Monday, March 16, 2015

Functional vs Object-Oriented Programming

Long ago I said that functional and OO were opposites in a way and I pointed to the fact that functional is verb-oriented whereas OO is noun oriented. Well today I have discovered the relation they have to each other. Functional is a gutless paradigm and OO is total.

They have the exact same relation to each other as deontology vs consequentialism, and for the exact same reason. Deontology is obsessed with obeying rules about actions regardless of consquence (state) and regardless of context, even when those rules appear blatantly insane and the consequences are insufferable. The question is WHY? Why would anyone do such a thing?

Obviously, deontology was invented by gutless people to deal with a universe they can't bring themselves to even comprehend. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The mantra of the gutless insane fuck. These people make up rules to deal with the universe and then they ... *hope for the best*. Even when they're facing the very worst, when they're facing an immoral unjust crazy and evil universe. Even in such a situation, they blind their eyes to the truth and hope for the best.

If you're going to blind and deafen and mute yourself to the actual state of the universe (state, get it?) then you have to blind and deafen and mute yourself to any consequences of your actions (future state). And while you're at it, you might as well blind and deafen and mute yourself to ALL state, because state is painful, isn't that right? If you have no coherent notion of state then you can't USE state (or nouns) in your methodology. You must resort in referential transparency (and verbs) as a last ditch method, no matter how insane it is.

The opposite of deontology is consequentialism. Consequentialism is about NOT blinding yourself to the actual state of the universe, be it so harsh or vile or nauseating or evil. Consequentialism is about understanding the state of the fucking universe, no matter how disgusting it may be, because only then can you ameliorate it. Only then can you make it less bad. Only then can you make it LESS harsh, LESS vile, LESS nauseating, and LESS evil. Consequentialism is about lessening badness.

And object-orientation? Is about understanding fucking reality. Especially, understanding the fact we live in a STATEFUL universe. A universe where objects clobber their past versions, where objects have side-effects, and where objects clobber other objects. THAT ... is ... THE UNIVERSE. Object-orientation is about fucking reality, and functional programming is about ... being gutless and weak and living in a fucking never never fairyland full of sugar plums and fairies.

Functional programming is despicable.

And logic programming.

And declarative programming.

Inferior tools for emotionally inferior minds.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Manners, Politeness, Chivalry And Grace Are Despicable

First of all, what are they about? They're all about weakness. How to be weak, when you have to deal with people you hate, loathe, despise, scorn and feel utter contempt for, and can't do anything about. When you hate people but can't kill them, can't slap them, can't cut up their faces, and can't even walk away but must grin and bear it.

Now, civility I respect. Civility allows you to stare at someone frostily and stonily, to tell them clearly (if they aren't mindless) that you loathe their guts and would glady kill them, but you won't because you can't. Same for professionalism which allows you to glare at someone hatefully but still do your job (and keep your job) serving them (unfortunately).

But manners? Manners are the arbitrary rules your momma taught you. Why do you follow them? Because your momma said so. Manners are the rules you follow because you LIKE being weak. Because you're mentally stuck in your childhood, infancy and adolescence. Because you're a neurotic basketcase. Manners are arbitrary, petty and don't make sense, so are despicable.

Now, manners are petty and stupid and completely arbitrary. and politeness is about sucking up and sycophancy just in case whoever you're dealing with is bigger and meaner than you and might take offense and squash you like a bug. But grace? That's about being physically weak.

Instead of making strong deliberate movements, you make weak movements that absolutely optimize and minimize effort as if you were diseased. Yeah, that sends a wonderful image! It's incomprehensible to me that this is popular! Gracefulness is egregiously despicable. And the horrifying thing is that it is NOT in fact MOST despicable.

What is most despicable? Chivalry and gentlemanliness! But first, what are they, for those few people who are mercifully ignorant of them?

Stereotypically, a gentleman would lay his coat on the muddy street so a lady wouldn't step on the mud. rather than walking around it or carrying her. WTF? And also he would walk on the side nearest the road so that if anyone died it would be him because men are expendable, always. And this is with ANY woman, even the vilest bitchiest queen of bitches. Because women are "ladies".

Chivalry is not merely cherishing archaicisms like fedora-tipping and miladying everywhere you go. Arbitrary contemptible ossified crap from bygone ages. Chivalry is about being DESTROYED. It's about being WEAK and deciding to be destroyed. Your coat gets destroyed, your life gets destroyed too since you duel for petty "honor". The question which chivalry answers is when and where should your life be destroyed.

Savoir-vivre is about living well. Chivalry and gentlemanliness are about "dying well". The only difference is the chivalrous man runs towards danger while the gentleman runs away from it. And that's why it's worse than manners and worse than politeness. Fucktarded neckbeards can keep their chivalry because anyone with a brain can tell it's cringeworthy.

