I am fundamentally against spyware that constantly monitors you and reports anything. Because of the constant and pre crime nature of it.
On the other hand i am actually not fundamentally against turning over data when independent judges sign a warrant.
This is arguably a very tight rope to walk but i think thats the most realistic comporomise between my right to privacy and the right of others to get justice when something is done onto them.
Perhaps you may not remember the US government's tendency to invade privacy for suspicious reasons (that is, at the very least extra-legal and sometimes downright unconstitutional).
You mentioned a warrant. I do not believe that has been a required threshold.
I am not American so my lense may be a different one.
What I am coming from is basically an extension of the German Laws that Govern the Mail Secret (Briefgeheimnis) which actually is constitutionally enshrined in the German constitution.
But has notable exceptions that can be made uppon federal law. The burden for these is supposed to be pretty high.
I think this should not happen willy nilly. And if thats the case in the US I am obviously against it.
It is a complex multi layered subject because it has to weigh the rights of multiple people against each other.
forkrun complements things like SLURM (and even MPI). forkrun is intra-node, and is all about utilizing all the resources any given node as efficiently as possible, including when the node has a deep NUMA topology (e.g., it's EPYC-based). This allows SLURM and MPI to focus on inter-node work distribution and coordinating who gets to run things on which node and things like that.
tl;dr: forkrun takes over the "last mile" of actually running things on a given single node, so SLURM can focus on what it does best: efficiently allocating and distributing work to different nodes across the cluster.
> If you play a single round of Russian roulette with a revolver, it is likely you will not die, but it is also not safe to do that. The same idea applies here.
Fundamentally space travel is not save, it cannot be (atleast at our Technological level) Space is unimaginably hostile to life. We cannot reduce this danger to zero.
This is (no offense) intellectually dishonest. Nobody wants the risk to be zero. What we want is that, if there is a specific KNOWN flaw in a life-critical system, that the flaw is addressed and the shuttle re-tested before humans are placed in it.
There's no good reason not to do this, except as a lazy cost-cutting measure (and, presumably, under time pressure to perform the eventual moon landing mission within the timeframe of Trump's presidency).
I remember back when I lived in Berlin and studied planetary Science there. One of the Professors calculated and predicted where one of those Meteors is gonna go down. So people went there and watched and photographed it. Afterwards there was a little bit of an all hands on deck where a lot of students with different Professors went out and searched for the remains of the meteorite.
Wait a second. They predicted (before it even entered atmosphere) where it was coming down with such a precision that you could not just go out and photograph it, but even go and collect remains? I thought this was barely possible if you have a radar that is actively tracking it through the last stages of the atmosphere, while for anything still in orbit you'd be lucky to guess the correct country.
The things in earth orbit have a very small angle of entry. I'd expect that if the angle is bigger, the deflection from the atmosphere would be smaller (if it survives the hit).
I still have never seen any prediction like that which was made before the thing actually entered the atmosphere. You can see how some known remains sites were determined by clicking on them in this map: https://www.strewnify.com/map/
They predicted the angle and where you could view it from. Finding the fragments much more difficult because it scattered into tiny pieces all over. The students searched for like 2 weeks to find a some pieces the size of a thumb.
reply