Never underestimate the amount of people that just go where the wind blows

You seem to misunderstand the concept of countable infinity

Haha oh you're right, was misframing in my head the word countable as meaning finite.

I even provide the definition of countable infinity in my counterargument without realising it, though maybe that too is a misunderstanding.

That's kinda the whole point, but noone is framing that situation as the problem. They would rather think that homeless people are innately inferior and thus deserve to suffer, rather than victims of circumstance in one way or another.

No one is framing it that way because it misses the nuance of these homeless peoples individual issues and how we might actually treat them. When people complain about homeless people in their neighborhood, they aren’t talking about the invisible homeless who are only homeless due to economic circumstance and might be couch surfing or living in their car. They are talking almost exclusively about the most visible population of homeless people, those who have severe mental health or drug addictions and need in patient services for potentially all their life.

> but noone is framing that situation as the problem.

I think yimbys are framing that situation as THE problem.

I meant here, though I think there is also tendency in general

As a side note I think the state of current discourse has shown that anything other than concrete language presents too much opportunity to talk past each other. So I don't think talking about yimbys is specific enough (and its too tempting to strawman). Same for magas and libs, they are broad labels for a broad spectrum of people

So, what do we talk about then? Humans are pretty bad at multitasking so when speaking generally to a public you want to focus on one issue at a time.

I'm saying be more specific not less

It never changed from the single-income household era. And people wonder why the high street is dying.

If you are competing for resources with billionaires, who's taxes also go down, you are losing money.

By that logic I am better off with lower taxes, since the government is a trillionare and moving the money to billionares is progressive.

The government is accountable (in theory). The government is a different kind of entity with different behaviour to a single human, or even a corporation. Your argument is a semantic one and was not made in good faith I think...

But if the government acted more selfishly , like a corporation (it's heading that way), then yes you are also competing with the government in certain areas. It partly depends if the billionaires in question and your semi-fictional idea of government are colluding directly. In which case you would be competing with a n-trillion dollars of capital for things like housing, some of which is controlled by billionaire beneficiaries. Essentially government monopolies are what you might be worried about, which do exist.

In reality the government also spends some of its money on infrastructure and other common-goods, which creates common wealth. The government (with central banks) also creates money so the idea of direct competition (which makes no sense to me outside of something like sovereignty over large amounts of land / mineral wealth / taxable subjects ) isn't so relevant.

Compute shaders from a high-level pipeline perspective. How data moves from CPU and between shaders to accomplish a task.

Is it possible to use BQN in a high performance context? How much overhead does the runtime, and FFI have? Could it be used for graphics?

Regarding graphics, CBQN is not very suited to doing these natively as it runs on the CPU rather than GPU and has only double-precision and not single-precision floats. So, can you do some simple animation at 60FPS? Probably. Can you make a competitive game engine with it? Definitely not. A few programmers are doing games using Brian's FFI raylib bindings (https://github.com/Brian-ED/rayed-bqn), see in particular David Zwitser's videos on Astroids and Snake at https://www.youtube.com/@davidzwitser/videos. And we have nice FFI docs now: https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/doc/ffi.html!

(Everybody seems to assume "high performance" automatically means in whatever domain they work in. Impossible to interpret these sorts of questions. Try "Will BQN have high performance for ...?" instead.)

Thanks. Yes I was thinking more about the (traditionally) CPU side of graphics or games, things like CPU skinning or skeletal animation.

I was wondering mostly about the FFI overhead. So the question should really be, is it suitable for real-time low-latency contexts? But I have your answer :)

I still would love to find a use for it one day. If there's ever a chance you could go the futhark route and allow for compilation of CPU/GPU routines I think it would be an ideal kind of syntax.

There's also a GC pause issue: reference counts are the main method, but when those don't do the job we rely on stop-the-world mark and sweep. And we do very little analysis so it's easy for namespaces and closures to form reference loops. If you're careful about how you use those, it's possible to keep the reference counts working, but debugging when this fails is probably not such a nice experience. Running GC every frame might be acceptable if the stored state has few enough objects; it can be around 1ms if there's not much to do.

It depends on how high performance your high performance context requires. Being an array language, ideally traditional interpreter overhead doesn't matter if you write "array-y" code as most time would be spent in within-interpreter loops.

But as currently there isn't any loop fusion in CBQN (though I'd definitely like to add such at some point), despite the native ops being all nice SIMD where possible, it can still lose to autovectorized C or similar, or even scalar code, due to memory overhead.

FFI is libffi currently (with non-JITted preparation), so on the order of 100ns per call.

You might find some stuff here

https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/implementation/perf.html

How much savings do you have? Is it used for rent-seeking behaviour? I think that's the key issue the country is facing.

If you have a little padding no-one will be coming for you.

Everyone in power is desparately trying dance around tax reform. When you tax productive work much more heavily than unproductive work (looking at our etf holdings grow and crowding out home/business owners with buy-to-lets), you are going to get stagnation.

it’s more about wealth. You need a functioning welfare state to allow people to take risks

A guess: If you could ask a (nice) djinn to make rent-seeking businesses disappear - those with net negative real productivity -> happiness generation - society would bounce back.

That includes real estate / landlordism, sorry!

Many people aren't motivated by the absolute number in their bank account. But we're taking away their security in the form of precarious living situations, which is a universal need.