Yes, chivalry dovetails into martyrdom and castration and self-sacrifice, all of which are utterly vile and loathsome, and really should be capital crimes. No error here, martyrs should be prevented from martyring themselves then killed for attempting it. But chivalry has a particular loathsome stench to it made all the more repugnant by people being blind to it.

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

How Yoga, Homeopathy and Alchemy Make Sense

The personality type that goes for homeopathy, naturopathy, yoga, zen and alchemy is not merely "magical thinkers" and is not merely people utterly incapable of logic or any semblance of a concern for truth. It's far, far more specific than that.

The underpinnings of the Gaian personality type are all about trade and interaction and continuity. If you put two things together then they MUST interact and they MUST have a lasting imprint on each other (mutual contamination) due to continuity. And two things brought together are always together, which is of course one of the laws of magic.

Hell, alchemy is trading off the properties of X for the properties of Y. Want green steel? Mix in copper because it's green, or mix in leaves because they're green, or mix in green dye ... water + metal = mercury! Alchemy is magical dissociation and reassociation, nothing more. Elixir of life is made from liquid gold because gold doesn't corrode but lasts.

By ingesting liquid gold, you ingest the property of not corroding and lasting, rendering you immortal! The same way that if you ingest fat then you become fat, if you ingest meat then you become a muscleman and if you ingest sugar you become a chocolate covered waffle. You eat natural things because you want to be natural, thus ingesting the naturalness.

Now, homeopathy works by taking a poison that mimics the disease you have then diluting OUT the poison until it's non-existent. then by magical association (ie, mutual contamination) it follows that what you have left is an ANTI-poison, and this perfectly shaped anti-poison will cure you of whatever you had to begin with. Simple and oh so comprehensible.

What is yoga? It's breathing exercises for long life. Why? Because living things breathe so by practicing breathing you're making yourself better able to able to breathe which means you're able to live longer. If you could practice heartbeats, yoga would be about that. Instead, it's about "not wasting" heartbeats by lowering your heart rate. It's all about trade.

Incidentally, Gaians are also sensualists and also pro-poverty. This combines in the bizareness of "no-food dinners" where insane nutters prepare dinner then waft the smells around so they can comment on its deliciousness, then NOT eat it but continue starving. Low-calorie, don't you know?

Personally, the only pathy I believe in is telepathy. Also cyberpathy in Elf Sternberg's sense of someone who has an intuitive magical understanding of technology. I also believe in magic, but this is not enough. And I also believe in one golden glance of what should be. It's a kind of magic.

Magic? Magic!

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

No Interfaces Worthy Of The Name

Between self-sufficient concepts such as cars or Class Car on the one hand and large scale models on the other hand, there are interfaces. Not interactions or relationships but interfaces. The problem is that the software industry is extremely impoverished in those and as a result, dealing with it is excruciating torture to me. Because interfaces are what I'm best at and what I love. MVC is a good example of interfaces which are debilitatingly painful to me due to being hopelessly broken and low-level.

Think about it and think about how many concepts there are for large scale structure. Some patterns, architectures, frameworks, libraries, that's 4 categories already. Then how many concepts there are for small scale self-sufficient structure, probably hundreds of the latter. And then how many concepts there are for interfaces that one would be willing to use (so command and instruction and function don't count).

Events? But events are broken and not first class, so they aren't real. Object-capabilities? Disgustingly low level and broken. Object, maybe but that counts as small-scale structure really, or non-interface even. So there's message passing, inheritance, polymorphism? that one doesn't count. delegation. cloning vs instantiating, subclassing. Oh yes, aspects vs crosscutting, those are nice. Agents? Not really. Actors? Hmm maybe, maybe not. Probably not. Meh, probably yes but the problem is I just don't give a damn since it's about distribution and concurrency.

So there's no first class events, there's no first class dependencies, aspects aren't in any language I know. Transformational programming seemed in its infancy when I first heard about it, and I've never heard anyone ever ever mention it since then. Namespaces suck rocks so they're broken. Naked Objects? Oh yeah there's some guy who implemented it as a library or framework in Java, that's good for him honestly but doesn't count. Especially with the implementation being so kitsch and primitive rather than thorough and comprehensive. I mean, where's the IDE using naked objects? Nowhere.

There's remote message sends and proxy object, doesNotUnderstand: NullObject, those are another 4 interface concepts. So that makes what? 10? An even dozen? Twenty? It doesn't matter how many there are because here's the sick thing, they're enumerable. and they're not categories of things either, they're discrete instances of interfaces.

The software world forms an uncanny valley type field to me. There's large scale structure and then there's small scale structure and there's no bridges between them.

I don't think I'm the only one who loathes debugging or reverse-engineering with a passion. But I do think I'm the only one who understands why. The tools are worthless because the concepts to even minimally support asking "where did this bug come from?" and "how do I use this?" don't exist in software.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Conversation On Secure Multiplexing

I drew some insights into the execution stack from TUNES. More of them than the whole exokernel thing.

