- What is it to be smart ? - 15 Updates
- About smartness and the meaning.. - 1 Update
- More about the smartness problem.. - 1 Update
- More about what is human smartness.. - 1 Update
- About the Sanitizers.. - 1 Update
- Here is some good news - 1 Update
- More of my thoughts of my political philosophy.. - 1 Update
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 08:19AM -0700 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 7:29:32 AM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote: > > since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart".. > "Intenting" algorithms which have been invtented before and > which aren't rudimentary complex doesn't make you a genius. I give you an example, read the following: "Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction." Read more here: https://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/lock-free-code-a-false-sense-of-security/210600279 Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Aug 01 05:44PM +0200 > "Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction." That's idiocracy. Lock-free programming isn't complex. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 10:08AM -0700 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:44:29 AM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote: > > "Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction." > That's idiocracy. Lock-free programming isn't complex. I think that you are not understanding correctly, since in my previous posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms i said that it is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice: "Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze." Read more here: https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1 So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why, and he is in accordance with my writing, read them again carefully: More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs: Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science Here he is: http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories Here he is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention: https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention: About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 10:10AM -0700 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:44:29 AM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote: > > "Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction." > That's idiocracy. Lock-free programming isn't complex. I think that you are not understanding correctly, since in my previous posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms i said that it is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between saying it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice: "Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze." Read more here: https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1 So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why, and he is in accordance with my writing, read them again carefully: More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs: Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science Here he is: http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories Here he is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention: https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention: About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 10:38AM -0700 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:44:29 AM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote: > > "Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction." > That's idiocracy. Lock-free programming isn't complex. Here is the definition of "complex" in the dictionary: "Something that is complex has many different parts, and is therefore often difficult to understand." Read the dictionary here to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/complex So as you are noticing that complex doesn't mean difficult, because complex has "many" different parts, and this is why you are not understanding my writing about Lock-free algorithms, since i said that they are "difficult" even if they are not complex, since even they are not complex, you have to be smart to be able to see the paths or the parts that are hidden to be able to invent them, this is why you have to be smart to be able to invent a Lock-free bounded stack or Lock-free bounded queue. Read my my following previous thoughts to understand: I think that you are not understanding correctly, since in my previous posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms i said that it is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between saying it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice: "Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze." Read more here: https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1 So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why, and he is in accordance with my writing, read them again carefully: More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs: Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science Here he is: http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories Here he is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention: https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention: About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Aug 01 08:39PM +0200 Sorry, you're an idiot. Lock-free programming isn't complex and you're not an inventor. Lock-free queues and stacks are rather simple. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 11:52AM -0700 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote: > Sorry, you're an idiot. > Lock-free programming isn't complex and you're not an inventor. > Lock-free queues and stacks are rather simple. I think that you are still "immature", and since you just keep repeating that i am stupid, this proves that you are stupid, because you have to invent a new and good lock-free "bounded" FIFO queue so that to notice that i am right, this is what i am doing, i am inventing them. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Aug 01 09:04PM +0200 > because you have to invent a new and good lock-free "bounded" > FIFO queue so that to notice that i am right, this is what > i am doing, i am inventing them. You've not invented anything, you copied algorithms already invented. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 12:07PM -0700 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 3:04:39 PM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote: > > i am doing, i am inventing them. > You've not invented anything, you copied algorithms already > invented. No, i didn't copied algorithms already invented. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Aug 01 09:07PM +0200 > No, i didn't copied algorithms already invented. You're not able to recognize what you do since you're manic and you have megalomania. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 12:21PM -0700 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 3:07:50 PM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote: > > No, i didn't copied algorithms already invented. > You're not able to recognize what you do since you're manic > and you have megalomania. You have to see me in real life, i am not manic and i am not megalomania. I just want to "show" that i am smart, so i have invented many scalable algorithms and i am still inventing algorithms. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Aug 01 09:24PM +0200 You're not even manic, you have a bipolar disorder. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 12:28PM -0700 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 3:24:45 PM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote: > You're not even manic, you have a bipolar disorder. I don't have bipolar disorder, i am mentally sane. But when you see me writing poetry, it is just that i want to show that i am more "smart" than other at writing poetry, and i am a gentleman type of person, and the other thing is the following: You have to see me in real life, i am not manic and i am not megalomania. I just want to "show" that i am smart, so i have invented many scalable algorithms and i am still inventing algorithms. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 12:32PM -0700 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 3:24:45 PM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote: > You're not even manic, you have a bipolar disorder. I don't have bipolar disorder, i am mentally sane. But when you see me writing poetry, it is just that i want to show that i am more "smart" than others at writing poetry, and also when you see me writing my political philosophy , it is just that i want to show that i am more smart than others, so as you are noticing that my "engine" is that i want to show that i am smart, and i am a gentleman type of person, and the other thing is the following: You have to see me in real life, i am not manic and i am not megalomania. I just want to "show" that i am smart, so i have invented many scalable algorithms and i am still inventing algorithms. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Aug 02 12:46PM +0200 > I don't have bipolar disorder, i am mentally sane. You alternately post waterfalls here like manic, you have megalomania and call yourself a genius, you have several contignous days where you don't post here and I'm pretty sure you're depressed than: that's a bipolar disorder. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 08:32PM -0700 Hello, About smartness and the meaning.. So that to understand what is smartness we have to understand what is the meaning.. I think that there is still complex problems that actual high level smartness of humans can not comprehend, that means that they don't make sense or meaning to the actual high level smartness of humans, so they are like hidden to us, perhaps like extraterrestrial beings that have become complex problems or like God that is a complex problem, thus we can not comprehend them, since as i said you have to make a logical difference between the complex and the difficult, since i think that our actual high level human smartness is capable to understand the difficult that is not complex and with the divide and conquer methodology it is able to understand some complex problems, but i think that there still remain problems that are complex and that the actual high level smartness of humans is unable to comprehend with the divide and conquer methodology. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand: More about the smartness problem.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. As you have noticed i have just spoken more about what is smartness(read below about it).. But i think that there is something happening, since i think that we have been "lucky" that we have encountered complex problems that have been solved by high level smartness by the divide and conquer methodology , but i think that we have to ask a question of: if there is still problems that can not be solved by high level smartness of today humans by the divide and conquer methodology? Read the rest of my previous thoughts: More about what is human smartness.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. I think to be able to understand human smartness, you have to understand the logical difference between what is the complex and what is the difficult, this is one of the most important thing, because when you look at the definition of complex it says: Here is the definition of "complex" in the dictionary: "Something that is complex has many different parts, and is therefore often difficult to understand." Read the dictionary here to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/complex So as you are noticing that complex doesn't mean difficult, because complex has "many" different parts, and you have to understand my writing about Lock-free algorithms, since i said that they are "difficult" even if they are not complex, since even they are not complex, you have to be smart to be able to see the paths or the parts that are hidden to be able to invent them, this is why you have to be smart to be able to invent a Lock-free bounded stack or Lock-free bounded queue. So now you are understanding that high level smartness doesn't start to think the complex, but it starts with the difficult that is not complex and it uses the divide and conquer methodology so that to grow and be able to understand the complex.. Read my following previous thoughts to understand: In my previous posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms, i said that inventing Lock-free algorithms is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between saying it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice: "Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze." Read more here: https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1 So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why, and he is in accordance with my writing, read it again carefully: More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs: Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science Here he is: http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories Here he is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention: https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention: About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 07:46PM -0700 Hello, More about the smartness problem.