- More thoughts of my political philosophy.. - 1 Update
- Arm Cortex-A77 – everything you need to know - 1 Update
- More about computing and parallel computing.. - 1 Update
- Microsoft to explore using Rust - 1 Update
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Jul 17 04:12PM -0700 Hello.. More thoughts of my political philosophy.. About white supremacism and neo-nazism.. I am more capable at political philosophy, and i think i understand the "defect" of white supremacism and neo-nazism, it is about "morality", and as i defined morality by two abstractions that are: Perfection at best and with Efficiency and the correct compassion and love that is inherent to efficiency (read more below to understand), so i think the defect of white supremacism and neo-nazism, is that they want to be white supremacism so they have the "tendency" like neo-nazism to be "radicalism" of "perfection" that violently discriminate imperfections and that eliminate violently, or that is violent with, humans imperfections(but notice that we can not be confident with there violent behavior towards human imperfections), so they are like ideologies of radicalism that are evil over this earth, because they are not understanding the basis of our today civilization, our today civilization is also more patience and more tolerance and our today civilization is more positive because it believes that science and technology will soon be able to solve many of our problems because of the exponential progress and the law of accelerating returns that are so fast, so our today civilization is more positive and more confident, and read what i wrote before about being civilized: Now what is it to be civilized ? This is a smart question.. You have to understand deeply our kind of civilization to be able to answer this question, i think that our kind of civilization is wanting to "maximize" at best by "effort" the avoidance of savagery even if we are still savagery here and there, you have to be able able to understand how to prioritize to be able to succeed ! i think that our kind of civilization is giving a weight of great importance to the fact of avoiding savagery at best by effort, so this principle doesn't contradict the fact that even if we are still savagery here and there we have to maximize at best the avoidance of savagery by "effort", and also this principle has to be in accordance with the fact that we have to be the right "stability" to be able to call a society a society or a country a country, so this is why we are noticing that we are being a kind of "tolerance" and we are a social system and we are a health care system in our kind of civilization. So to be in accordance with the principle above you are understanding that we have to be efficient and much organized to be able to be this principle in action, this is why i am not in accordance with neo-nazism or white supremacism, because they are inferiority of morality that doesn't understand the requirements of our today "civilization", so white supremacists and neo-nazis have to adapt because they are too much violence. Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better: Yet about meritocracy and elitism.. I wrote previously the following: "More political philosophy about Elitism and Meritocracy.. The question is not do we have to have Elitism and Meritocracy, because we have to have Elitism and Meritocracy. But the question is: "what" kind of Elitism do we have to have and "what kind of meritocracy do we have to have ? Because as you are noticing that i said below: "You have to distinguish between this Elitism and that Elitism , i mean that there is not correct Elitism that hates inferiority of people and has the tendency to not get along with people, but i am not this Elitism"" And to be more "smart" look "carefully" at my following poem that i wrote previously that talks about the above problem: === Look at the more "individual" perfection It can become an imperfection Since more "awareness" of imperfections that is more individual perfection Can make us hate and discriminate our imperfections And since we are many of us made also of imperfections So this can make "us" more disorganized and less perfection And that's an "important" problem that needs an "attention" So this is why morality is calling for "actions" This is why laws are our security and a right prevention And this weakness must become a beautiful ascension So you have to see it better in many more dimensions ! Since it is like running away from the pain of detention ! So as you see there is no pretension So hope that there is no incomprehension ! Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. ==== Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand better: More political philosophy about Elitism and Meritocracy.. The question is not do we have to have Elitism and Meritocracy, because we have to have Elitism and Meritocracy. But the question is: "what" kind of Elitism do we have to have and "what kind of meritocracy do we have to have ? Because as you are noticing that i said below: "You have to distinguish between this Elitism and that Elitism , i mean that there is not correct Elitism that hates inferiority of people and has the tendency to not get along with people, but i am not this Elitism" So you are noticing more what kind of Elitism and Meritocracy we have to be. So you have to be careful with the kind of Elitism and Meritocracy that we want to have. And you have to know how to navigate efficiently like a "pro", this is why you have to get into "realtime" and "dynamic" calculations to get better at efficiency, being correct professionalism needs from us to take responsability very "seriously", so you have to avoid to be lazy , because it is a work of everyday, look for example at how we are being synchronized much more efficiently etc. so you are noticing that our today lives are synchronized much more efficiently and our today lives needs to be much more "efficient" because today life needs from us to be much more smart and much more efficient than our past history, so as you are noticing that it is like our today is based on much more efficiency than past history and this doesn't contradict my following thoughts of my political philosophy, so read it again: More political philosophy about order.. I think you are understanding me more, but you are feeling more and more that i am also an Elitist, but you have to distinguish between this Elitism and that Elitism , i mean that there is not correct Elitism that hates inferiority of people and has the tendency to not get along with people, but i am not this Elitism, i am a proactive Elitism that talks to the people and that understand the living conditions of people, and that wants people to be "efficiency", and to be able to be efficiency you have to know how to be order, order is also following the rule of: People needs efficiency ! so order has to know how to follow rules of efficiency ! this is what i am talking about in my political philosophy: is how to be efficiency ! this is why you have also seen me talking in my political philosophy about what is morality and what is efficiency and is compassion and love inherent to efficiency (but notice that efficiency here is about humans that are efficient and that governs), so you have to understand me more, this is why you have to read my following thoughts of my political philosophy: About love and order.. As you are noticing i am "playing" with words when i am doing political philosophy, for example i am saying that i have defined morality by two abstractions that are: "Perfection at best" and with Efficiency and compassion and love that are inherent to efficiency. But you will ask the following question: Is it logical to say that compassion and love are inherent to efficiency ? You have to understand political philosophy, when i say love in political philosophy , love must "satisfy" "order", and order is primordial ! but what is order ? In political philosophy, order is a maximization at best of order ! so now you are understanding that there is no logical contradiction in my writing, this is why you are noticing that i am saying below the following: === Is compassion or love inherent to efficiency ? This is a very important question in political philosophy, so how can we answer it? i will start to answer it like this: Notice that in a society that we form (like in a country), we are also trying to "unite" so that to avoid desorder and its violence, so from this kind of "unification" we can say that a decent compassion and a decent love that is considered decent by morality and by the people is inherent to efficiency in politics so that to avoid desorder and its violence ! (read the rest of my thoughts below to understand more) == About democracy and corruption.. Corruption is Inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means. Read the definition of corruption here to notice it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption So as i am explaining below that democracy depends on and is guided by morality that i defined with two abstraction that are: "Perfection at best" and with Efficiency and compassion and love that are inherent to efficiency (read below to understand), hence we can say that corruption is also "lack" of efficiency that doesn't follow the rule of morality that is: The people needs efficiency. So when i say below that: === How must we think democracy in political philosophy ? I think that we have to be more smart and notice that democracy is also smart, the big benefits of democracy that it is also like a morality that is a diversity that prioritize by giving weights to some important things and processes to be able to succeed, for example if i ask a question of how to be less corruption ? i think that democracy is an enhanced system that fights corruption more efficiently than dictatorship, i think this is understandable because to be able to "escape" a local maximum towards a global maximum(like in artificial intelligence) on efficiency of fighting corruption, we have to be able to vote for another political party that is more apt and more efficient at fighting corruption, this is why i think that democracy is better at fighting corruption, also i think that in democracy the governance must be a "competent" governance this is how we will enhance democracy to be the best. === Corruption above also means that it is lack of efficiency. Read the rest of my thoughts to understand more: More political philosophy about democracy.. Is democracy the best thing to do ? Here is what i said before, and my today answer is below: ======================================================= How must we think democracy in political philosophy ? I think that we have to be more smart and notice that democracy is also smart, the big benefits of democracy that it is also like a morality that is a diversity that prioritize by giving weights to some important things and processes to be able to succeed, for example if i ask a question