I had to research silly Vedic nonsense on Hinduism stackexchange. While this one changes how your CPU behaves (and does not believe in the stars to do it for you), shubhcron waits for the right auspicious time to run your cronjobs (or other processes).
I guessed Claude Code was used. I think there will be an explosion in this kind of whimsy, I say so because I've indulged in it myself lately. Can't wait for something of this kind to find its way into, say, Golden Dome[1], because another AI agent thought it would be a sensible inclusion and nobody checked.
This scheduler takes advantage of sched_ext which is a relatively recent kernel capability. I really thought that EEVDF was the last word on scheduling in Linux, at least for the short-medium term.
Apart from trolling I am really curious what other useful functionality sched_ext enables. One of the primary reasons CFS was replaced with EEVDF was because it has a better set of defaults which don't require tuning / patching which is exactly what sched_ext simplifies.
the main reason why sched_ext is taking off is that EEVDF and CFS before it are -general- cpu schedulers, so while they work well for most tasks, they don't work as well as they could in certain situations like heavy server loads, low-latency loads (like multimedia production and gaming), or security sensitive loads. These schedulers are built and or specifically tunable to these types of loads, such as scx_lavd, scx_bpfland, and scx_cosmos. They each approach things differently, such as using core compaction, sharing or unsharing per core task queues, being way more cache context aware, keeping hot cores hot, etc. And the perf boost in these specific contexts is very real. Heck, Meta started using scx_lavd for better task load balencing over EEVDF on their servers.
My old friend and usenet denizen Laura Creighton was the one who wrote the device driver and verified the story. (Not that your should trust anything ESR writes in his polluted version of the Jargon file, but Laura says it's true, and she's trustworthy.)
"At this writing, the Jargon File claims the incident actually happened, at Toronto in 1979 or 1980, and that the sysadmin on duty was actually interviewed. The account doesn't provide enough details to track down an independent account, however.
Current University of Toronto sysadmins have expressed skepticism. For one thing, in almost all versions of the story, including the ostensibly documented one in the Jargon File, the computer is a VAX; at the time a VAX would have been a very unusual platform for this kind of data acquisition (they used PDP-11s). The Toronto zoology department has never been licensed to work with primates; the only section of the university that could have done experiments of this nature was the School of Medicine. Investigation continues."
ableal on May 7, 2010 | root | parent | next [–]
Actually, the original story does say it was Medicine buying the Vax and doing the experiment, with Zoo helping. The VAX 11-780 was the hot machine of 1979/80 ("a 1 MIPS beast!", I heard).
I've seen Laura Creighton's name on Python lists - I believe she's on LinkedIn. The author's "Statistically Invalid Sampling of My Life" (http://edp.org/index.htm) is also pretty amusing - don't think he'd need to embellish that incident.
Laura's done a lot of work on PyPy, which I described in this email (c. 2007):
>Laura and three other members of the PyPy team are doing a benevolent world domination tour, and visiting the bay area soon.
I think you would enjoy meeting each other and talking about PyPy!
>Laura does all kinds of other interesting stuff, with python in particular and computers and reality in general, like writing a device driver to interface monkeys to a VAX. (Google "always mount a scratch monkey"!)
>Laura Creighton has 20 years experience in software training, and Human Factors Engineering. She is a founder of AB Strakt, and a founder and Treasurer of The Python Business Forum, an international non-profit trade association for businesses which develop in Python.
>Yes, that is me. I actually think that Medicine had an 11/something-or-other dual space machine that was running Berkeley 2.98 bsd, not an 11/780 vax, but otherwise, seems correct enough to me.
needs sign compatibility - if your postgres and your webserver start in incompatible signs, connections between them are more difficult and drop packets
the system works for several days, weeks or months before a bug happens to surface it is complete nonsense not those you missed something simple bugs, it is deep within the infrastructure of your system, you call your friend to cancel that event you were planing only to find out he is also wrestling with a sudden bug, you bang your head but can't solve it, the next day you compile the project and it works again. if astrology can't explain this I don't know what can?
