Programmers can answer all existential questions with ease
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
1206 points (98.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
37208 readers
916 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
If you fork a process, then it's the two separate processes but sharing the same memory with copy-on-write mapping.
Is that actually more efficient if I need my child process to do something different with different data?
It's more efficient for memory until you start working with different data. Threads also rely on the same syscall on Linux, clone(2), but they don't share the entire context by default, so they're more lightweight. It is recommended to use pthreads(3) API instead of fork(2).
Also, if you care about Windows, threads are far lighter than processes on that platform. Starting a new process is relatively slow compared to other platforms.
Ah thx for the info
If you just clone a reference to them, then you are just pointing another finger at them.
Is this really an analogy that resonates with programmers today?
If you clone a reference to someone you have a completey separate body but any actions taken affect the original as well
I believe it is just a wormhole pointing to the original so even if it may look like another body it's just the original being manipulated through the warped spacetime continuum
Why would the clone be connected…?
Because it's only a reference to the original.
They are, on the exact moment they are cloned. On the next attosecond they are not.
Edit: Well, if they are cloned on the cellular level, otherwise it's just NO.
What if they're placed into two completely identical environments?
Quantum multiverse theory says that happens all the time.
Is there a universe where that doesn't happen all the time?
What if it happened already?
You have no idea what cloning is, right? You're too young to remember Dolly
bahhh
Why cellular level?
The real answer btw is no, cloned animals aren't identical to their original, same base traits, but for example in cows spot position will be different
Also unless you can copy their memories, they just won't be the same person.
And then they'd have two different life experiences and would immediately begin to differ.
And we also change every milisecond. How long this process takes? It may seem irrelevant but copy of you 5 seconds ago is not you now. It's your restored back up.
Unless your pause execution of the original or there's an ongoing synchronization during the cloning process
Sync would lag anyway, I think, if we are pedantic.
Pausing the execution of the original via execution solves the problem of who's original here tho. One's still functioning.
Well it depends on the method of sync... Doing it through updates would lag, but what if it was through something like quantum effects, or even by treating both bodies and brains like a contiguous organism until the cloning is complete? Like with a cell dividing, there's no original
Okay, now do the Trolley Problem.
easy:
break
throw IllegalStateException()
If you copy by reference there’s still only one person.
What is clone by reference?
Hive mind
We are all one.
You in the mirror.
Technically the Borg
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/76908/trouble-star-trek-transporters
If the transporter takes all the atoms that make up a person, encodes them, beams them somewhere else, and then reassembles them, how can we know that the resulting "person" is the same person who went in?
Depends if you add the ethicator or not
Is it a copy or a hardlink?
Did you remember to override .Equals and .GetHashCode?
If you clone them, you'll lose their functions.
Make a deep clone
It’s not, it’s a copy, but if you think all consciousness is the same, then maybe.
Huh. Now my confusion about the chicken and the egg debate makes a lot more sense, it seems odd to me that such an easily answered question ended with so much confusion
I'm now realizing it's only a debate with non programmers, I thought it was a mutual ADHD communication thing, now I'm realizing maybe it's just because they learned about inheritance
Imagine if you saw someone who looked exactly like you and mimicked your exact actions, but they were just 3 or 4 feet to the left of you. That's by reference (I think)
Contrasting an exact copy of you that can think for itself and has autonomy, which is by value (I think)
By value could be described as, the exact same as you at the time of cloning, but it will be its own object and in no way connected to your actions.
Whereas by reference would be exactly what you described