of how to be less corruption ? i think that democracy is an enhanced system that fights corruption more efficiently than dictatorship, i think this is understandable because to be able to "escape" a local maximum towards a global maximum(like in artificial intelligence) on efficiency of fighting corruption, we have to be able to vote for another political party that is more apt and more efficient at fighting corruption, this is why i think that democracy is better at fighting corruption, also i think that in democracy the governance must be a "competent" governance this is how we will enhance democracy to be the best. And now about to technocracy or to not technocracy ? This is a really good subject of political philosophy, and answering it permits us to understand better our actual democracies, this is why i will continu to answer this question: I said before the following: Because you have to notice that technocracy needs utilitarianism and this kind of utilitarianism of technocracy needs "dictatorship", so technocracy is not democracy and technocracy is dictatorship, and this dictatorship can cause problems of more violence inside the society. Also this kind of utilitarianism of technocracy is something problematic because it has the tendency to give much more importance to the "performance" and to the "efficiency" sides to be able to be more "competitive", so this can easily become extremism that also cause problems of more violence inside the society. So technocracy is not correct thinking, because what we need is democracy that needs also a competent governance. But we have to understand better our world, and you have to notice on what is based many of the western democratic countries like France and such, i think that they understand that what we need is also the right dose of "humanism" that permits us to be a "civilization" that avoids savagery, this is why the utilitarianism of technocracy is not correct thinking, and i think we can also "view" this right dose of humanism as the way that USA system is run by the separation of powers to not "fall" into extremism and savagery ! so as you are noticing that democracy needs a competent governance and i think that democracy and a competent governance is the way to go. ======================================================================= So is democracy the best thing to do ? I think you have to understand that democracy "depends" on morality, it is like guided also by morality, and since as i said in my political philosophy below that morality is efficiency and the right compassion and love, so democracy also needs those requirements and is guided by those requirements, so democracy of course needs a "competent" governance since people needs efficiency, and democracy fights more efficiently corruption, and democracy needs to know how to avoid extremism that causes problems inside the system etc. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand better: About morality and political philosophy.. As you will notice i will do more political philosophy so that you understand better: If you remember my last thoughts of political philosophy about morality, it is the following: =========================================================================== I said in my proof before of: morality is perfection at best, the following: "Because morality exists because we have to avoid the bad And we have to avoid the bad by also trying to maximize at best the good And trying to maximize at best the good is also called: perfection at best So morality is pushed towards absolute perfection So that to be able to solve all our problems And be absolute happiness that is the goal But morality of today must at least be a decent morality To avoid desorder and violence inside the system" I have to be more precise: When i say: And we have to avoid the bad by also trying to maximize at best the good What is it that we call "good" in morality ? A good is like we have to correct or eliminate a defect or flaw , and being morality is correcting and eliminating the defects or flaws so that to attain reliability or flawlessness (you have not to read it out of context of my above proof), because in morality we have to maximize at best the good and minimizing at best the bad, that means also that we have to maximize at best reliability so that to attain flawlessness , and this is called perfection at best since from the following definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection perfection is also called freedom from fault or defect that we call: FLAWLESSNESS Also i said above that: "But morality of today must at least be a decent morality |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Jul 17 02:49PM -0700 Hello.. Arm Cortex-A77 – everything you need to know Read more here: https://www.androidauthority.com/arm-cortex-a77-cpu-990172/ Also i have just ported my following "inventions" to the ARM CPUs: 1- My scalable MLock Read about it here on my website: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-mlock 2- My SemaMonitor 3- My SemaCondvar Read about them here on my website: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/semacondvar-semamonitor 4- My sophisticated scalable RWLocks that is stavation-free. You can read about it here on my website: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock And now all my inventions above are compatible with x86 and ARM architectures, i will soon put them on my website. And i will soon port more of my softwares to ARM architecture. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Jul 17 11:53AM -0700 Hello.. More about computing and parallel computing.. The important guaranties of Memory Safety in Rust are: 1- No Null Pointer Dereferences 2- No Dangling Pointers 3- No Buffer Overruns I think i have solved Null Pointer Dereferences and also solved Dangling Pointers and also solved memory leaks for Delphi and Freepascal by inventing my "scalable" reference counting with efficient support for weak references and i have implemented it in Delphi and Freepascal, and reference counting in Rust and C++ is "not" scalable. About the (3) above that is Buffer Overruns, read here about Delphi and Freepascal: What's a buffer overflow and how to avoid it in Delphi? http://delphi.cjcsoft.net/viewthread.php?tid=49495 About Deadlock and Race conditions in Delphi and Freepascal: I have ported DelphiConcurrent to Freepascal, and i have also extended them with the support of my scalable RWLocks for Windows and Linux and with the support of my scalable lock called MLock for Windows and Linux and i have also added the support for a Mutex for Windows and Linux, please look inside the DelphiConcurrent.pas and FreepascalConcurrent.pas files inside the zip file to understand more. You can download DelphiConcurrent and FreepascalConcurrent for Delphi and Freepascal from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/delphiconcurrent-and-freepascalconcurrent DelphiConcurrent and FreepascalConcurrent by Moualek Adlene is a new way to build Delphi applications which involve parallel executed code based on threads like application servers. DelphiConcurrent provides to the programmers the internal mechanisms to write safer multi-thread code while taking a special care of performance and genericity. In concurrent applications a DEADLOCK may occurs when two threads or more try to lock two consecutive shared resources or more but in a different order. With DelphiConcurrent and FreepascalConcurrent, a DEADLOCK is detected and automatically skipped - before he occurs - and the programmer has an explicit exception describing the multi-thread problem instead of a blocking DEADLOCK which freeze the application with no output log (and perhaps also the linked clients sessions if we talk about an application server). Amine Moulay Ramdane has extended them with the support of his scalable RWLocks for Windows and Linux and with the support of his scalable lock called MLock for Windows and Linux and he has also added the support for a Mutex for Windows and Linux, please look inside the DelphiConcurrent.pas and FreepascalConcurrent.pas files to understand more. And please read the html file inside to learn more how to use it. About race conditions now: My scalable Adder is here.. As you have noticed i have just posted previously my modified versions of DelphiConcurrent and FreepascalConcurrent to deal with deadlocks in parallel programs. But i have just read the following about how to avoid race conditions in Parallel programming in most cases.. Here it is: https://vitaliburkov.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/parallel-programming-with-delphi-part-ii-resolving-race-conditions/ This is why i have invented my following powerful scalable Adder to help you do the same as the above, please take a look at its source code to understand more, here it is: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-adder-for-delphi-and-freepascal Other than that, about composability of lock-based systems now: Design your systems to be composable. Among the more galling claims of the detractors of lock-based systems is the notion that they are somehow uncomposable: "Locks and condition variables do not support modular programming," reads one typically brazen claim, "building large programs by gluing together smaller programs[:] locks make this impossible."9 The claim, of course, is incorrect. For evidence one need only point at the composition of lock-based systems such as databases and operating systems into larger systems that remain entirely unaware of lower-level locking. There are two ways to make lock-based systems completely composable, and each has its own place. First (and most obviously), one can make locking entirely internal to the subsystem. For example, in concurrent operating systems, control never returns to user level with in-kernel locks held; the locks used to implement the system itself are entirely behind the system call interface that constitutes the interface to the system. More generally, this model can work whenever a crisp interface exists between software components: as long as control flow is never returned to the caller with locks held, the subsystem will remain composable. Second (and perhaps counterintuitively), one can achieve concurrency and composability by having no locks whatsoever. In this case, there must be no global subsystem state—subsystem state must be captured in per-instance state, and it must be up to consumers of the subsystem to assure that they do not access their instance in parallel. By leaving locking up to the client of the subsystem, the subsystem itself can be used concurrently by different subsystems and in different contexts. A concrete example of this is the AVL tree implementation used extensively in the Solaris kernel. As with any balanced binary tree, the implementation is sufficiently complex to merit componentization, but by not having any global state, the implementation may be used concurrently by disjoint subsystems—the only