Main and only insight from exokernel was that secure multiplexing is independent of abstraction. You can have ONLY secure multiplexing enabling you to present something that looks exactly like the bare resource you're multiplexing. That insight fueled Xen and other hyper-virtualization things.

The only problem with it is it's a lie. Secure multiplexing is an abstraction by itself. You run into the limitations of the abstraction if you push it, exposing the underlayer's existence, at which point the abstraction starts to fray and reveal its nature. For example, that there ARE other OSes running on top of the hypervisor because there's "missing time". and then it becomes obvious that hiding each other and not permitting any way to cooperate or interact is a choice of abstraction.

Joe B: fuck, I comprehend nothing

Okay, say you've got a CPU. now the traditional way to multiplex (slice and share it) is with a scheduler. Problem is that OS schedulers look nothing like CPUs, they're higher level. What people managing a cloud want ideally is to present CPUs, bare and naked, and tell everyone to fuck off because hey there's your CPU, your problem.

Now they don't want those CPUs to be REAL CPUs because that's not scalable. But they also don't want them to interact, so one asshole customer can't bring the whole business crawling to its knees. They want no-stick teflon quarantine isolation from each other. better than quarantine, they want everyone stuck in their own reality with no way to guess that they're stuck in a virtual reality.

multiplexing = slicing and sharing
secure multiplexing = teflon nostick compartmentalized quarantined isolated slicing and sharing

If you're a bank, you give out gold. but you want to give out virtual gold tokens that function just like actual gold. and you want to give out as much as people will buy without collapsing your business. You don't want to give out REAL gold because most of it's just going to sit in people's homes unused rather than being consumed in jewelry and electronics. And if people are only going to trade them then they only need to be pseudo-real enough for the purposes of trading. The virtual gold tokens need to look and feel real when they're being tested by a buyer, and at no other time, which is money.

Any questions? Or is this too primitive?

Joe B: no, this is perfect

Well, the exokernel folk tried to pull the same stunt as gold => money but with CPU+memory or in general 'comp hardware'. the only problem is that nobody pretends that money ACTUALLY IS gold. nobody tries to melt money down to make jewelry. nobody tries to electroplate anything with it.  so what these guys were doing is ... debasing.

They were debasing CPU+memory+hardware and saying "it's just as good as the real thing!!" and the problem with that is inevitably they'd run into someone trying to treat it EXACTLY like the real thing (ie, someone who bought into the propaganda) and then they try to use the debased gold to electroplate something ... and feel gypped because it doesn't work.

So with exokernel, if you have a really high load on the CPU, many operating systems, you come to have missing time. and the whole mockery of it being teflon and no-stick comes crashing down. Now it's not a problem if admins in the cloud-providers keep a watch on resource utilization and add more physical computers in time ... but those admins can't pretend to themselves that it's JUST AS GOOD AS real physical computers.

And if you're going to have something that's intrinsically different from physical computers, then why not do away with some of the problems of it? So the exokernel folk's attitude that their project was somehow purer and better than everything else is just a lie.

What does the Unix scheduler provide as an execution abstraction? It provides processes. C processes to be specific. GemStone provides Smalltalk processes or smalltalk images even. The C processes *ARE* images, they're just dumb as fuck images ...

So what is the exokernel lesson? The REAL lesson? At any time, at any point in the stack of abstractions, you can insert a circular loop from a node (layer) to itself, presenting a facsimile of that layer higher up. And if you understand that then the whole exokernel project is revealed as limited in scope because it was providing ONE such circular loop among the one to two dozen layers of abstraction found in a typical operating system.

Joe B: what is this layer, and how does it loop on itself? is it the physical computer, which loops by resources being added to it?

It's any layer. you can take ANY layer and make it loop in on itself. the loop forms a layer.

Say you've got a harddisk. it presents blocks. So you can partition it and now you have four hard disks which also present blocks. And if you're smart you can make those partitions flexible.

Say you've got a monitor with 1 framebuffer. well, you can partition the monitor and present multiple framebuffers. and those are now called windows. Or you can have multiple monitors present as one framebuffer.

You generally need some OTHER resource mixed in with the first one in order to fake the first resource.

gold + paper = paper money

If you could completely supplant the underlying resource, you would do away with it and it would be called a change of technology.

TCP allows how many different sockets? That all run over a single physical copper wire. The phone company uses multiplexing to provide virtual circuits instead of real circuits.

