Unnecessary though productivity outpacing demand as far as I've understood it.
In Marxism what they call "full communism" is envisioned to be the "final state of humanity" where productivity is described to be higher than the sum of needs and wants - everybody can help themselves to anything from the warehouses. Obviously very utopian, and I'm not sure there ever was any detailed analysis on how a society a would actually function in "full communism" - but I don't think the economics of The Culture would be that far off if you would describe it to someone of those views. Early Marxists were much a bit more practical, more focused on critiquing the practices of their contemporary societies than envisioning the details of their utopia.
Economic systems of the 1800s doesn't really make sense in a space based, post scarcity society - economics is after all, the allocation of scarce resources. But I would argue that the ultimate aim of the socialism as envisioned by Marx wasn't government control over the means of production (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") but rather "full communism" where the eventual aim was to make resource allocation unnecessary, which in a way, does hint at a post scarcity society. So I can see the connection to the original Marx. Less so with the so-far practical implementations of socialism.
Tesla is free to not sign a CBA, and union members are free to not serve Tesla. Swedish labor market is very free (as in unencumbered by laws and government intervention).
That’s fine, assuming we pass laws mandating that signing keys can be controlled by end users. Otherwise we end up where no-one really owns their devices any more, every device would be merely temporarily rented.
As someone who's two new arrivals recently turned two; it's by far the hardest thing I've done. I envy those who have one at a time. Having a startup fail around me was a piece of cake. Singlehandedly building a house (not commissioning a house) was peanuts. Building and shipping products now used by the billions was far less stressful than keeping two little rascals alive.
But I'm managing and I'm sure you will too. Clichés exist for a reason: as it turns out; I wouldn't trade it for anything.
> Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices?
Yes.
> An app store? A payment provider? A cloud provider? A health data store? An update mechanism?
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.
To do otherwise, is to invite platform owners to be (potentially abusive) monopolists with a license to favor their own services instead of promoting and maintaining fair competition in markets on top of that platform. In western societies, since the last century, that has been behavior which has been regulated by law and courts.
Walking/Biking also allows me to instantly change my plans, even more so than driving does (try turning around instantly in a car). What do you mean "low large countries work"? The absolute size of a country is irrelevant (what New Yorker cares what malls there are in Kentucky?), what matters is population/service density. The US has a 50% larger population density than Sweden, so it should be able to support at least as dense cities and services. The difference not economic or technical, but cultural.
Having spent quite a bit of time in the US, I've noticed that getting somewhere there takes about the same amount time as home (which happens to be Sweden, hence me clicking the link). As an anecdotal example, some common times for me were about as follows: Going to work, 15 minutes. Grocery store, 5 minutes. Larger shopping mall, 30 minutes. The difference is that in the US that time is spent driving, while home it's walking/biking. So my control of my local 4-vector is essentially equivalent, just with a different space scaling factor applied.
True, many are indeed using ARM (in house designs are also more popular than you might think in deeply embedded SoCs), but a lot of companies would love to be able to throw out ARM due to licensing cost & hassle, or at least have a viable option in RISC-V to throw at ARM at the bargaining table.
There's gazillions of embedded processor cores in every device you own. Your SSD, network card, phone, motherboard, router, TV, modem, car, fridge, you name it all have multiple processor cores running some piece of firmware you never see. RISC-V has a pretty good value proposition for those: an open standard with no licensing costs with a rapidly maturing software ecosystem. To say that RISC-V will only succeed if you can attach a monitor to it only betrays a very narrow view of where processors are actually used.
For reference, gas contains about 33kWh of energy per gallon, and if we assume you pump 20 gallons in 5 minutes when you fill up your car you have an effective energy transfer rate of about 8 MW at your gas pump. Even if we give an electric vehicle a 3x efficiency ratio, we still need about 2.5 MW to be equivalent to the old petroleum infrastructure.
A while ago, I spent a fair amount of time evaluating JIT frameworks including DynASM. The one I ended up using is something called Xbyak (https://github.com/herumi/xbyak) which I think is a bit of a hidden gem. Unlike DynASM, it doesn't require a preprocessing pass, is better documented and IMHO easier to use.
So if you're in the market for a lightweight JIT engine and target C++/X86, I'd give Xbyak a whirl too and see which one you like better.
If you think the cost of the instructions to express copying is the main problem I'd call your mental model flawed. That is not the thing to worry about, when moving data the issued instructions matters very little.
No, the thing to worry about is the memory subsystem. How does the data interact with the caches? What DRAM access patterns do I have? How do I flow data as efficiently as possible?
German industry may indeed be in better shape, but that is inspite of German energy policies, not because of them. What you're really arguing for here is a poorer, less prosperous, Germany because of anti-nuclear-ideology. There's an opportunity cost of that trillion dollars, it could have been spent on health care, research, fighting climate change and thousands of hings other that actually improve people's lives instead. I mean, if you accept that - that's fine - there's no mandate that people must choose the most efficient solutions at all times. But the reality of technical merits doesn't change based on your ideology.
No, the correct answer is zero. The impact of Fukushima on someone living on the west cost of the US is negligible; as near to zero as makes no difference. There are many, many, many other things you don't worry about which has a much larger impact on your life: most dangerous of which is probably your diet and your commute to work.
The number of non-acute deaths from Chernobyl is highly uncertain and difficult to estimate, even 30 years later. The range of estimate seem to more reflect the author's opinion on nuclear power than scientific fact. WHO estimated 4000 additional cancer deaths from Chernobyl (out of a population of hundreds of millions), based on the LNT-model, which seems very conservative given that there doesn't seem to be much glaring extra cancers in areas with higher natural background radiation.
The problem is that Germany, with its focus on wind and solar, is paying twice as much as for electricity compared to France - also a country with higher density in the middle of Europe - while also emitting more carbon dioxide per capita (9.6 vs 6.1 tons per capita). The difference is that France made the right decision 30 years ago when they transitioned from oil and coal to nuclear power for power generation. Solar and Wind are a much more expensive way of accomplishing the same thing. Der Energiewende is both expensive and inefficient.
I'm not quite sure what you mean your first question, but I think heat pumps using air, ground or water as heat reservoirs would qualify. They are in common household use at least where I am located, and have a input-power-to-heat efficiency of up to 400% (the Carnot cycle imposes a limit of roughly 7-10x depending on which exact scenario you calculate)