3 ms·
It’s not a terrible metaphor when it’s the closest thing we have to explaining this issue to a layperson.
by deafpolygon 8mo ago
It’s not a terrible metaphor when it’s the closest thing we have to explaining this issue to a layperson.
- gaigalas 8mo agoAh, yes. The typical layperson that understands threading and processor architectures.
- deafpolygon 8mo agohonestly, young people these days are smarter than you give them credit for. multi-core and threading is something that pretty much anyone on the internet “gets” conceptually, even if not on an engineering level.
- gaigalas 8mo agoSo, let me get this straight then. You believe the audience for a blog about being tired of multi-tasking is young people, from this new generation that is always multi-tasking (on the smartphone, talking to multiple people, etc)? You honestly believe they need a metaphor like "single thread versus multi-thread" to grasp the idea of what doing multiple things at the same time means, practically? If you do, ok then. Who am I to disagree? I still think none of this makes sense, and the metaphor sucks.
- deafpolygon 8mo agoi think everyone’s got the gist of that by now
- imtringued 8mo agoI understand processor architectures and I would have preferred the use of the word "in-order" processor over "old single core from the 90s", since in-order CPUs are still being designed and manufactured today.
- selridge 8mo agothe closest thing we have to explaining the issue of focusing on something is "imagine a CPU from the 1990s"? C'mon.