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. As you have noticed i have just spoken more about what is smartness(read below about it).. But i think that there is something happening, since i think that we have been "lucky" that we have encountered complex problems that have been solved by high level smartness by the divide and conquer methodology , but i think that we have to ask a question of: if there is still problems that can not be solved by high level smartness of today humans by the divide and conquer methodology? Read the rest of my previous thoughts: More about what is human smartness.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. I think to be able to understand human smartness, you have to understand the logical difference between what is the complex and what is the difficult, this is one of the most important thing, because when you look at the definition of complex it says: Here is the definition of "complex" in the dictionary: "Something that is complex has many different parts, and is therefore often difficult to understand." Read the dictionary here to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/complex So as you are noticing that complex doesn't mean difficult, because complex has "many" different parts, and you have to understand my writing about Lock-free algorithms, since i said that they are "difficult" even if they are not complex, since even they are not complex, you have to be smart to be able to see the paths or the parts that are hidden to be able to invent them, this is why you have to be smart to be able to invent a Lock-free bounded stack or Lock-free bounded queue. So now you are understanding that high level smartness doesn't start to think the complex, but it starts with the difficult that is not complex and it uses the divide and conquer methodology so that to grow and be able to understand the complex.. Read my following previous thoughts to understand: In my previous posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms, i said that inventing Lock-free algorithms is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between saying it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice: "Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze." Read more here: https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1 So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why, and he is in accordance with my writing, read it again carefully: More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs: Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science Here he is: http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories Here he is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention: https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention: About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 06:49PM -0700 Hello, More about what is human smartness.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. I think to be able to understand human smartness, you have to understand the logical difference between what is the complex and what is the difficult, this is one of the most important thing, because when you look at the definition of complex it says: Here is the definition of "complex" in the dictionary: "Something that is complex has many different parts, and is therefore often difficult to understand." Read the dictionary here to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/complex So as you are noticing that complex doesn't mean difficult, because complex has "many" different parts, and you have to understand my writing about Lock-free algorithms, since i said that they are "difficult" even if they are not complex, since even they are not complex, you have to be smart to be able to see the paths or the parts that are hidden to be able to invent them, this is why you have to be smart to be able to invent a Lock-free bounded stack or Lock-free bounded queue. So now you are understanding that high level smartness doesn't start to think the complex, but it starts with the difficult that is not complex and it uses the divide and conquer methodology so that to grow and be able to understand the complex.. Read my following previous thoughts to understand: In my previous posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms, i said that inventing Lock-free algorithms is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between saying it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice: "Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze." Read more here: https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1 So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why, and he is in accordance with my writing, read it again carefully: More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs: Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science Here he is: http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories Here he is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention: https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention: About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 04:36PM -0700 Hello, About the Sanitizers.