Programming in the Apocalypse • Hacker News Board

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#41

Post by giamma » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

"Based on this I felt like some of the big winners in 2050 will be Rust, Clojure and Go. They mostly nail these criteria and are well-designed for not relying on containers or other similar technology for basic testing and feature implementation. They are also (reasonably) tolerant of spotty internet presuming the environment has been set up ahead of time."

Why is Clojure better then Java when it's a JVM language as well? It uses Java artefacts (Maven) so how is it more tolerant than Java of a spotty internet? Scala, Clojure, Java, Groovy should all rate pretty much the same or am I missing something?

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#42

Post by Gunax » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:43 PM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #15

There are two better explanations than the Great Filter: - Dark Forest theory is popular in China, that civilizations should conceal their existence to prevent being destroyed by a more advanced civilization - Our own high power TV and Radio transmitters will be shutdown soon in favor of fiber optics. Even better communication mechanisms should be no surprise

When dealing with unknown unknowns any theory can be logical.

Maybe extra-terrestrials are more like lumberjacks chopping down trees. Except these lumber jacks avoid *any tree with a bird's nest in it*. Then, we should be as visible as possible.

So should we be quiet (ala Dark Forest), or loud? Depends on how you model extra-terrestrials.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#43

Post by jcoq » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:43 PM UTC

sinenomine wrote: post #2

Ctrl+F geoengineering: 0 hits Come on, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_geoengineering it entered mainstream just recently: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-ge... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/26/planet... https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/09/615/what-is-geoe... By now one question should remain: why was the very idea of geoengineering silenced for decades behin…

Climate change has turned into a sort of quasi-religious moral issue that blends with other issues of our day.

The thinking goes that, if only we could become pure and stop partaking in the evils of consumer capitalism, we might appease a hidden power and be saved from a myriad of bogeyman such as climate change.

This mindset fails to reasonably consider the certainty and enormity of the threat. Organized civilization is likely to end. Billions will die and we might very well become extinct.

The problem must be attacked with the full force of human intellect. It's so damn obvious that "wait for everyone to become super duper conscientious" is a fool's plan.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#44

Post by mcculley » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

skyfaller wrote: post #16

I agree that we need to plan for climate adaptation (preparing for predictable problems) and resilience (preparing for unpredictable problems), but I have a few kneejerk responses: - Although it's looking increasingly unlikely that we can avert climate disaster, we can never give up. For example, 8 degrees of warming would be much worse than 4 degrees of warming, and could mean the difference between human extinction…

> human extinction and the mere collapse of our civilization

How do you imagine human extinction being an outcome? It seems to me that the worst case scenario is large loss of population which would decrease greenhouse gas output. There would still be some increase in temperature even once we stop emitting, but wouldn't people in colder climates still survive?

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#45

Post by nynx » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:47 PM UTC

It’s nice to submit to call of civilizational collapse every once in a while, but it’s not a realistic view. Yes, climate change is going to affect billions of people, but from what I can tell, things are moving in the right direction and we’re on track to avoid the worst even with barely any political action.

If it was suddenly 2050 and none of our technology had improved, we’d be fucked. But it’s not a useful perspective to assume that technological progression will stop. Solar panels have dropped in price by literal orders of magnitude. It seems like nuclear is coming back into vogue. Space-based power seems like it might be economically viable in a few decades, even.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#46

Post by krona » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:48 PM UTC

The article seems to be using an inaccurate visualisation of a model (RCP8.5) which is now 'no longer plausible'[0].

RCP8.5 was considered the 'worst-case' scenario and projected 3.3 to 5.7 in 2100, not 2050 as the graphic shows.

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51281986

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#47

Post by poulpy123 » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:49 PM UTC

snikeris wrote: post #30

kossTKR wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! I've always had an intuitive feeling that theories like The Great Filter theory was a pretty arrogant simplification of "actual reality" beyond our narrow biological lenses and even narrower western definition of "life" or even spatial dimensions and time. Just because some western scientist with only 350+ years of somewhat advanced tools, math and imagination can't see "something" doesn't mean something…

The Drake equation handles that case: fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

The drake equation handle nothing, because all parameters are pure speculation

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#48

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

realo wrote: post #34

sinenomine wrote: post #2

Ctrl+F geoengineering: 0 hits Come on, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_geoengineering it entered mainstream just recently: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-ge... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/26/planet... https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/09/615/what-is-geoe... By now one question should remain: why was the very idea of geoengineering silenced for decades behin…

Well… IMHO trying to solve our climate change issues with geoengineering seems similar to the USA trying solve their gun issues by putting even more guns in circulation. Does not fix the root causes and I don’t see how it can work long-term.

And that's an entirely reasonable stance that as far as I can tell is the consensus among climate researchers. But it logically implies that the narrative of climate apocalypse is not true - that nature is capable of self-balancing within the parameters industrial civilization throws at it, and that our current climate trajectory is mild enough that it's not worth pursuing some potential solutions if their side effects look too serious.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#49

Post by paulbaumgart » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

nynx wrote: post #45

It’s nice to submit to call of civilizational collapse every once in a while, but it’s not a realistic view. Yes, climate change is going to affect billions of people, but from what I can tell, things are moving in the right direction and we’re on track to avoid the worst even with barely any political action. If it was suddenly 2050 and none of our technology had improved, we’d be fucked. But it’s not a useful persp…

Yep. For anyone curious to learn more, here’s a good summary of this energy technology transition: https://www.tsungxu.com/clean-energy-transition-guide/

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#50

Post by throwaway4aday » Mon, May 30, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

kossTKR wrote: post #22

paulsutter wrote: post #15

There are two better explanations than the Great Filter: - Dark Forest theory is popular in China, that civilizations should conceal their existence to prevent being destroyed by a more advanced civilization - Our own high power TV and Radio transmitters will be shutdown soon in favor of fiber optics. Even better communication mechanisms should be no surprise

Interesting! I've always had an intuitive feeling that theories like The Great Filter theory was a pretty arrogant simplification of "actual reality" beyond our narrow biological lenses and even narrower western definition of "life" or even spatial dimensions and time. Just because some western scientist with only 350+ years of somewhat advanced tools, math and imagination can't see "something" doesn't mean something…

I tend to agree, I don't think we have a good grasp on what life will be like in 50 years let alone 1000 or 10,000. My personal guesses are that we will continue to make improvements in efficiency and so will produce very little leakage of communications or even heat making us nearly invisible over vast distances. Sociologically, I think we'll be very different; population growth may approach 0 while lifespan increases dramatically so we'll continue to explore the universe but will do so remotely since we just won't have the numbers to physically colonize other star systems. Even the timescale on which we live may change drastically, perception of time isn't even fixed when it comes to biology there are other species that have much faster or slower perception of time and once we being to modify our biology and augment it by integrating with digital systems we'll be able to control that sense. Who can predict what other technological advances are on the horizon, for all we know alien probes or other technology could be as small as bacteria and might just be distributed through space as vast networks of dust clouds that harvest ambient chemical and solar energy and have transmission ranges measured in micrometers. How would we even detect such technology without physically going there and examining it up close?