Richard: you got what I said about OSI, right? about how SOCKS is just a circular loop of a layer?
Joe B: oh yes. I got the words, not the concept. I'd have to learn the OSI model first.
Richard: SOCKS provides a sideband and extension to the layer below but it really does nothing else. Much like barebones secure multiplexing provides a sideband, although the exokernel tried to pretend the sideband didn't exist.

application layer (protocols used by applications, supposedly close to humans)
transport layer (virtual circuits)
data layer (packets)
link layer (0s and 1s to the next computer)
physical layer (physical connectors, physical cables, electrical voltages, radio frequencies)

Joe B: okay, that makes sense

In the fibersphere model, there are no packets and the virtual circuits are pretty close to real circuits so they're fused in with the link layer. Too bad we have no fibersphere because it might have been resistant to wiretapping. since you'd need to own a substantial fraction of the world's computing resources to wiretap everybody. Not even to interpret or do analysis, JUST to wiretap.

So, the OSI's model provided two additional layers to the above, and both of them were sidebands off of the application layer and the transport layer. SOCKS takes virtual circuits and provides ... virtual circuits. + some proxying and crypto. The so-called presentation layer took in application stuff and provided ... different application stuff. MIME took text and provided images, both of them being application layer.

The fact these two layers were BESIDE the application and transport layers really confused the dumbasses that made OSI, which means moralists since this was a standard, they thought since SOCKS takes in virtual circuits we'll just ignore that it provides virtual circuits, we'll focus on the other stuff it provides and call it a higher layer. And as for the presentation layer, since there's nothing closer to humans than applications, by definition, then by stupidity it follows presentation must be below applications and let's ignore the facts to the contrary.

Joe B: yeah, I stalled at trying to distinguish application from presentation

An email is an application object. the application layer provides for emails. Well, MIME took emails and provided images and that's exactly how gmail attachments work. They just hide the MIME, as they should have in the past but didn't.

Basically, those two layers are extensions of an existing layer rather than separate layers in themselves. Extensions which aren't accepted enough to be considered part of the same layer. Or weren't at the time that OSI was made. Hence the service and presentation layers belong on the same level as transport and application ... just besides them.

Joe B: so… a loop layer is one that can take in the same entities that it can provide?

It's basically a type of extension of the layer. It's aware of the other layer and the other layer isn't aware of it.

Joe B: hmmm

Joe B: is this design, or is this analysis? well it's both. it's awesome, lol.

It's the kind of high level analysis that fuels systems design, and NOT normal design. It's part of the majestic overlayer that has been until now entirely missing. This is lesson 4?

  • definitions / thinking
  • manipulating datasets
  • injecting values

Friday, December 26, 2014

Spacetime, Energy, Bits

Most of these I ran across in just that form ... I just accumulated insights I ran across (being able to recognize them as insights, something most people are utterly incapable of) until at some point I went beyond what anyone had thought of.

  1. spacetime exists, energy exists, both are mysterious
  2. we see space because it actually exists and our brains decompose it that way
  3. information / entropy exists, information / entropy is NOT spacetime OR energy
  4. information / entropy is JUST AS fundamental as spacetime and energy, despite physicists' lack of any grasp of this
  5. energy CARRIES information / entropy
  6. the universe is MATH, the only thing that distinguishes pure math from physics is "physicality" which is probably this mysterious arbitrary substance energy cause there sure as fuck are bits and dimensions in math
  7. math + time = computation
  8. the holographic principle says that any N-dimensional non-local theory is equivalent to an N+1 dimensional local theory
  9. time is just the dimension along which information / entropy is conserved
  10. information vs entropy are higher order related to values / loops and at lower order there is simply bits

Local means that bits can only interact with nearby bits. Non-local means that ANY bit can interact instantly with EVERY other bit in the whole universe.

So time is just local space + weird interaction with information. Local space is just a way we have of organizing information as "nearby" other information by moving up one dimension above what actually exists (so if 1D your brain moves up to 2D, if 3D your brain moves up to 4D). And non-local space seems very weird but also exceedingly abstract, however it's also exceedingly simple: it's the bulk effects of information. And of course Information is just bits
your mind likes. And energy is just ... your perception of math from the inside of math, the quality of existing in THIS branch of math - in logic it's the predicate "exists".

It's all incredibly simple if you understand each of those individual concepts, these are just their interrelations. What's missing is the meanings of life, mind (derived: intelligence, soul), entropy, chaos, order, energy, representation and how these interrelate. But to clearly explain those you need to understand values and loops, and those I haven't cracked yet.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

There Are Two Kinds of People

Those who say there are two kinds of people and those who don't. The former are all sociopaths.

Then there's the people who say "we all". It doesn't matter whether it's "we're all in this together", or "we're all the same" or "we're all different". Retards, every single last one of them.

And then there's people who say "there are 197 different kinds of people as of last count" or "there are 21 different kinds of people in the Personality Description Language".

And those are the people who say it not because it's in some book or some fellow retard told them so, but because it's the truth. Which means, they're the people you will never trust.

Everyone is much more interested in what the sociopaths have to say.