter-powers,
but don't be stupid to see it as an evil war, because
the tools of today are much more advanced and enhanced, so we have to
computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 28 01:34PM -0400

Hello,
 
 
Read this:
 
I will get into more philosophy..
 
As you have noticed i have said that morality is defined as: reliability
or by more expressiveness by: performance and reliability.
 
Now to "model" better humans, we have the following:
 
sensibility, morality, rationality, virility, intelligence, and language
 
And the "set" of morality contains: cleanliness.
 
And from cleanliness we get decency and cleanliness generate also
a more scientific mind, because to be more cleanliness we have to
know how to think better, and from cleanliness we get security too,
and cleanliness generate morality,
 
Now from "sensibility" we get love and we get security too.
 
And from "rationality" we get a mind that is more rational and more logic.
 
from "virility" we get more performance , but if virility is not
"constrained" by the others such as morality and sensibility and
rationality, we can get violence and insecurity.
 
I think this is how we can "model" better humans both "genetically" and
"culturally".
 
Here is my other new thoughts..
 
What i am doing is finding the essence of things like in philosophy
and i am using the tool of logic that permits also to "measure"
and to "calculate" precisely like in mathematics and it permits to
reason better, so what is my new thoughts of today ? as you have noticed
i have defined previously what is morality, it is like finding its
"essence" that i have done in my previous post, now an important
question is inferred from this act of thinking, is that what is
the essence of our "civilization" ? finding its essence with more
"precise" thinking is an act of "philosophy", so what is its essence ?
i think its essence is coming from the fact that a process or a thing
can have an advantage and a disadvantage, and the general "reference" is
morality that is, by more expressiveness, "performance" and
"reliability", or simply "reliability" that can model morality correctly
as i have proved it in my previous post, so the essence of our
civilization is the act of coordinating and organizing those advantages
and disadvantages on each of us or on each thing or in each process to
be capable of giving an efficient morality that has as an essence
"performance" and "reliability", and as a validation of my model, you
will notice that we are decentralizing "governance", and each of the
decentralized parts of the governance are grouping the "advantages" and
trying to minimize the disadvantages of each of us that do the
governance , democracy is also the same , because democracy is a system
that wants to escape a "local" maximum towards a global maximum
like in artificial intelligence, and democracy is doing it by
applying itself to selecting the best among the actors of
politics etc. to govern us, this is the essence of civilization,
is the act of maximizing the benefits or the advantages by optimization,
as i have just explained to you, so hope you are understanding
my new thoughts of today. And about what is the essence of morality,
here is again my own post that speaks about it ( i have corrected few
typos in it):
 
What is it to be morality ?
 
This is the most important part of our humanity !
 
I have proved before that performance is inherent to morality,
and i have showed also that my definition, and that i have
proved, that morality is reliability does show that it ressembles
serious computer programming, and to be more expressiveness you see that
performance is inherent to reliability , so reliability
does model efficiently, and we are feeling it like serious
computer programming, because when you define morality
like this by "precise" words , you begin to feel our
essence and you begin to feel the essence of our humanity !
and you become aware that morality is also being capable
and being capable to comprehend ! because this makes us
distinguish the essence of morality ! so you have to not be fooled
by inferior thinking ! because morality is reliability and
reliability is performance too and the application of morality
is part of morality , so the case is closed that morality
of today must be also scientific disciplines and technical disciplines
and morality is the measure of morality that must be reliability
and performance in itself ! this is what is amazing ! you have
to feel it like this and be responsable about it.
 
Read the rest:
 
From where can we infer that "performance" is inherent to morality ?
 
Philosophically we can say that the essence of organization is: we are
organizing because of our weaknesses to transcend our weaknesses, so
from this we can feel the essence of our humanity and we can feel our
essence , because the essence of humanity that is perfection and
strongness is dictated by survival too ! and is dictated by the fact
that we must transcend our living conditions towards a better world ! so
this is part of morality, so then we can say that performance is
inherent to morality.
 
So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on
"performance".
 
I have wrote previously this:
 
Is performance inherent to morality ?
 
This is good philosophical question !
 
This is why you have seen me modeling efficient morality
by only one word, by saying and proving that: efficient morality
or morality is: Reliability.
 
