miloshasan

6 ms·

1.
by miloshasan 16y ago
These claims are false. We can get savings on a small number of "low-hanging fruit" problems, which are easy to approximate on practical instances - bin packing with many small items, scheduling with many short jobs, 2D Euclidean Hamiltonia
2.
by miloshasan 16y ago
Umm... I thought it was a pretty good introductory article, listing well-known and uncontroversial stuff. Yes, a polynomial algorithm might not be actually practical. Everybody knows this, and pointing it out every time P=NP comes up is bor
3.
by miloshasan 16y ago
If an idea saves you a month of work, its value is exactly equal to the value of a month of work, right?
4.
by miloshasan 16y ago
From what I could tell, the links you posted are no evidence to the contrary. First, child abuse is beyond what most would call "parenting"; that term is mostly applied to things like strictness with respect to school homework, video games,
5.
by miloshasan 16y ago
The author points out something he may not have even intended: that parenting might not matter at all, despite the raging discussions about which parenting style is better. In fact, lots of research on twins and adopted children suggests th
6.
by miloshasan 16y ago
You are comparing top startups to mediocre Ph.D.'s. Top academia is very high-risk and very competitive. You take on very difficult research problems in the hope of becoming famous (but you may never be able to solve them). The rewards are
7.
by miloshasan 16y ago
The premise that Ph.D. degrees are supposed to be mainly training for academic careers is wrong, at least in technical/engineering fields. It is very common for people to enter e.g. CS or EE programs with no intention of pursuing an academi
8.
by miloshasan 16y ago
I would expect that an oversupply of lawyers would make them cheaper to hire and nicer to deal with. If we instead have a small group of lawyers that are expensive and unpleasant, while a lot of younger graduates cannot find jobs, I'd expec
9.
by miloshasan 16y ago
Of course... read my reply again please. I am not disagreeing with you, I am saying that I would love to see a better data-parallel language than C (or CUDA to be precise), but it does not exist right now (at least not a practical one that
10.
by miloshasan 16y ago
> It would make a lot of sense to have something like StarLisp or APL for CUDA right now. Trying to do data parallelism in C is about the most brain-damaged idea ever. I don't know if anyone is working or interested in that, though. You
11.
by miloshasan 16y ago
I suspect that the inability to bring down power isn't just "laziness" on Intel's part. Decreasing power consumption is (more or less) equivalent to increasing performance per watt - an area where Nvidia and ARM designs may simply be better
12.
by miloshasan 16y ago
Ah, OK... I thought he was comparing more "CPU-like" to "GPU-like" designs, rather than CISC to RISC.
13.
by miloshasan 16y ago
The article does not contain the word "CISC"...
14.
Scientists: Call for Citizen Review of NSF Funding Is Misleading(livescience.com)
2 points by miloshasan 16y ago|0 comments
15.
by miloshasan 16y ago
You'd be surprised how many people walk around with terrible vision, without knowing it. My guess is that computer-related jobs require good vision, so people in these jobs are more likely to discover and treat their vision problems.
16.
A Breakthrough Result(rjlipton.wordpress.com)
6 points by miloshasan 16y ago|0 comments
17.
by miloshasan 16y ago
Python is awfully close to being a superior (and free) replacement for Matlab, but there are a few annoyances that keep preventing me from switching forever. Unfortunately, these are mostly not bugs but bad design that is believed to be cor
18.
by miloshasan 16y ago
So you're saying that the "language is a tool" metaphor breaks down because C is "complete" in a way that a hammer isn't. True, but that's taking the metaphor too far; it's original meaning is that the tool matters less than what you're bui
19.
by miloshasan 16y ago
Well, describing oneself as a working programmer (as opposed to a computer scientist) is a valid position, but why does it invalidate the "programming language as tool" metaphor? A basic message of CS is that most general-purpose programmin
20.
by miloshasan 16y ago
Ah, yes - of course decorators do not fundamentally increase the expressive power of the language (and neither do lambdas, obviously). It's all just a matter of convenience and elegance, which are in the eye of the beholder anyway...
21.
by miloshasan 16y ago
The decorator can do introspection on the function object. This project uses the idea to execute (some) Python code on the GPU: http://code.google.com/p/copperhead/
22.
by miloshasan 16y ago
Didn't downvote you, but the difference is that lambdas can only be executed (i.e. applied to something) while decorators let you analyze the code of the function and do something else other than just executing it.