>BioRhythm on Apple II Computer: Starring the reclusive Kelcey Degnan, who plays the part of Suzie a tormented housewife who must choose between the sea captain and the guy who wears the white fur coat. With little more than her Apple II computer biorhythm program to guide her Suzie plots a complex path through the world of 70's fashion, booze, Byte magazines and custom software applications. Biorhythm for Apple II written by Bill Degnan for vintagecomputer.net. Music by the Space Vipers. Cameo appearances by the Altair 8800, Grid 1101, Commodore CBM 256-80, Commodore PET 2001-8, and the Byte BYT-8.
>A mood ring is a finger ring that contains a thermochromic element, or "mood stone", that changes colors based on the temperature of the finger of the wearer. Finger temperature, as long as the ambient temperature is relatively constant, is significantly determined by peripheral blood flow. A mood ring contains liquid crystals that change color depending on the temperature.
DonHopkins on Aug 13, 2017 | parent | context | favorite | on: Motive.c: The Soul of the Sims (1997)
The trick of optimizing games is to off-load as much as the simulation from the computer into the user's brain, which is MUCH more powerful and creative. Implication is more efficient (and richer) than simulation.
During development, when we first added Astrological signs to the characters, there was a discussion about whether we should invent our own original "Sim Zodiac" signs, or use the traditional ones, which have a lot of baggage and history (which some of the designers thought might be a problem).
Will Wright argued that we actually wanted to leverage the baggage and history of the traditional Astrological signs of the Zodiac, so we should just use those and not invent our own.
The way it works is that Will came up with twelve archetypal vectors of personality traits corresponding to each of the twelve Astrological signs, so when you set their personality traits, it looks up the sign with the nearest euclidian distance to the character's personality, and displays that as their sign. But there was absolutely no actual effect on their behavior.
That decision paid off almost instantly and measurably in testing, after we implemented the user interface for showing the Astrological sign in the character creation screen, without writing any code to make their sign affect their behavior: The testers immediately started reporting bugs that their character's sign had too much of an effect on their personality, and claimed that the non-existent effect of astrological signs on behavior needed to be tuned down. But that effect was totally coming from their imagination!
They should call them Astrillogical Signs!
DonHopkins on Aug 13, 2017 [–]
The create-a-sim user interface hid the corresponding astrological sign for the initial all-zero personality you first see before you've spent any points, because that would be insulting to 1/12th of the players (implying [your sign] has zero personality)!
gwern 22 days ago | parent | context | favorite | on: Show HN: What if AI agents had Zodiac personalitie...
I think my take away is that you are seeing mostly mode-collapse here. There is a high consistency across all of the supposedly different personalities (higher than the naive count would indicate - remember the stochastic nature of responses will inflate the number of 'different' responses, since OP doesn't say anything about sampling a large number of times to get the true response).
DonHopkins 21 days ago | parent | next [–]
You are right about mode-collapse -- and that observation is exactly what makes this interesting.
In my other comment here, I described The Sims' zodiac from 1997: Will Wright computed signs from personality via Euclidean distance to archetypal vectors, displayed them cosmetically, and wrote zero behavioral code. The zodiac affected nothing. Yet testers reported bugs: "The zodiac influence is too strong! Tune it down!"
Your "mode-collapse with stochastic noise" is the same phenomenon measured from the other direction. In The Sims: zero computed difference, perceived personality. In this LLM experiment: minimal computed difference, perceived personality. Same gap.
Will called it the Simulator Effect: players imagine more than you simulate. I would argue mode-collapse IS the Simulator Effect measured from the output side.
But here is where it becomes actionable: one voice is the wrong number of voices.
ChatGPT gives you the statistical center -- mode-collapse to the bland mean. The single answer that offends no one and inspires no one. You can not fix this with better prompting because it is the inevitable result of single-agent inference.
Timothy Leary built MIND MIRROR in 1985 -- psychology software visualizing personality as a circumplex, based on his 1950 PhD dissertation on the Interpersonal Circumplex. The Sims inherited this (neat, outgoing, active, playful, nice). But a personality profile is not an answer. It is a lens.