Or by more expressiveness by saying that:
 
Efficient morality or morality is: Performance and reliability.
 
So this definition that i have proved shows clearly
that performance is "inherent" to morality or efficient morality.
 
So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on
"performance".
 
Please read the rest of my post to understand better:
 
What is the essence of reliability?
 
Can we model efficient morality without it as being also "performance" ?
 
This is a good philosophical question !
 
I think the right definition of "reliability" is that of not being "bad".
 
So not being efficient is also being not being good, so reliability
can model efficiency, that means performance too.
 
This why also we can define efficient morality by only one word that is:
 
RELIABILITY.
 
 
Please read all the following to understand better my thoughts:
 
About Wise egoism
 
I have showed that the essence of tolerance is:
 
The essence of tolerance is consciousness of our weaknesses !
and it is an act that is caused by consciousness of our weaknesses
or by our weaknesses.
 
So wise egoism dictates to be a "usefulness" or a "utility" to the other
because of the essence of tolerance, so this is why we have to be more
useful to sell our products or services to others internationally
and locally, and this usefulness give rise to consumer confidence index
that constrain egoism to be more "tolerance" and more "respect" towards
others and constrain it to share more with others.
 
 
About tolerance..
 
What is it the essence of tolerance ?
 
Does it has an essence ?
 
It is this what we call philosophy..
 
When you become more smart you will find the shortest path to the
solution..
 
So i will answer it like this:
 
The essence of tolerance is consciousness of our weaknesses !
and it is an act that is caused by consciousness of our weaknesses
or by our weaknesses.
 
Its essence is the same as the essence of "organization" !
 
We are organizing because of our weaknesses too !
 
because if we were Gods, the need of organizing as a group will be
"much" lesser !
 
This is the essence of our humanity that is perfection and strongness,
and perfection and strongness is also saying that efficient morality
is performance and reliability. It is like serious computer programming,
you can also model efficient morality with only one word that is:
"reliability", but to be more "expressive", i have said that efficient
morality is performance and reliability, and you are feeling it
when you become a more serious programmer like me.
 
So what is the essence of efficiency?
 
Efficiency is part of optimization, efficiency is: you have the
ressources that is our universe(we are part of the universe) and our
other universes, and you have to produce an output from this input that
is our universe or universes that is performant, it is performance.
 
But what is the essence of reliability?
 
Reliability is the quality of performing consistently well.
 
Does efficiency model correctly portability in software programming ?
 
I think yes because we are this portability because portability is
performance of portability that is to be able to run your software
in different hardwares or operating systems, and that's i think also
performance.
 
And does efficiency or reliability model correctly usability?
 
I think yes.
 
Does "reliability" model correctly beautifulness ?
 
I think more beautifulness can mean a "good" thing, and if
it is a good thing , it is not a bug of saying it is a bad thing
, so reliability do model beautifulness correctly.
 
And we can generalize and say:
 
Because morality is all about what is bad and what is good, so
what is bad is like a bug that causes the system to be bad, so
if it is bad, it is like a bug that makes the system not "reliable",
and it is related to reliability.
 
This is why i have modeled efficient morality with two words by saying:
 
Efficient morality is performance and reliability, and it is
like finding the essence of morality.
 
I said above that:
 
The essence of tolerance is consciousness of our weaknessess !
 
So the essence of tolerance is related to security, so it is
related to reliablity, so "reliability" do model tolerance too.
 
 
Here is my new and extended post about philosophy and politics..
 
Yet more precision and more calculations , please follow with me:
 
The essence of Class Struggle
 
An idiot will say that Class Struggle such as of communism
is not correct !
 
But philosophy is not the same , in philosophy you have
to be more rigorous like in mathematics !
 
I will get on more philosophy..
 
I think the nature of Class Struggle of communism
has changed a little bit in the West, i mean Class Struggle
of communism has soften, but it is still Class Struggle !
i mean that "Democracy" and "usefulness" or to make
yourself a "utility" or to make yourself "useful" are also Class
Struggle ! and consumerism do bring the counter-power of consumer
confidence index that we have to higher internationally and locally, so
this counter power of consumer confidence index is like Class Struggle
also, this is what i have said bellow that the essence of compassion is
the essence of humanity that is perfection and strongness. And this is
why i have spoken about the essence of Israel in a such
way, because making yourself "useful" is also a wise egoism
that lesser egoism of nationalism and egoism. Here is what i have said:
 
About the essence of Israel...
 