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, and today i will talk about Sanitizers.. So read the following web page about the Sanitizers: https://github.com/google/sanitizers And notice carefully the ThreadSanitizer, so read carefully the following paper about ThreadSanitizer: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/35604.pdf And it says in the conclusion the following: "ThreadSanitizer uses a new algorithm; it has several modes of operation, ranging from the most conservative mode (which has few false positives but also misses real races) to a very aggressive one (which has more false positives but detects the largest number of real races)." So as you are noticing since the very agressive mode doesn't detect all the data races, so then it is not "scalable", so it is not good, since you can still take a lot of time to verify a big project so that to find the remaining data races that are not detected by ThreadSanitizer. So what i advice is to use the incremental testing by using the methodologies that i talk about in my following thoughts: https://community.idera.com/developer-tools/general-development/f/getit-and-third-party/71464/about-turing-completeness-and-parallel-programming For the rest of the Sanitizers above, here is my thoughts on how you can do it in Delphi and Freepascal: https://community.idera.com/developer-tools/general-development/f/getit-and-third-party/70231/fearless-security-memory-safety Also don't forget about the following: Null safety library for Delphi and FreePascal is here.. I have just read the following news: Google Dart gains sound null safety https://www.infoworld.com/article/3562572/google-dart-gains-sound-null-safety.html And as you have noticed , i have also provided you with the following MyNullable library for Delphi and FreePascal that brings null safety. Java lacks null safety. When a function receives an object, this object might be null. That is, if you see 'String s' in your code, you often have no way of knowing whether 's' contains an actually String unless you check at runtime. Can you guess whether programmers always check? They do not, of course, In practice, mission-critical software does crash without warning due to null values. We have two decades of examples. In Swift or Kotlin, you have safe calls or optionals as part of the language. Here is MyNullable library for Delphi and FreePascal that brings null safety, you can download it from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/null-safety-library-for-delphi-and-freepascal Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 01:18PM -0700 Hello, Here is some good news: Novel diabetes drug candidate shows promising properties in human islets and mouse models Researchers have discovered a new drug candidate that offers a major advance in the treatment for diabetes. Tested on isolated human and mouse pancreatic islets, mouse and rat cell cultures and animal models of both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, the experimental drug significantly improved four detrimental characteristics of diabetes: hyperglycemia; hyperglucagonemia, elevation in the hormone glucagon; excessive production of glucose by the liver; and fatty liver, known as hepatic steatosis. Read more here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200728113559.htm Breakthrough with cancer vaccine Read more here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200709085320.htm And Drug researcher develops 'fat burning' molecule Scientists have recently identified a small mitochondrial uncoupler, named BAM15, that decreases the body fat mass of mice without affecting food intake and muscle mass or increasing body temperature. Webster Santos, professor of chemistry and his colleagues have recently identified a small mitochondrial uncoupler, named BAM15, that decreases the body fat mass of mice without affecting food intake and muscle mass or increasing body temperature. Additionally, the molecule decreases insulin resistance and has beneficial effects on oxidative stress and inflammation. The findings, published in Nature Communications on May 14, 2020, hold promise for future treatment and prevention of obesity, diabetes, and especially nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), a type of fatty liver disease that is characterized by inflammation and fat accumulation in the liver. In the next few years, the condition is expected to become the leading cause of liver transplants in the United States. Read more here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200608132539.htm Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 01 12:58PM -0700 Hello, More of my thoughts of my political philosophy.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart, and today i will speak about: Why is GERMANY Growing More Than JAPAN? and more.. We have to be more smart, i think China is also reproducing the mistakes of Japan, because Japan has protected its large industrial conglomerates called in Japanese "Keiretsu" and Japan has compensated there disadvantages even if they were not at all good and efficient, and Japan didn't hesitate to give the Keiretsu all kinds of advantages and privileges even if they were not at all good and efficient, and this was not good for "competition" and Japan has "failed" by doing it. Look in this video carefully to notice it: Why is GERMANY Growing More Than JAPAN? - VisualPolitik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vou96yLuWXw I think this is the same that is happening with China, read the following: Competition: Europe's awakening in the face of foreign subsidies Our state aid rules are very strict: an EU company can only receive grants of up to € 200,000 over three years. In China, the three 5G operators received 19 million euros each through the megalopolis of Shenzhen (12 million inhabitants)… According to the Wall Street Journal (article of December 25, 2019), Huawei would have benefited from 75 billion state aid via different channels, figures denied by the company. State capitalism of China obviously raises the question of the inequity of world competition ... The direction the Commission is taking through the "white paper" is not this at all. The Commission does not seek to copy the Chinese model by favoring subsidized European champions. She does not deny her position in the Siemens-Alstom file. Margrethe Vestager was very clear on this point: "What we are asking for is reciprocity and conditions of equality. […] We are not going to sacrifice the advantages of competition to do the same thing that others do, namely to subsidize companies. No, because we would sacrifice the idea that the market is there to serve consumers with fairness and fair prices. " Read more here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lepoint.fr%2Fpolitique%2Femmanuel-berretta%2Fconcurrence-le-reveil-de-l-europe-face-aux-subventions-etrangeres-18-06-2020-2380631_1897.php More about politics and economy.. Read my following thoughts: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/Ubo-B14lGyc And notice that i am saying the following: "And second requirement is in the same logic of my political philosophy, that means that you have, like in Fordism, to know how to take care of