The wild part: in 1970, Leary took his own test during prison intake, gamed it to get minimum security classification (outdoor work detail), and escaped by climbing a telephone wire over the fence. The system's own tools became instruments of liberation.
MOOLLM's response: simulate an adversarial committee within the same call. Multiple personas with opposing propensities -- a paranoid realist, an idealist, an evidence prosecutor -- debating via Robert's Rules. Stories that survive cross-examination are more robust than the statistical center.
The bigger project is MOOLLM -- treating the LLM as eval() for a microworld OS. K-lines, prototype-based instantiation, many-voiced deliberation. The question I keep wrestling with: mode-collapse as limitation vs feature. The Sims exploited it. MOOLLM routes around it.
Would value your take on the information-theoretic framing -- particularly whether multi-agent simulation actually increases effective entropy or just redistributes it.
The MOOLLM Eval Incarnate Framework: Skills are programs. The LLM is eval(). Empathy is the interface. Code. Graphics. Data. One interpreter. Many languages. The Axis of Eval.
If you’d a like a non-vibe coded astrological scheduler, I made one years ago for April Fools: https://github.com/razorpay/shubhcron
I had to research silly Vedic nonsense on Hinduism stackexchange. While this one changes how your CPU behaves (and does not believe in the stars to do it for you), shubhcron waits for the right auspicious time to run your cronjobs (or other processes).
Can the "vibe" statement be substantiated in any way? Also your "scheduler" is in a completely different domain, it doesn't even remotely relate.
Very cool! I am guessing you never got around to making the Kubernetes controller you mention in the README? :D
Nopes, the packaging took up the last of my time for the project.
I guessed Claude Code was used. I think there will be an explosion in this kind of whimsy, I say so because I've indulged in it myself lately. Can't wait for something of this kind to find its way into, say, Golden Dome[1], because another AI agent thought it would be a sensible inclusion and nobody checked.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s...
This scheduler takes advantage of sched_ext which is a relatively recent kernel capability. I really thought that EEVDF was the last word on scheduling in Linux, at least for the short-medium term.
Apart from trolling I am really curious what other useful functionality sched_ext enables. One of the primary reasons CFS was replaced with EEVDF was because it has a better set of defaults which don't require tuning / patching which is exactly what sched_ext simplifies.
the main reason why sched_ext is taking off is that EEVDF and CFS before it are -general- cpu schedulers, so while they work well for most tasks, they don't work as well as they could in certain situations like heavy server loads, low-latency loads (like multimedia production and gaming), or security sensitive loads. These schedulers are built and or specifically tunable to these types of loads, such as scx_lavd, scx_bpfland, and scx_cosmos. They each approach things differently, such as using core compaction, sharing or unsharing per core task queues, being way more cache context aware, keeping hot cores hot, etc. And the perf boost in these specific contexts is very real. Heck, Meta started using scx_lavd for better task load balencing over EEVDF on their servers.
"Because we can" at its best.
Yes! With "best" (to me) meaning for fun, entertainment, and without harming anyone. :)
Wow. One of the most insane things I have seen lately haha The funniest thing is that it could be kinda useful and working haha
Can you expand on how slowing my network 4 times a year for days at a time while Mercury is in retrograde is useful?
chaos monkey
Always mount a scratch monkey!
My old friend and usenet denizen Laura Creighton was the one who wrote the device driver and verified the story. (Not that your should trust anything ESR writes in his polluted version of the Jargon file, but Laura says it's true, and she's trustworthy.)
https://edp.org/monkey.htm
Always mount the scratch monkey (1987) (edp.org) 34 points by pook on May 7, 2010 | hide | past | favorite | 6
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1327146
baha_man on May 7, 2010 | parent | next [–]
http://tafkac.org/faq2k/animal_618.html
"At this writing, the Jargon File claims the incident actually happened, at Toronto in 1979 or 1980, and that the sysadmin on duty was actually interviewed. The account doesn't provide enough details to track down an independent account, however.
