3 ms·

John Carmack has reviewed the code and didn't seem to find it all that bad, so there's that. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1258192134752145412 https

by Luc 6y ago

John Carmack has reviewed the code and didn't seem to find it all that bad, so there's that. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1258192134752145412 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1258192134752145412 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1244302925855326209 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1244302925855326209

veddox 6y ago
That's a valuable pointer, thanks for sharing :-)
brigandish 6y ago
Really? > Imperial are trying to have their cake and eat it. Reports of random results are dismissed with responses like “that’s not a problem, just run it a lot of times and take the average”, but at the same time, they’re fixing such bugs when they find them. They know their code can’t withstand scrutiny, so they hid it until professionals had a chance to fix it, but the damage from over a decade of amateur hobby programming is so extensive that even Microsoft were unable to make it run right. That's from the first analysis[1]. There's a follow up[2]: > Sadly it shows that Imperial have been making some false statements. and > It’s clear that the changes made over the past month and a half have radically altered the predictions of the model. It will probably never be possible to replicate the numbers in Report 9. [1] https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/ https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/ [2] https://lockdownsceptics.org/second-analysis-of-fergusons-model/ https://lockdownsceptics.org/second-analysis-of-fergusons-mo...
- Joeboy 6y ago
  Yes. John Carmack says the code is OK, some anonymous person on the lockdownsceptics.org website says it's a flaming heap of garbage. For what it's worth I looked into some of the tickets linked in those articles and concluded the author is, broadly speaking, full of shit. I am nobody in particular though.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > John Carmack says the code is OK He doesn't say it's okay, he engages in a weird kind of whataboutery like "Heck, professional software engineering struggles mightily with just making completely reproducable builds". I struggle to note one part of the article by the "retired software engineer" (as if that has any relevance either) that he deals with specifically. But since it's John Carmack we must let him wave his hand and say it is so. The Github issues are also far more enlightening than Carmack's tweets on this, but again, who cares for precision and points argued with evidence when we have a name giving their opinion?
    - Joeboy 6y ago
      > The Github issues are also far more enlightening than Carmack's tweets on this Totally agree. The "lockdown skeptics" articles significantly misrepresent the github issues. They imply that there are mysterious uncertainties creeping into the results, when the actual issues relate to things like failures to set RNG seeds consistently, or a checksum failing in a test due to floating point rounding differences in Cray supercomputers' native instructions. Most readers aren't going to investigate the github issues though.

by Luc 6y ago

veddox 6y ago

That's a valuable pointer, thanks for sharing :-)

brigandish 6y ago

Really? > Imperial are trying to have their cake and eat it. Reports of random results are dismissed with responses like “that’s not a problem, just run it a lot of times and take the average”, but at the same time, they’re fixing such bugs when they find them. They know their code can’t withstand scrutiny, so they hid it until professionals had a chance to fix it, but the damage from over a decade of amateur hobby programming is so extensive that even Microsoft were unable to make it run right. That's from the first analysis[1]. There's a follow up[2]: > Sadly it shows that Imperial have been making some false statements. and > It’s clear that the changes made over the past month and a half have radically altered the predictions of the model. It will probably never be possible to replicate the numbers in Report 9. [1] https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/ https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/ [2] https://lockdownsceptics.org/second-analysis-of-fergusons-model/ https://lockdownsceptics.org/second-analysis-of-fergusons-mo...

Joeboy 6y ago
Yes. John Carmack says the code is OK, some anonymous person on the lockdownsceptics.org website says it's a flaming heap of garbage. For what it's worth I looked into some of the tickets linked in those articles and concluded the author is, broadly speaking, full of shit. I am nobody in particular though.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > John Carmack says the code is OK He doesn't say it's okay, he engages in a weird kind of whataboutery like "Heck, professional software engineering struggles mightily with just making completely reproducable builds". I struggle to note one part of the article by the "retired software engineer" (as if that has any relevance either) that he deals with specifically. But since it's John Carmack we must let him wave his hand and say it is so. The Github issues are also far more enlightening than Carmack's tweets on this, but again, who cares for precision and points argued with evidence when we have a name giving their opinion?
  - Joeboy 6y ago
    > The Github issues are also far more enlightening than Carmack's tweets on this Totally agree. The "lockdown skeptics" articles significantly misrepresent the github issues. They imply that there are mysterious uncertainties creeping into the results, when the actual issues relate to things like failures to set RNG seeds consistently, or a checksum failing in a test due to floating point rounding differences in Cray supercomputers' native instructions. Most readers aren't going to investigate the github issues though.