4 ms·

"Like that" as in trying to educate? Too bad. This described something isn't "massively parallel" and couldn't scale up. I'm happy with calling the big Sunway-

by gnufx 8y ago

"Like that" as in trying to educate? Too bad. This described something isn't "massively parallel" and couldn't scale up. I'm happy with calling the big Sunway- and PEZY-based systems supercomputers and hope that Neo turns out well.

ianai 8y ago
You’re violating the rules of HN.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  More precisely: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ianai 8y ago
    I saw OP threw in technical points where the hobby machine is not like a production HPC box - after issuing a dismissal of the work entirely. HN does best when it gives a hobbyist a good faith appraisal of his/her work. A hobbyist is of course not going to have the resources to do HPC at home - usually.
    - mmt 8y ago
      > I saw OP threw in technical points where the hobby machine is not like a production HPC box - after issuing a dismissal of the work entirely. Which would make it a non-shallow dismissal, as it provided a number of specific discussion points, which are, in fact, being discussed. The guidelines don't, after all, discourage dismissal (even dismissal in entirety), only shallow dismissal. > HN does best when it gives a hobbyist a good faith appraisal of his/her work. This strikes me as a very subject assertion, all around. It's a matter of opinion on how HN does best, and it's a matter of opinion what constitutes a good faith appraisal, especially as it relates to a hobby. That said, I might agree for a "Show HN" post, but not for a repost of something 4 years old, with the arguably clickbaity (and patently, unarguably controversial) unqualified term "supercomputers" in the title. > A hobbyist is of course not going to have the resources to do HPC at home - usually. If not, I'm left to wonder, what's the point? Where is the performance "high" or the computing "super"? I could somewhat wrap my brain around a hobbyist building a very small (in node count) HPC cluster as a testbed. I could also understand if the goal were something like cost-performance efficiency improvement (for purchase and/or operating cost). Is that what's going on here? I didn't get that from the article, and only one comment claimed the architecture is "novel" without specifying in what way. I didn't even see anything to suggest scalability/modularity that's easier than "real" HPC, but that could be because I missed it among the emphasis on handmade construction.
yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
"Like that" trying to tear down a fun little hobby project.

by gnufx 8y ago

ianai 8y ago

You’re violating the rules of HN.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
More precisely: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ianai 8y ago
  I saw OP threw in technical points where the hobby machine is not like a production HPC box - after issuing a dismissal of the work entirely. HN does best when it gives a hobbyist a good faith appraisal of his/her work. A hobbyist is of course not going to have the resources to do HPC at home - usually.
  - mmt 8y ago
    > I saw OP threw in technical points where the hobby machine is not like a production HPC box - after issuing a dismissal of the work entirely. Which would make it a non-shallow dismissal, as it provided a number of specific discussion points, which are, in fact, being discussed. The guidelines don't, after all, discourage dismissal (even dismissal in entirety), only shallow dismissal. > HN does best when it gives a hobbyist a good faith appraisal of his/her work. This strikes me as a very subject assertion, all around. It's a matter of opinion on how HN does best, and it's a matter of opinion what constitutes a good faith appraisal, especially as it relates to a hobby. That said, I might agree for a "Show HN" post, but not for a repost of something 4 years old, with the arguably clickbaity (and patently, unarguably controversial) unqualified term "supercomputers" in the title. > A hobbyist is of course not going to have the resources to do HPC at home - usually. If not, I'm left to wonder, what's the point? Where is the performance "high" or the computing "super"? I could somewhat wrap my brain around a hobbyist building a very small (in node count) HPC cluster as a testbed. I could also understand if the goal were something like cost-performance efficiency improvement (for purchase and/or operating cost). Is that what's going on here? I didn't get that from the article, and only one comment claimed the architecture is "novel" without specifying in what way. I didn't even see anything to suggest scalability/modularity that's easier than "real" HPC, but that could be because I missed it among the emphasis on handmade construction.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago

"Like that" trying to tear down a fun little hobby project.