Current University of Toronto sysadmins have expressed skepticism. For one thing, in almost all versions of the story, including the ostensibly documented one in the Jargon File, the computer is a VAX; at the time a VAX would have been a very unusual platform for this kind of data acquisition (they used PDP-11s). The Toronto zoology department has never been licensed to work with primates; the only section of the university that could have done experiments of this nature was the School of Medicine. Investigation continues."
ableal on May 7, 2010 | root | parent | next [–]
Actually, the original story does say it was Medicine buying the Vax and doing the experiment, with Zoo helping. The VAX 11-780 was the hot machine of 1979/80 ("a 1 MIPS beast!", I heard). I've seen Laura Creighton's name on Python lists - I believe she's on LinkedIn. The author's "Statistically Invalid Sampling of My Life" (http://edp.org/index.htm) is also pretty amusing - don't think he'd need to embellish that incident.
P.S. The story is, for instance, alluded to here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2002-May/756589... [broken link not on archive dot org], without either rebuttal or elaboration.
----
Laura's done a lot of work on PyPy, which I described in this email (c. 2007):
>Laura and three other members of the PyPy team are doing a benevolent world domination tour, and visiting the bay area soon. I think you would enjoy meeting each other and talking about PyPy!
>Laura does all kinds of other interesting stuff, with python in particular and computers and reality in general, like writing a device driver to interface monkeys to a VAX. (Google "always mount a scratch monkey"!)
https://www.python.org/about/success/strakt/
>Laura Creighton has 20 years experience in software training, and Human Factors Engineering. She is a founder of AB Strakt, and a founder and Treasurer of The Python Business Forum, an international non-profit trade association for businesses which develop in Python.
https://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2017-10/msg...
>Yes, that is me. I actually think that Medicine had an 11/something-or-other dual space machine that was running Berkeley 2.98 bsd, not an 11/780 vax, but otherwise, seems correct enough to me.
needs sign compatibility - if your postgres and your webserver start in incompatible signs, connections between them are more difficult and drop packets
AI is truly the mother of monsters.
it's the beginning of the age of memeware
"Yeah i know compile times are slow today, but that's because pluto is moving into Aquarius"
the system works for several days, weeks or months before a bug happens to surface it is complete nonsense not those you missed something simple bugs, it is deep within the infrastructure of your system, you call your friend to cancel that event you were planing only to find out he is also wrestling with a sudden bug, you bang your head but can't solve it, the next day you compile the project and it works again. if astrology can't explain this I don't know what can?
Speaking of how to pick up cool hippie chicks: my Apple II could plot my BIORHYTHM in HIRES graphics, while I was wearing my MOOD RING!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYoY1cwAd90
>BioRhythm on Apple II Computer: Starring the reclusive Kelcey Degnan, who plays the part of Suzie a tormented housewife who must choose between the sea captain and the guy who wears the white fur coat. With little more than her Apple II computer biorhythm program to guide her Suzie plots a complex path through the world of 70's fashion, booze, Byte magazines and custom software applications. Biorhythm for Apple II written by Bill Degnan for vintagecomputer.net. Music by the Space Vipers. Cameo appearances by the Altair 8800, Grid 1101, Commodore CBM 256-80, Commodore PET 2001-8, and the Byte BYT-8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_ring
>A mood ring is a finger ring that contains a thermochromic element, or "mood stone", that changes colors based on the temperature of the finger of the wearer. Finger temperature, as long as the ambient temperature is relatively constant, is significantly determined by peripheral blood flow. A mood ring contains liquid crystals that change color depending on the temperature.
Bravo
This is all very astrILLOGICAL!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46585825
DonHopkins 22 days ago | prev | next [–]
From the HN discussion of "Motive.c: The Soul of the Sims (1997) (donhopkins.com)":
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14997725
https://www.donhopkins.com/home/images/Sims/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15002840
DonHopkins on Aug 13, 2017 | parent | context | favorite | on: Motive.c: The Soul of the Sims (1997)
The trick of optimizing games is to off-load as much as the simulation from the computer into the user's brain, which is MUCH more powerful and creative. Implication is more efficient (and richer) than simulation.
