What is a kernel? Pic unrelated

What is a kernel? Pic unrelated

It's the part of the software which communicates directly with the hardware. The OS is on top of it.

>>>/SQT/

The thing that allows you to run 2 applications on one collection of hardware, instead of one application occupying all CPU time and other resources.

Also fucking google and wikipedia.

>All knowledge is based on that which we cannot prove
Wat?
How can it be called knowledge if it can't be proven valid?

To gooey nougat kernel in the center of your operating system.

It's the program responsible for coordinating all other programs. Responsibility include scheduling, memory management and all flavors of I/O.

WTF are you asking here for, go read wikipedia.

Those questions doesn't matter to postmodernists.

there is no knowledge, there are only assumptions
the only thing you know for sure is that you think

>there is no knowledge, there are only assumptions
If I toss a baseball into the air it will come down. FACT

Unless a bird catches it or it gets stuck up in some tree.

Yeah and you know that physicists know shit about how gravity pulls that ball back down right?

>you know that physicists know shit about how gravity pulls that ball back down

Do elaborate
>inb4 "it's just a theory"

at the subatomic level we just don't know how or why gravity works as it does and we can't connect it to other well established mechanisms

You're not sure you think, you only have the remembrance to have thought, otherwise you'd think instantly and you'd be infinitely smart.

But recursive demonstrations are proven, unlike empirical statements.

there still is possibility that it all was a coincidence

we don't know how old and big is the Universe, we theorize about it

it seems crazy but even if chances are billions to one, there still is a tiny chance that gravitation isn't true and it's a coincidence or some other mechanism that causes what we observe as falling down

you can think you see the baseball fall
you can think it hits the ground
you can think you think
you don't know

>we don't know everything therefore we know nothing
The postmodernist mantra.

Yes. Yes I do.

yeah, but noone knows all the facts and even if one knew, he can never completely trust his memories

if you flip a coin 1000 times there will be 1.866527e-301 chance that the result will always be the same. You could assume that it's a law - that the coin always falls in the same way.
I'm not saying that's how it is, I say it's a possibility. There's no way to exclude the possibility we are wrong.

you can't even know that you know what knowing is

How can our eyes be real if mirrors aren't real?

You can think you know that we don't know
But you don't know

all knowing is unknowable

Something that runs along with the GNU os

Anything that is unknowable is uninteresting and worthless to even think about.

you can't laugh but you can't prove you're right
there hasn't been any ontological statement that hasn't been debunked except of the statement that there is being
I am, or should I say, there is thought in this very moment and this thought is being
everything else may or may not be delusion

How can you be into computing if you know nothing about philosophy of thought? What are you, code monkeys?

you have no way of knowing which things are uninteresting or worthless or are things

*you can laugh
and by saying that you basically state that that is worthless to think about anything but your own being

The crucial component of an operating system that allows the rest of the Operating System and the user using it to interact with the hardware.

What you postmodernists (or trolls) fail to realize is the futility in your own assumptions. By your reasoning you might as well just kys because lol death isn't knowable durr.

you can't know that death is unknowable

Why do you think we fail to realize that?

Because you're still writing which means you haven't an heroed yet.

It depends. If your demonstration is recursive, e.g. if it defines itself from itself, then it's proven true.

For the record, I know that all humans have the same value because our actions are the recursive product of our past actions and of our passive perception of our environment. It implies that our actions are made by pure passivity, which is defined as events we don't control; then how could I judge someone for what they don't control?

I also believe in absurdism, that we're on a smal rock adrifting in an uncaring void, but because this demonstration means humans are inestimable, because their value is ultimately defined by the fact they can endure happiness and pain, I consider the only meaning of mankind is to get happy by making other people happy.

I just made a tripcode so I could eventually be proven to be myself later, I'm not gonna sprawl my ideas everywhere on Sup Forums

Speaking of shit we don't know yet, Juno arrives at Jupiter tonight. (9pm pdt)

But what if there's no way to know if there's any reason or purpose of life suicide isn't better than life. And since there is still a drive in my consciousness to keep experiencing what I'm experiencing now, why would I kill myself? Do you really need certainity and purpose to enjoy existence?

Please see or or you can always read the sticky and take a look at the wiki and google.

Could Poettering create a kernelless OS? Or rather, would it be practical? I don't mean a traditional implementation either, he could get really creative with it and change the way programs, filesystems, system files and whatever else work. I have my fingers crossed desu. Poettering will change the way we use computers.

Not him, but it's not that.

The argument is that we still have yet to understand the very foundation upon which all our knowledge builds. The most we can claim is that our scientific laws and theories approximate how the world works.

Just like how Newtonian physics is a useful approximation for most every day situations, but when you get right down to it, it's wrong and falls apart at relativistic speeds.

Outside of math, nothing can truly be proven since the premises upon which we make our conclusions are effectively unprovable.

>gravity
>subatomic
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It has been proven several times that a massive object can bend the space, causing other objects to fall towards it following the path of that deformation. I can tell that you didn't finish high school.

A small piece of white that you pop into a circle

Best answer forever

"valid" doesn't mean what you think it means.
No living philosopher agrees with you

where the fuck did you get this version of the image are you so inept that you had to go to some Sup Forums scrapper site that appropriates our culture and shovels it down Facebook Normies throats. /triggered