the wages of your consumers locally and globally so that they have enough power or money so that they can buy your products or services, and this kind of taking care of the wages is also in accordance with the first requirement since it is collaboration that is fruitful and that makes our humanity much better" But you have to understand that this taking care of wages is also Globalization and trade that have increased real wages, please read below my thoughts to notice it: More precision about What billionaires said about wealth inequality and capitalism.. Read below i am giving more precision by saying that i think that Bill Gates is right by saying that we have to raise taxes of the rich and i think it is a part of the solution for unequal distribution of income and opportunities.. I have just written the following: ============ More about Globalization and the unequal distribution of income and opportunities.. Jedi Master that is a supporter of Donald Trump has just responded to me the following: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.usa/f0_oA92rIwE I think that Jedi Master is not right, because Donald Trump and his governance have not yet dealt with the unequal distribution of income and opportunities, read the following To notice it: Globalization and Inequality: Sharing Wealth One of Society's Greatest Challenges https://theglobepost.com/2019/01/30/globalization-inequality/ And read my previous thoughts to understand: More political philosophy about Globalization and USA and Donald Trump.. I think Donald Trump is not managing correctly, because USA and Donald Trump have to deal with the unequal distribution of income and opportunities, read the following to notice it: Overcoming zero-sum games to sustain growth and globalisation https://voxeu.org/article/overcoming-zero-sum-games-sustain-growth-and-globalisation "The protesters claim that globalization is bad for poor people in poor countries. A large body of evidence, however, suggests the opposite—though clearly globalization can result in unsettling experiences for many who live in the developing world. My recent research with Nancy Birdsall and Stefano Pettinato suggests that globalization has brought substantial benefits and opportunities for upward mobility for many low-income individuals in the emerging economies. Yet these same opportunities entail new vulnerabilities and new risks for others." Read carefully here: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/winners-and-losers-perspectives-on-globalization-from-the-emerging-market-economies/ ============= And i think here is a part of the solution of the problem of unequal distribution of income and opportunities: i think that Bill Gates is right by saying that we have to raise taxes of the rich, read the following: What billionaires said about wealth inequality and capitalism in 2019 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/what-billionaires-said-about-wealth-inequality-and-capitalism-in-2019.html More of my thoughts of my political philosophy.. I am a white arab, and here is more of my thoughts: And about Offshoring and Globalization: Why Is Offshoring a Concern? Despite the gain from specialization and trade that offshoring brings, many people believe that it also brings costs that eat up the gains. Why? A major reason is that offshoring is taking jobs in services. The loss of manufacturing jobs to other countries has been going on for decades, but the U.S. service sector has always expanded by enough to create new jobs to replace the lost manufacturing jobs. Now that service jobs are also going overseas, the fear is that there will not be enough jobs for Americans. This fear is misplaced. Some service jobs are going overseas, while others are expanding at home. The United States imports call center services, but it exports education, health care, legal, financial, and a host of other types of services. Jobs in these sectors are expanding and will continue to expand. The exact number of jobs that have moved to lower-cost offshore locations is not known, and estimates vary. But even the highest estimate is a tiny number compared to the normal rate of job creation. Winners and Losers Gains from trade do not bring gains for every single person. Americans, on average, gain from offshore outsourcing, but some people lose. The losers are those who have invested in the human capital to do a specific job that has now gone offshore. Unemployment benefits provide short-term tempo- rary relief for these displaced workers. But the long- term solution requires retraining and the acquisition of new skills. Beyond providing short-term relief through unemployment benefits, there is a large role for government in the provision of education and training to enable the labor force of the twenty-first century to be capable of ongoing learning and rapid retooling to take on new jobs that today we can't foresee. Schools, colleges, and universities will expand and get better at doing their jobs of producing a highly educated and flexible labor force. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to undertand more: About competitiveness and Offshoring and Globalization.. 1. We can reduce the payroll without laying off, by lowering wages. It will be argued that lowering wages will reduce purchasing power. But this is not certain since the effort of competitiveness is driving down prices. We could theoretically keep the same standard of living with lower wages and lower prices! 2. We can increase competitiveness without reducing the payroll or the number of workers. This requires basic research, applied research to develop new manufacturing processes or new products, investment and training. It is in fact the best solution, that which leads to increased production, wages, employee skills and standard of living. And i have to be more precise about Offshoring, first i said before the following: ----- Offshoring increases demand for more workers "qualified" and also has a significant positive effect on productivity, in Canada it is an increase in the "productivity" of order of about 10%, also according to some recent research the Offshoring of materials and services have both a positive and not negligible effect on productivity. When it comes to the repercussion on employment, the majority of empirical studies suggest that the general repercussions of offshoring on the employment levels are low (Amiti and Wei 2005, Mankiw and Swagel 2006). For proof, read the following document: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww150.statcan.gc.ca%2Fn1%2Fpub%2F11f0027m%2F2008055%2Fs6-fra.htm ------ But to be more precise you have to understand more what is happening with multinationals, so read the following to understand more about U.S. multinationals: • The worldwide operations of U.S. multinationals are highly concentrated in America in their U.S. parents, not abroad in their foreign affiliates. The idea that U.S. multinationals have somehow "abandoned" the United States is not supported by the facts. They maintain a large presence in America, both relative to the overall U.S. economy and relative to the size of their foreign affiliates. • International engagement drives the overall strength of U.S. multinational companies. Although the United States is still the world's largest single-country market, in the past generation it has been a slow-growth market compared with much of the world. Even with today's worldwide recession, this means that the overall strength of U.S. multinationals is increasingly tied to their success in both America and abroad. It also means that viewing the domestic and foreign operations of U.S. multinationals as unrelated is increasingly incorrect. U.S. multinationals must make strategic investment and employment decisions from a truly global perspective, with links across all locations and with dynamic variation in successful strategies both across companies at a point in time and within companies over time. • Foreign-affiliate activity tends to complement, not substitute for, key parent activities in the United States such as employment, worker compensation, and capital investment. Being globally engaged requires U.S. multinationals to establish operations abroad and also to expand and integrate these foreign activities with their U.S. parents. The idea that global expansion tends to "hollow out" U.S. operations is incorrect. Rather, the scale and scope of U.S. parent activities increasingly depends on successful engagement abroad. Expansion by U.S. parents and their affiliates contributes to the productivity and average standard of living of all Americans. Read more here: https://www.uscib.org/docs/foundation_multinationals.pdf Read the rest of my previous writing: About populism.. I think the populist upsurge ultimately originates from two major sources: globalization and the rise of left-liberalism. But i think we have to be more aware about Globalization and immigration to know more: And about Trade and Globalization: The Case Against Protection For as long as nations and international trade have existed, people have debated whether a country is better off with free international trade or with protection from foreign competition. The debate continues, but for most economists, a verdict has been delivered, Free trade promotes prosperity for all countries; protection is inefficient. We've seen the most powerful case for free trade—it brings gains for consumers that exceed any losses incurred by producers, so there is a net gain for society. And about globalization.. 1- Globalization has created new opportunities for firms to develop business models and offerings that have a higher intensity of R&D, innovation and capital. Many of the goods and services that have entered the market over the past decades have exactly those features, and without globalization, firms would have been forced to continue with business models that work with a smaller volume of sales. Firms have been able to specialize more than before and, as a consequence, human capital and the share of skilled jobs in the economy have grown remarkably. Today, advanced economies have a greater share of better-paid and better-skilled jobs than ever before. 2- Globalization has increased real wages for people in Western economies by making products cheaper or reducing the pace of price increases. If the typical goods that every household purchases had followed domestic rather than international price developments, consumers would have been poorer and saddled with products of lower quality. 3- Globalization has made significant contributions to productivity growth and, as a consequence, further raised living standards. Globalization has been particularly important for enabling new technology to spread fast across markets. In the long term, it is the speed of technological improvement that sets the pace for how richer societies get. However, trade and investment are not growing fast anymore, and there is much suggesting that the decline in trade and investment growth is one explanation to the failing dynamism of Western economies. While some appreciate the decline in the growth of globalization, those who care about the prosperity of a society should deplore it and make efforts for the world economy to return to high levels of trade growth. Read the following study to know more about globalization: The Economic Benefits of Globalization for Business and Consumers http://ecipe.org/publications/the-economic-benefits-of-globalization-for-business-and-consumers/ And about immigration now: Look at this following video about: Why Does the USA Need More IMMIGRANTS? You will notice that the West "needs" immigrants because they are also good for economic "growth". But please look carefully at the following video to understand more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmRgnDrhE9o And read the following: Why Silicon Valley Wouldn't Work Without Immigrants There are many theories for why immigrants find so much success in tech. Many American-born tech workers point out that there is no shortage of American-born employees to fill the roles at many tech companies. Researchers have found that more than enough students graduate from American colleges to fill available tech jobs. Critics of the industry's friendliness toward immigrants say it comes down to money — that technology companies take advantage of visa programs, like the H-1B system, to get foreign workers at lower prices than they would pay American-born ones. But if that criticism rings true in some parts of the tech industry, it misses the picture among Silicon Valley's top companies. One common misperception of Silicon Valley is that it operates like a factory; in that view, tech companies can hire just about anyone from anywhere in the world to fill a particular role. But today's most ambitious tech companies are not like factories. They're more like athletic teams. |
| 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