You have seen me in my political philosophy introducing to you what i
called guidance of moral as embellishment of humanity, and i have
defined it as being like: happiness and tolerance that are parts of the
set of our essence ! because we are capable of knowing them and feeling
them and measuring with them.
 
So now there is an important question related to the essence of Israel..
 
Do we have to judge Israel by this guidance of moral, by saying
for example that Israel is not tolerance and is not happiness
of guidance of moral ?
 
This is not the right way to measure, you have to be wisdom that knows
how to measure ! so efficient morality that is performance and
reliability must be used as a soft way also that constrain the
spirit of Israel, so Israel must know that efficient morality
must be capable of "balancing" well or "tuning" well if you want, i give
you an example: today we are trying to be efficient morality
that is taking into account not just our today but also taking
into account the future of our planet earth that we have not to hurt
with excessive pollution and exploitation ! this is the kind of spirit
that lacks Israel ! because nationalism must be constrained by the
essence of humanity that is perfection and strongness, so perfection is
that Israel has to know how to think the after and the after after with
arabs, so we have to be frank between us, i think like was saying it
Fordism, consumerism or economy between Israel and arab countries is the
right solution that will bring peace and prosperity, and arabs has to
know it and be capable of being useful to Israel and Israel has to be
capable of being useful to arabs , the interdependence of the two
economies of Israel and arabs will create good relations between arab
countries and Israel.
 
 
And i have said also that:
 
Is Donald Trump nationalism ?
 
We have to be smart, what do i think about Donald Trump ?
is Donald Trump nationalism ? i think it is a really good
question of philosophy ! so what do thinks philosophy about
it ? i think that we have to look at it from the perspective of
my philosophy that is in accordance with efficient morality,
because philosophy also must adhere to efficient morality to
be able to be called a high standard of philosophy, this
is why i think from my writing of before, that Donald Trump
do adhere to my rule that is: survival is usefulness ! and
as you have noticed that we are more lucky with empirical moral
inferred from experience, because the tools of today are
much more enhanced to bring more dignity to the table,
so if i just say that: survival is usefulness and usefulness
is egoism and survival is egoism.. so if you are less smart you will
think that it is not acceptable, but a smart person will say
that it adheres to the standard of efficient morality that is
as i have defined it: performance and reliability, this is
why we have to be more confident with it, and not be blind and
notice that when i say: survival is usefulness, it is said
in a "context" of today, so it brings many contraints that
provoke quality and bring more quality, usefulness do
cause the rise of different actors as powers and counter-powers,
but don't be stupid to see it as an evil war, because
the tools of today are much more advanced and enhanced, so we have to
be more optimistic about it, because survival is usefulness
and usefulness is egoism and egoism has brought consumer confidence
index that we have to higher internationally and locally, this egoism
is the solution to egoism and nationalism, because consumerism
and consumer confidence index has completely constrained
natonalism and egoism in such a manner that it has lesser
egoism and make the actors of economy to share more with third world
countries and other countries , also usefulness of competitiveness
between different actors of economy has played the same role of egoism
that is the solution to egoism and nationalism, because also
competitiveness and consumerism has completely constrained nationalism
and egoism in such a manner that it has lesser egoism and make the
actors of economy to share more with third world countries and other
countries, and you will notice it from how Donald Trump is talking about
economy by saying the following:
 
US President Donald Trump on Friday said that "America first does not
mean America alone," even as he maintained his country would remain his
top priority. He reminded the audience that "American prosperity created
countless jobs in world."
"As President of the United States, I will always put America first...
America first does not mean America alone. When the United States grows,
so does the world,"
 
Read more here to notice it:
computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 28 09:45AM -0400

Hello,
 
Read this:
 
 
Peace of Mind: Near-Death Experiences Now Found to Have Scientific
Explanations
 
Seeing your life pass before you and the light at the end of the tunnel,
can be explained by new research on abnormal functioning of dopamine and
oxygen flow
 
Read more here:
 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)