Hello,

More of my philosophy about the effects of a commercial society based on
the pursuit of self-interest..

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think that we have to understand the work of the philosopher and
economist Adam Smith about economic Liberalism, i think the defect of
his theory or work is that he is for example saying the following:

"Human egoism is the engine of the properity and happiness of nations"

But i think i am a philosopher that is not in accordance with
the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, since you have to understand
that Adam Smith says about his economic Liberalism that self-interest is
most of the time regulated by competition to not lead to corruption,
fraud, price-gouging, and cheating, and self-interest and competition is
the engine of the properity and happiness of nations described the
opposing, but complementary forces of self-interest and competition as
the invisible hand, it means that while producers and consumers are not
acting with the intent of serving the needs of others or society, they
do, since when you work, your goal is to earn money, but in the process
you provide a valuable good or service that benefits others and society,
so it is the basis of the following saying of Adam Smith: "Human egoism
is the engine of the properity and happiness of nations", but i think
that the most important defect of economic Liberalism of Adam Smith is
the following: How to bring the positive or the much more positive
spirit since the way of egoism and competition of economic Liberalism
of Adam Smith brings a negative spirit that causes disorder and violence
? Also i think that a much more positive or positive spirit is better
for economy, this is why my new model that i call coopetition that is a
well balance between cooperation and competition is better, this is why
i am sharing a number of my inventions of scalable algorithms and
algorithms and softwares with the public or people so that to bring the
positive or the much more positive spirit(and you can find all of them
here in my website: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/), and i
think that this positive spirit or much more positive spirit is good for
economy, but you have to play it "smartly", and i give you a proverb of
mine that shows how it is important:

"We can ask of from where comes the attachment of Love between
a mother and her son ? so i think i am smart and i will say
that it comes from the fact that it is like a reward, that the son
is loving or is being the son and the mother is giving a good reward
like giving him more security or giving him food to eat, so as you are
noticing that this rule can be applied to consumerism, since
you can use the same rule with your consumers in a smart
way, for example by giving the impression to your consumers that
you take care of there security by learning them with easy or the like,
and then the consumers will love you much more and will be attracted by
you."

I think i am smart, and notice how i am talking about
how we have not to have a narrow view of what is smartness, and notice
how i am talking about the distributed smartness as rules etc. so i
think i can logically infer from my below thoughts the other way of
solving the greatly complex systems that is not by like "planning" the
whole system from a centralized government, but by emergence of a higher
level intelligence from distributing like the rules or.. into the small
parts of the system that will solve the greatly complex system, it looks
like the evolutionary design and planning, and it looks like the way of
the higher level smartness from an Ant colony, since in an Ant colony
there is no central government, but there is a distributed intelligence
that needs a kind of diversity of genetics of the members of the colony
and it needs like a distributed rules that the members have to follow
that will make emerge a higher level of intelligence. And of course it
looks like evolutionary algorithms in artificial intelligence, since the
advantage of evolutionary algorithms in artificial intelligence is that
they don't plan in advance but they search by like following some
distributed rules, and of course they need some "randomness" so that to
not get stuck in a local optimum, this is why i am talking below about
how to make our civilization that is a complex system much more
resilient by learning how to learn to humans with like a set
of rules like in an Ant colony by saying the following and notice
that the learning how to learn can be an efficient abstraction that
helps a lot:

More of my philosophy about how i am more happy and more..

I think that i am much more happy since i am understanding that being
happy is like a lifestyle that is based on some efficient rules that
permit the emergence of happiness, and i will talk about it more in my
new philosophy, so i think that we even need some important rules so
that to be a much more resilient civilization, since i think that there
is the way of learning people how to become an engineer, but this way of
doing is lacking very much, and there is also the way of learning people
how to learn that also permits to efficiently take advantage of this
sophisticated tool that we call internet, so i think that this way of
learning how to learn to people does make our civilization much more
resilient, since the way of "specialization" of our today civilization
is also a "weakness" that has to be solved much more efficiently by the
way of learning people how to learn on internet etc. and here is my
new proverb that talks about it:

"I think what is happening in the West and other parts of the world,
it is that individuals are becoming too stupid, since it is the way of
specialization that is required, since the individuals are specialized
in there jobs so that to enhance much more the efficiency and
productivity as a society or as group, but this specialization is a
weakness that is making individuals too stupid, but we can become smart
working as a group or as a society using the tools of internet etc."

And here is my thoughts about artificial intelligence and evolutionary
algorithms in artificial intelligence:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/P9OTDTiCZ44

More of my philosophy of why i have just invented a better Reader-Writer
Lock that is scalable and starvation-free and fair and reentrant
(recursive)..

Here is why i have just invented a better Reader-Writer Lock that
is scalable, starvation-free and fair and reentrant (recursive),
and look at my invention below:

Notice that the following PhD researcher says the following:

"Until today, there is no known efficient reader-writer lock with
starvation-freedom guarantees"

Read more here:

http://concurrencyfreaks.blogspot.com/2019/04/onefile-and-tail-latency.html

And read the following paper:

Scalable Read-mostly Synchronization Using Passive Reader-Writer Locks

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc14/atc14-paper-liu.pdf

You will notice that it has a first weakness that it is for TSO hardware
memory model and the second weakness is that the writers latency is very
expensive when there is few readers, and it can livelock because of the
writer preference, and it can have starvation.

And here is the other best scalable reader-writer lock invention of
Facebook:

SharedMutex is a reader-writer lock. It is small, very fast, scalable
on multi-core

Read here:

https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/master/folly/SharedMutex.h

But you will notice that the weakness of this scalable reader-writer
lock is that the priority can only be configured as the following:

SharedMutexReadPriority gives priority to readers,
SharedMutexWritePriority gives priority to writers.

So the weakness of this scalable reader-writer lock is that
you can have starvation with it and you can have a livelock.

Bonita Montero a software engineer has just written to me the following
about my new invention below:

> Multiple reader, exlusive writer locks are *never* starvation-free.
> Readers can hold the lock infinitely and writers as well,

But i think she is not right, since this holding the lock infinitely is
not counted, since you have just to use it correctly and avoid this
case, so I think she is making a mistake and she is not understanding
what is that a Multiple-Readers-Exclusive-Writer Lock is
starvation-free, so what i mean by starvation-free is that in my
invention of my algorithm the readers don't starve the writers and the
writers don't starve the readers, and the writers don't starve and
readers don't starve, it is what we call starvation-free, and i think my
invention is scalable and starvation-free and fair.

And as you have just noticed i am also making public a number of my
scalable algorithms and algorithms and softwares as also open source
softwares and since i have just said in my new philosophy the following
about my new model that is called coopetition that is a well balancing
between cooperation and competition, since i think that economic
Liberalism or capitalism needs both competition and cooperation, since
we even need economic actors that share ideas across nations and
industries(and this needs globalization) that make us much more
creative, and i invite you to read the following important article so
that to notice it: