3 ms·

Woah! 112 points and no comments. Has anybody actually read it? Or is everyone upvoting in hopes that someone knowledgeable will comment about the quality of th

Woah! 112 points and no comments. Has anybody actually read it? Or is everyone upvoting in hopes that someone knowledgeable will comment about the quality of the content?

zzzcpan 8y ago
It's mostly unstructured set of unrelated concepts. I have no idea why people would upvote that.
- slikts 8y ago
  The relations could definitely be made more clear, but if you could point out what specific terms you find unrelated, I could explain how they fit together. The basic organization is working up the ladder of abstraction; for example, scheduling is a fundamental concept, so it comes before other concepts that rely on it (which is all of them).
- pimeys 8y ago
  I know most of these concepts and the valuable part was to fill the gaps what I've missed. I would also like to read about work-stealing threadpools in a similar manner. I liked the explanations.
slikts 8y ago
For what it's worth, the feedback I've had so far elsewhere suggests that there aren't particular inaccuracies. A somewhat contentious part is defining concurrency in terms of order independence, but the main source for that is Peter Van Roy (https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/VanRoyChapter.pdf https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/VanRoyChapter.pdf section 4.3), so it's of good provenance.
erkIfShen 8y ago
The author admitted to vote-brigading on IRC. Some 50 or so of the votes are from the author's group of upvoting friends and alternate accounts.
- slikts 8y ago
  That's some fevered imagination.
  - erkIfShen 8y ago
    Don't lie; it makes you look foolish. 07:48 <xkapastel> HAX 07:48 <xkapastel> `slikts: a self post made it to #1 07:48 <xkapastel> what kind of witchcraft is this 07:48 <`slikts> xkapastel: just need to get initial traction 07:48 <xkapastel> must be nice having a botnet 07:49 <xkapastel> tbh :) ... 07:52 <simpson> `slikts: So *did* you stuff the ballot box with upvotes? 07:52 <xkapastel> there's some voting ring 07:52 <xkapastel> the first post was a smiley from one of his friends, but afaik people do this sort of thing a lot so it's not really a big deal 07:52 <`slikts> simpson: very slightly 07:53 <`slikts> I don't have anything that could be called a botnet 07:53 <`slikts> but from past experiences it takes just a few votes to get past the initial bump 07:53 <xkapastel> too bad, a botnet is a good application of concurrent programming 07:54 <`slikts> also strategic timing counts 07:54 <`slikts> around now is the prime time to share content 07:54 <`slikts> middle of the week when US is getting up That "first post was a smiley" indeed. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18502760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18502760
    - slikts 8y ago
      "Very slightly" means that I shared that I'd submitted it here; realistically a couple of upvotes could have come from that, but I don't know. The talk about botnets and whatnot is just hyperbole. You inferring alternative accounts and pulling numbers out of thin air is ridiculous.

Woah! 112 points and no comments. Has anybody actually read it? Or is everyone upvoting in hopes that someone knowledgeable will comment about the quality of the content?

zzzcpan 8y ago

It's mostly unstructured set of unrelated concepts. I have no idea why people would upvote that.

slikts 8y ago
The relations could definitely be made more clear, but if you could point out what specific terms you find unrelated, I could explain how they fit together. The basic organization is working up the ladder of abstraction; for example, scheduling is a fundamental concept, so it comes before other concepts that rely on it (which is all of them).
pimeys 8y ago
I know most of these concepts and the valuable part was to fill the gaps what I've missed. I would also like to read about work-stealing threadpools in a similar manner. I liked the explanations.

slikts 8y ago

For what it's worth, the feedback I've had so far elsewhere suggests that there aren't particular inaccuracies. A somewhat contentious part is defining concurrency in terms of order independence, but the main source for that is Peter Van Roy (https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/VanRoyChapter.pdf https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/VanRoyChapter.pdf section 4.3), so it's of good provenance.

erkIfShen 8y ago

The author admitted to vote-brigading on IRC. Some 50 or so of the votes are from the author's group of upvoting friends and alternate accounts.

slikts 8y ago
That's some fevered imagination.
- erkIfShen 8y ago
  Don't lie; it makes you look foolish. 07:48 <xkapastel> HAX 07:48 <xkapastel> `slikts: a self post made it to #1 07:48 <xkapastel> what kind of witchcraft is this 07:48 <`slikts> xkapastel: just need to get initial traction 07:48 <xkapastel> must be nice having a botnet 07:49 <xkapastel> tbh :) ... 07:52 <simpson> `slikts: So *did* you stuff the ballot box with upvotes? 07:52 <xkapastel> there's some voting ring 07:52 <xkapastel> the first post was a smiley from one of his friends, but afaik people do this sort of thing a lot so it's not really a big deal 07:52 <`slikts> simpson: very slightly 07:53 <`slikts> I don't have anything that could be called a botnet 07:53 <`slikts> but from past experiences it takes just a few votes to get past the initial bump 07:53 <xkapastel> too bad, a botnet is a good application of concurrent programming 07:54 <`slikts> also strategic timing counts 07:54 <`slikts> around now is the prime time to share content 07:54 <`slikts> middle of the week when US is getting up That "first post was a smiley" indeed. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18502760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18502760
  - slikts 8y ago
    "Very slightly" means that I shared that I'd submitted it here; realistically a couple of upvotes could have come from that, but I don't know. The talk about botnets and whatnot is just hyperbole. You inferring alternative accounts and pulling numbers out of thin air is ridiculous.