My comment is more addressing the guy trying to use processing OVER threading to improve overall speed of completing multiple IO tasks. Yeah I'm aware of your

My comment is more addressing the guy trying to use processing OVER threading to improve overall speed of completing multiple IO tasks. Yeah I'm aware of your comment. And I can see how you could be pissed off over someone not mentioning what you're saying but please be aware that forum threads can go off into slight tangents when someone states something that is factually wrong. Yes. I know... Programmers can turn to C or they have to use specific libraries to achieve parallelism with threading. I get it. Though you're describing special cases. Similar to the grammatical special cases in English: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/styleforstudents/c1_p6.html https://www.e-education.psu.edu/styleforstudents/c1_p6.html Special cases make certain grammatical rules technically incorrect but the general notion behind those rules and why those rules are still pervasive and stated by people who are aware of the special cases is still valid. It's the same story with the python GIL. There could be multitudes of special cases but this does not negate the existence of a general grammatical rule: Compute in python threads is not parallel. Do I go into a long winded technical discussion of all the special cases or do I just use the generality to point out his categorical mistake? I guess I should have taken the long winded route because if I don't I'll piss you off. Thank you for voting me down btw, I will be sure to address all stakeholders in HN threads in my future replies.