constraint is that manipulation of a single AVL tree instance must be serialized. Read more here: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1454462 And about Message Passing Process Communication Model and Shared Memory Process Communication Model: An advantage of shared memory model is that memory communication is faster as compared to the message passing model on the same machine. However, shared memory model may create problems such as synchronization and memory protection that need to be addressed. Message passing's major flaw is the inversion of control–it is a moral equivalent of gotos in un-structured programming (it's about time somebody said that message passing is considered harmful). Also some research shows that the total effort to write an MPI application is significantly higher than that required to write a shared-memory version of it. And more about my scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references: My invention that is my scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references version 1.35 is here.. Here i am again, i have just updated my scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references to version 1.35, I have just added a TAMInterfacedPersistent that is a scalable reference counted version, and now i think i have just made it complete and powerful. Because I have just read the following web page: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1252175/Fixing-Delphis-Interface-Limitations But i don't agree with the writting of the guy of the above web page, because i think you have to understand the "spirit" of Delphi, here is why: A component is supposed to be owned and destroyed by something else, "typically" a form (and "typically" means in english: in "most" cases, and this is the most important thing to understand). In that scenario, reference count is not used. If you pass a component as an interface reference, it would be very unfortunate if it was destroyed when the method returns. Therefore, reference counting in TComponent has been removed. Also because i have just added TAMInterfacedPersistent to my invention. To use scalable reference counting with Delphi and FreePascal, just replace TInterfacedObject with my TAMInterfacedObject that is the scalable reference counted version, and just replace TInterfacedPersistent with my TAMInterfacedPersistent that is the scalable reference counted version, and you will find both my TAMInterfacedObject and my TAMInterfacedPersistent inside the AMInterfacedObject.pas file, and to know how to use weak references please take a look at the demo that i have included called example.dpr and look inside my zip file at the tutorial about weak references, and to know how to use delegation take a look at the demo that i have included called test_delegation.pas, and take a look inside my zip file at the tutorial about delegation that learns you how to use delegation. I think my Scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references is stable and fast, and it works on both Windows and Linux, and my scalable reference counting scales on multicore and NUMA systems, and you will not find it in C++ or Rust, and i don't think you will find it anywhere, and you have to know that this invention of mine solves the problem of dangling pointers and it solves the problem of memory leaks and my scalable reference counting is "scalable". And please read the readme file inside the zip file that i have just extended to make you understand more. You can download my new scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references version 1.35 from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Jul 17 11:36AM -0700 Hello.. Microsoft to explore using Rust Rust has been gaining in popularity and Microsoft intends to see if it can hold up to its demands. 70% OF ALL MICROSOFT PATCHES ARE FOR MEMORY-RELATED BUGS The reason for this high percentage is because Windows and most other Microsoft products have been written mostly in C and C++, two "memory-unsafe" programming languages that allow developers fine-grained control of the memory addresses and where code can be executed. Microsoft plans to explore using the Rust programming language as an alternative to C, C++, and others, as a way to improve the security posture of its and everyone else's apps. The announcement was made yesterday by Gavin Thomas, Principal Security Engineering Manager for the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC). "You're probably used to thinking about the Microsoft Security Response Center as a group that responds to incidents and vulnerabilities," Thomas said. "We are a response organization, but we also have a proactive role, and in a new blog series we will highlight Microsoft's exploration of safer system programming languages, starting with Rust." The end game is to find a way to move developers from the aging C and C++ programming language to so-called "memory-safe languages." Memory-safe languages, such as Rust, are designed from the ground up with protections against memory corruption vulnerabilities, such as buffer overflows, race conditions, memory leaks, use-after free and memory pointer-related bugs. C#, a programming language developed by Microsoft, also features some memory access improvements but is not as advanced as Rust. Read more here: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-explore-using-rust/ 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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment