They mention that this is using a polling architecture so each core is using 100% cpu even when idle. I've worked on high performance systems architected around polling before, but assumed that would be prohibitively costly these days now that cpu's have really advanced power management capabilities. Is polling architecture still viable for large scale cloud computing given costs of energy consumption? Years ago cpu's used a flat amount of power regardless of cpu utilization but now those extra cycles cost watts and of course money.
Perhaps such a server could be integrated in a way such that it spins up during high load scenarios and back down when the load is no longer sufficient to keep it saturated? If that were possible, then overall efficiency could still be higher than using only servers with better idle power usage characteristics since it could potentially save you from having to deploy n times as many normal servers.
Sounds awesome but I wouldn't look at something like this (which is awesome btw) unless I was expecting it be under massive sustained load.
For everything else I'd just use Python or PHP as they are mostly fast enough.
I am planning to write a framework in Rust when I have the time though as I find it an interesting language and as a web dev it's my area, I'll definitely be looking at how you approached stuff ;).
Cool, it would be an interesting design to see something with polling and perhaps different gears for lower load levels. BTW, the system with polling architecture that I mentioned I worked on is still in production and selling well(I hear).
If you think about how much carnage has been caused by the fact that we can in fact pass unconstitutional laws and then it takes decades of work to strike them down due to the bottleneck we have in our court system (supreme court). Would be much better to not pass the obviously unconstitutional laws and let the courts handle complicated exceptions that were not caught.
I really don't understand why people like you insist on this completely useless semantic argument. It's almost as pointless as debating the merits of parliamentarianism versus presidentalism.
I think what we really need is ConstitutionalRepublicOS which would be a bit more complicated. But by defining strong constitutional invariants with regard to individual rights perhaps we could pre-strikedown unconstitutional laws before they are enacted. That would require a more precise legal language that let's you run some kind of static analysis against against the laws however.
maybe we could think about a two-tier system were we delegate only decisions that should be taken our of the hands of majority and to the citizens the huge number of decisions that we can make that affect our every-day lives. I think the only way for citizens to be responsible for the decisions we make is by start making them. We've outsourced decision-making for a far too long time.
I do think some of the divisive issues that are taken up often end up cloaking other matters that should be focused upon. Perhaps with strong enough invariants and a pre enactment filter it would much harder to use divisive social issues politically. Maybe we could replace polls with votes on some things and have better recall mechanics too. I think a lot of the dysfunction is due to the fact we can and have passed radically unconstitutional laws in the past to great detriment to the entire population.
I find the alignment system interesting and conducive to working on your role playing. But if you don't want to be role playing in a straight jacket I would pick chaotic neutral :)
Seriously though, few role-playing games have an alignment system, especially the ones that promote themselves as being more about roleplay than levelling.
I remember one story about a guy whose group played 'evil' D&D characters, and one of them pointed out that what their characters were doing was 'naughty', but not actually 'evil'. So they tried out playing actual 'evil' characters. I can't remember all the examples he gave, but one of their plots was the kidnapping and raping of a princess. He said that campaign didn't last very long and his group found it pretty disturbing. I guess the point of this anecdote is that a lot of evil characters get played that aren't really 'evil' or close to it.
Alignment systems might help roleplaying neophytes, but if you've been around the block once or twice, they really are quite limiting. Is that noble warrior 'good' because he works tirelessly and selflessly to promote the cause of his kindred? Is he 'evil' because he knowingly and tirelessly oppresses others to do so? Is he 'neutral' because he can't be placed unequivocably in either camp? Why not just let him be a complex character on his own?
Well that's why I suggested chaotic neutral as an alignment for your requirement. I think this would work well for your goals. It can be fun & challenging to play other alignments too however. Like an alignment that least resembles yourself or your natural personal tendencies.
Have a look.
A Chaotic Neutral character is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions.[citation needed] Although Chaotic Neutral characters promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first; good and evil come second to their need to be free. Chaotic Neutrals are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; it may have a specific goal in mind, but its methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.[citation needed] If a Chaotic Neutral joins a team, it is because that team's goals happen to coincide with its own at the moment, but it invariably resents taking orders and can be very selfish in its pursuit of personal goals.
A subset of Chaotic Neutral is: "strongly Chaotic Neutral", describing a character who behaves chaotically to the point of appearing insane. Characters of this type may regularly change their appearance and attitudes for the sake of change, and intentionally disrupt organizations for the sole reason of disrupting a lawful institution.[citation needed] This includes the Xaositects from the Planescape setting, and Hennet from the third edition Player's Handbook. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Chaotic Neutral was mistakenly assumed to refer to this subset.
