twtw

38 ms·

361.
by twtw 8y ago
perhaps I wasn't clear. I completed all of the courses for the major, with the exception of CS101, introduction to computer programming. I took many classes that ostensibly had a prerequisite on CS101, including additional nonrequired
362.
by twtw 8y ago
It could well be lower than a scalar approach. SIMD units like AVX are power hungry, but a greater fraction of that power is relevant computation rather than power for control, schedule, etc. Ideally, the constant instruction overhead to ge
363.
by twtw 8y ago
In my experience: You say, "I already know this stuff, can I just take the final?" Uni says, "this is a required course for graduation, you must take it." If you don't comply or push hard enough to make Uni comply w
364.
by twtw 8y ago
> may take a huge stock market and reputation hit I think you can use the past tense here.
365.
Neural Importance Sampling(arxiv.org)
2 points by twtw 8y ago|0 comments
366.
by twtw 8y ago
This "productive academic discussion" of the myriad benefits of the mill architecture has been repeated over and over again for at least 5 years, with very few new developments. There is great value to thinking about new and non t
367.
by twtw 8y ago
You talk about the mill as if it exists. There is no hardware, there are no benchmarks. Bloviating about the excellent performance of the mill is not valuable - showing SPEC CPU results is. VLIW performance was great too, until it wasn&#x27
368.
by twtw 8y ago
Talk is cheap. The TL;DW is that the mill cpu will have better performance than existing CPUs without speculative execution because it has "deferred loads," while the straw man not-mill architecture doesn't and therefore stal
369.
by twtw 8y ago
The experiments described in that article have zero impact on Bohm's pilot wave theory, which is the only current pilot wave theory that is actually workable.
370.
by twtw 8y ago
The conceptually independent threads are executed on 32 wide SIMD cores. "All the cores" within a warp/wavefront must execute the same instruction each cycle. GPU threads got even more independent in nvidia'a volta arc
371.
by twtw 8y ago
You keep attributing some kind of unfounded malice to IBM. VMWare released their first hypervisor for x86 in 1999. That's 30 years after the first IBM virtual machines. If you are asking: "why didn't IBM release a hypervisor
372.
by twtw 8y ago
Why is JS removed from the HN title?
373.
by twtw 8y ago
I would also highly recommend that you become familiar with these "much older generations" before generalizing about Silicon Valley's success stories. It's called "silicon" for a reason, and being unfamiliar wi
374.
by twtw 8y ago
> they didn't want to make that technology available to the masses Do you have a source for this? It makes far more sense that it simply was not feasible to make a System/360 available to the masses than it was intentionally ke
375.
by twtw 8y ago
I guess this is a good opportunity... It irks me a bit that scoreboarding is not considered "out of order execution" in modern classification. If I have a long latency memory read followed by an independent short latency instruct
376.
by twtw 8y ago
> the vulnerability literally works like this: > me: "can i log in?" > server: "no. you need a password." > me: "hacker voice i'm in" > server: "login successful. you're in"
377.
by twtw 8y ago
Gates is very little like the current generation. Even jobs, who is well known for being a jerk, was still very much human and not psychopathic. Compare these guys to Page, Zuckerberg, Musk, Kalanick, Thiel, Kurzweil, ... and all of a sudde
378.
by twtw 8y ago
Legitimate means whatever I want it to mean - that's why I like it. In this case, I used it to mean something like "profitable, with a business model that doesn't depend on monopoly, selling a product that isn't smoke an
379.
by twtw 8y ago
I didn't say anything about innovative - I said legitimate.
380.
by twtw 8y ago
You and I clearly have a different idea of what silicon valley's "major success stories" are. Some non-psychopathic successful individuals: Bill Hewlett, David Packard, Gordon Moore, Andy Grove, Federico Faggin, Ross Freeman,
381.
by twtw 8y ago
But you can't just say "O(n)," you have to specify what n is - at which point it is no longer any more terse than the English alternative. > What we ended up with was O(n) _classes_ (where n = the number of computation ope
382.
by twtw 8y ago
I understand and I'm well aware that it has become "coder slang" - that's my point. On a thread about complexity worship, the first comment I saw was an unnecessary use of jargon that complicates things without new meani
383.
by twtw 8y ago
Ok. O(n) also through a away a lot of useful information. It seems simpler in every sense to just say "several classes for every operation."
384.
by twtw 8y ago
> A system that has O(n) code artifacts for n "business requirements" (e.g.) is far more costly than one that has O(1), say. I understand what you are saying, I'm just objecting to how you are saying it. Unless you are int
385.
by twtw 8y ago
> What we ended up with was O(n) _classes_ (where n = the number of computation operations). Speaking of complexity worship... Big O notation seems totally irrelevant here, unless the question involved scaling to arbitrary number of ty
386.
by twtw 8y ago
Thinking Machines. That company was too far ahead of its time. The trends in process technology steamrolled their architecture, but if they were around now they could probably do incredibly well.
387.
by twtw 8y ago
This article made me feel nauseated. All these big name hotshots and Google execs so full of BS they can't even manage to fire this guy. This is what a lot of Silicon Valley has become, but it has not always been this way and there are
388.
by twtw 8y ago
Xilinx is certainly doing some very interesting stuff with Everest. But to be honest I don't see where all the hype (and funding) for inference accelerators is coming from. It think that many people overestimate the difficulty of makin
389.
by twtw 8y ago
I don't think it's unfair at all. As I read it, Zuckerberg's response is exactly what Carr is talking about: It's a problem now, but it's fine because we are going to make Facebook so much better; it will be awesome
390.
The Silicon Valley Billionaires Remaking America's Schools(nytimes.com)
2 points by twtw 8y ago|0 comments

More ›