During development, when we first added Astrological signs to the characters, there was a discussion about whether we should invent our own original "Sim Zodiac" signs, or use the traditional ones, which have a lot of baggage and history (which some of the designers thought might be a problem).
Will Wright argued that we actually wanted to leverage the baggage and history of the traditional Astrological signs of the Zodiac, so we should just use those and not invent our own.
The way it works is that Will came up with twelve archetypal vectors of personality traits corresponding to each of the twelve Astrological signs, so when you set their personality traits, it looks up the sign with the nearest euclidian distance to the character's personality, and displays that as their sign. But there was absolutely no actual effect on their behavior.
That decision paid off almost instantly and measurably in testing, after we implemented the user interface for showing the Astrological sign in the character creation screen, without writing any code to make their sign affect their behavior: The testers immediately started reporting bugs that their character's sign had too much of an effect on their personality, and claimed that the non-existent effect of astrological signs on behavior needed to be tuned down. But that effect was totally coming from their imagination!
They should call them Astrillogical Signs!
DonHopkins on Aug 13, 2017 [–]
The create-a-sim user interface hid the corresponding astrological sign for the initial all-zero personality you first see before you've spent any points, because that would be insulting to 1/12th of the players (implying [your sign] has zero personality)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffzt12tEGpY
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46584625
gwern 22 days ago | parent | context | favorite | on: Show HN: What if AI agents had Zodiac personalitie...
I think my take away is that you are seeing mostly mode-collapse here. There is a high consistency across all of the supposedly different personalities (higher than the naive count would indicate - remember the stochastic nature of responses will inflate the number of 'different' responses, since OP doesn't say anything about sampling a large number of times to get the true response).
DonHopkins 21 days ago | parent | next [–]
You are right about mode-collapse -- and that observation is exactly what makes this interesting. In my other comment here, I described The Sims' zodiac from 1997: Will Wright computed signs from personality via Euclidean distance to archetypal vectors, displayed them cosmetically, and wrote zero behavioral code. The zodiac affected nothing. Yet testers reported bugs: "The zodiac influence is too strong! Tune it down!"
Your "mode-collapse with stochastic noise" is the same phenomenon measured from the other direction. In The Sims: zero computed difference, perceived personality. In this LLM experiment: minimal computed difference, perceived personality. Same gap.
Will called it the Simulator Effect: players imagine more than you simulate. I would argue mode-collapse IS the Simulator Effect measured from the output side.
But here is where it becomes actionable: one voice is the wrong number of voices.
ChatGPT gives you the statistical center -- mode-collapse to the bland mean. The single answer that offends no one and inspires no one. You can not fix this with better prompting because it is the inevitable result of single-agent inference.
Timothy Leary built MIND MIRROR in 1985 -- psychology software visualizing personality as a circumplex, based on his 1950 PhD dissertation on the Interpersonal Circumplex. The Sims inherited this (neat, outgoing, active, playful, nice). But a personality profile is not an answer. It is a lens.
The wild part: in 1970, Leary took his own test during prison intake, gamed it to get minimum security classification (outdoor work detail), and escaped by climbing a telephone wire over the fence. The system's own tools became instruments of liberation.
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/tree/main/skills/mind-mi...
MOOLLM's response: simulate an adversarial committee within the same call. Multiple personas with opposing propensities -- a paranoid realist, an idealist, an evidence prosecutor -- debating via Robert's Rules. Stories that survive cross-examination are more robust than the statistical center.
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/tree/main/skills/adversa...
I wrote this up with links into the project:
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/sims-a...
The bigger project is MOOLLM -- treating the LLM as eval() for a microworld OS. K-lines, prototype-based instantiation, many-voiced deliberation. The question I keep wrestling with: mode-collapse as limitation vs feature. The Sims exploited it. MOOLLM routes around it.
Would value your take on the information-theoretic framing -- particularly whether multi-agent simulation actually increases effective entropy or just redistributes it.
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm
The MOOLLM Eval Incarnate Framework: Skills are programs. The LLM is eval(). Empathy is the interface. Code. Graphics. Data. One interpreter. Many languages. The Axis of Eval.
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/MOOLLM...
I mean... why not? :)