Programmers can answer all existential questions with ease

    • lugal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      9 months ago

      Scientifically speaking, identical twins are clones, so yes, I agree

        • lugal@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          To my knowledge, yes. The act of cloning is illegal, which means something like creating a clone artificially. The existence of clones isn’t

    • SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Except with cloning the other twin would be a different age as with current tech the clone is back to being a baby. You’d need rapid growth tech and mind transfer tech to at least make the clone have the same age, memories and personality, although that would most likely introduce other differences.

      • palordrolap@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        There is at least one case of parents, told at a very early stage that they’re expecting twins, deciding to remove and freeze one of the embryos for later reimplantation, so even with actual identical twins, they can be different ages.

        But yes, transferring minds is not something we can do. I’m not sure it’s something we’ll ever be able to do.

        Should it actually become possible, I assume that certain parties would even advocate for the unique life/lives of the clone(s). The argument would be that the clones’ chance at life shouldn’t be overwritten by other being’s attempts at extension of life.

        “Ethical minefield” doesn’t even begin to cover it!

  • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Cloning atoms isn’t thread safe not atomic, so at the end of the cloning process the contents of the clone will differ from the original. We need to invent a synchronisation primitive that works on the molecular level before we can accomplish exact clones.

  • raubarno@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you fork a process, then it’s the two separate processes but sharing the same memory with copy-on-write mapping.

    • mofongo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      Is that actually more efficient if I need my child process to do something different with different data?

      • raubarno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        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).

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

  • jaybone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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?

    • Big P@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you clone a reference to someone you have a completey separate body but any actions taken affect the original as well

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

          • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Well, an infinite multiverse doesn’t mean there’s a universe for every concept, just that there’s an infinite number of multiverses, and a quantum multiverse only guarantees a universe for every possible series of events (except those that necessarily lead to that universe’s destruction.)

            Except in the universes where that’s different, of course : )

      • Can_you_change_your_username@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Environment affects gene expression so cloning below the cellular level (genetic cloning) results in an individual that does not have the same developmental changes caused by environmental factors that the original had. With current technology genetic cloning has been done and cellular cloning is not possible.

    • lugal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      You have no idea what cloning is, right? You’re too young to remember Dolly

  • candyman337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Unless your pause execution of the original or there’s an ongoing synchronization during the cloning process

        • Андрей Быдло@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            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

  • nao@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    If you copy by reference there’s still only one person.

    What is clone by reference?

  • theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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