I'd thought that Usula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" might have been an exception, but though it's had nine submissions, it's only ever earned single-digit votes, and a single comment:
Marshall Brain's "Manna: Two Views of Humanity's Future" (2003) was what I'd had in mind when finding the Ellison story, but it's also had little success:
I gave up on Clean Architecture after about one chapter. There's a section where he's graphing the number of lines of code in a hypothetical company's codebase over time - it grows rapidly at first and then it levels off, and he points at this like it means anything, specifically like it's a bad thing and it means the software has become difficult to work in. Also this isn't a line chart, it's a bar chart, and the X axis isn't time, it's unlabeled - eventually, in the text, you find that there's one bar per major release of the software, if that tells you anything about how retro this conception of software development is. Another bar chart shows the number of developers growing rapidly, as if that means anything either... It was just baffling.
It can submit the code that it's written for execution if you tell it that it can, by utilizing specific markers in the output that get processed. There already are frameworks around this that make it possible to e.g. call an arbitrary Python function as part of answering the question.
I think that observation just lends further weight to the argument that the relationship between atomic time and universal time is a dynamic and unpredictable thing, which we need to handle correctly rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
That it is dynamic and unpredictable is exactly why we should not force everybody to track it.
Some people: astronomers and orbital mechanicos are obliged to care about sidereal time, regardless. Making me deal with it too is pure tax with exactly zero benefit.
The more surprising thing about `Array.prototype.sort` is that it both sorts the array in place and returns the (now-sorted) array. You can go a long time writing `const arr2 = arr1.sort()` without realizing that what you're doing is wrong, and the code you're writing is misleading readers about what it does.
> Bitcoin can use energy in places you couldn’t get to before
You're suggesting a scenario where, instead of using energy at point A to do useful work, we use energy at point B to generate Bitcoin to buy energy at point A to do the useful work. In this scenario,
1. the same amount of energy is still being generated at point A, and
2. an incredible amount of additional energy is being generated at point B for no reason
> 2. an incredible amount of additional energy is being generated at point B for no reason
1) Why would the amount of energy at point B be "incredible"? It would be proportional to the amount of energy that is needed at point A. Either both are incredible or neither is, all that matters is the scale of this example.
2) Why would there be "no reason" for doing this? The reason is clear and you obviously understand it-- to buy energy at point A.
3) Energy can not be generated. Humans can in some cases make use of energy for some other purpose. The total amount of energy is always the same. If the stranded energy in this example was geothermal, adding a geothermal energy plant would not increase the total amount of energy, it would just channel some of that energy into something humans can get something out of, rather than it just dissipating to heat directly.
It's not free! You have to pay for the electricity and the expensive mining hardware! And it's less energy efficient than heating your house using conventional means.
