Nurseries sound similar to run-till-completion schedulers [0].
> IMO the urge to use both the actor model (and its relative, CSP) in non-distributed systems solely in order to achieve concurrency has been a massive boondoggle
Can't you model any concurrent non-distributed system as a concurrent distributed system?
> Can't you model any concurrent non-distributed system as a concurrent distributed system?
Yes, in the same way that you can give up `for` loops and `while` loops and `if` statements and `switch` statements and instead write them all with `goto`, but you don't do this, and anyone advising you to do this would be written off as insane. The entire thrust of this thread is that you can have a more reliable system that is easier to reason about if you use specific constructs that each have less power, and non-distributed systems have the option to do this. Unstructured concurrency should be reserved exclusively for contexts where structured concurrency is impossible, which is what the actor model is for.
The point I was trying to make is that you can apply the actor model to any system of isolated processes. Whether the isolated processes live on a distributed system of networked computers or on the same computer is an implementation detail. The critical issue is that each actor should own and mutate its own state. Whether all actors run on the same thread or on separate threads is also an implementation detail. For instance, AtomVM is a lightweight implementation of the Beam (actor model) that runs on microcontrollers [0].
> The entire thrust of this thread is that you can have a more reliable system that is easier to reason about if you use specific constructs that each have less power
Easier to reason about, sure, fine. Your earlier comment claims the actor model is a dead end in non-distributed systems.
> Unstructured concurrency should be reserved exclusively for contexts where structured concurrency is impossible, which is what the actor model is for.
Results from my quick search on structured/unstructured concurrency were all references to Swift. Is this a Swift thing? In any case, the issue appears to be more about managing tasks that don't require a preemptive scheduler. As I see it, that issue appears orthogonal to distributed/non-distributed systems.
> Easier to reason about, sure, fine. Your earlier comment claims the actor model is a dead end in non-distributed systems.
If you have two ways of structuring something, and the worse way is so predominant that it obscures even the existence of the better way, that's a dead end in my book. In the pre-structured-programming days when people had to fight tooth and nail to get people to acknowledge the value of `if` and `while` over `goto`, we would have also called `goto` a dead end; it's plain to see that we would be in a worse place today if the structured programming advocates had not managed to convince everyone of its superiority.
> Results from my quick search on structured/unstructured concurrency were all references to Swift. Is this a Swift thing?
I have no idea whether Swift supports it, but no, it's not a Swift thing any more than `while` and `if` are a Python thing. I highly, highly encourage people to read the linked blog post, it will be the best use of your time today.
I read the article you referenced. It's based on, and described wrt, Python's `async with` (so quite a few layers of abstraction), so I can't say with certainty how it's implemented. But, as I noted earlier, it isn't really that different from a run-till-completion task scheduler and is not particularly novel or interesting, imo.
Don’t Erlang/Elixir model all concurrency as actors, to some level of success. I was under the impression that it allows for quite a bit of deployment flexibility. Actors are addressed in the same way whether they’re on the same machine or not.
yes, to huge levels of success. It's not clear what kibwen is going on about, but local + remote actor concurrency transparency, while not without its complications, comes with massive development and deployment wins.
There's limited coverage of all global conflicts, certainly in American media, but quite likely in other Western media.
> What explains the silence from activists outside Iran on this particular issue?
What explains the silence from the media on all other conflicts. It's certainly not because lives are not being destroyed in Sudan [1] and Myanmar [2].
> Bags seems to me to be offering crypto-airdrop-pump-and-dumps-as-a-service, where niche celebrities can turn their status as respected community figures into cold hard cash. The people who pay into this are either taken in by the pretense that they’re sponsoring open-source work (in a way orders of magnitude less efficient than just donating money directly), or by the hope that they’re going to win big when the coin goes “to the moon” (which effectively never happens).
Honestly, I think the first category is somewhere between "microscopic" and "nonexistent", but most people in the second category will end up holding the bag when this thing inevitably collapses.
> The people who pay into this are either taken in by the pretense that they’re sponsoring open-source work
> Honestly, I think the first category is somewhere between "microscopic" and "nonexistent", but most people in the second category will end up holding the bag when this thing inevitably collapses.
I agree. There may be folks willing to support open-source software via a crypto-friendly vehicle, but most involved in this are hoping to make money on a pump and not get left holding the bag.
Everyone involved in this scheme is fully aware of the game being played (or should be) and the risks involved. The notion that "crypto grifters" are corrupting naive open-source developers just strikes me as an odd way to describe such activity.
I don’t have a news app. That was a maybe too subtle bit of sarcasm aimed at the guy I was responding too who is apparently the creator of a news app called Particle, and who mentioned that he is following the news of these deaths on Particle without mentioning his connection to it.
Update: Looks like the parent post has been flagged. I thought that might happen (or the author might edit it) which is why I quoted the original.
I'm not saying Car-T doesn't work for certain diseases, more that it's too complex and too expensive to operationalize and unsustainable to bring to mass-market. It may prove successful as a one-off for individual rich single-payer patients but cell therapy companies fail left and right because they repeatedly can't operationalize the treatment into a sustainable business model. It has promising data and potential for transformational results, sure just too many challenges exist thus far for anyone to demonstrate durability bringing an actual treatment to market without major technological and economic advancements. The infrastructure & manufacturing is too intense, it's just not a scalable business.
As an engineer, I can confirm that this AI (if it works well) would compress the prototyping stage significantly, resulting in a better product at reduced cost.
> also coming up with the plausible load paths and deciding on the geometry of the parts according to the actual loads
> IMO the urge to use both the actor model (and its relative, CSP) in non-distributed systems solely in order to achieve concurrency has been a massive boondoggle
Can't you model any concurrent non-distributed system as a concurrent distributed system?
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-to-completion_scheduling