Also, white text on sky background with white patches (sun, clouds) has unreadable portions.
"Great chance that it is cost efficient to run your job on our servers. Our servers are distributed over homes, so you don’t have to pay for the overhead of a datacenter. This means that your cost-per-job is up to 55% lower and you compute sustainably, as we use the produced heat to heat homes."
Distributed over homes? As in "houses"? Your customer's data is stored at someone's (an employee's?) house?
This is a cute idea but I am skeptical that it makes sense from either an economic or environmental perspective. There are far more efficient ways to produce heat than electric heaters that run 24/7, and likewise cooling in data centers can be extremely efficient by making use of water, e.g., see https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/efficiency/internal...
Also, maintaining servers in people's homes must be quite expensive and there is limited capacity. It's hard to see that scaling.
advanderveer -- do you have some sort of white-paper that compares the alternatives?
Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on Google Cloud.
Do you mean cheaper? Because generating heat always has 100% efficiency. The only difference is that if you go from burnable materials to heat directly you don't get the nice side effect of getting computation done, so burning stuff is actually less efficient.
As for burning stuff - burning stuff is typically much cheaper, although it is actually the least efficient way of heating, in terms of a ratio between the usable heat you get and the total chemical energy converted to heat.
If you look at the BOINC project those are basically all problems of this kind. Folding proteins like folding@home does for example. The description of a protein is fairly small, a couple megabyte max. However it takes a long time to simulate the behaviour, since chemistry is a messy probabilistic process with lots of back and forth. Nature does this on trillions of proteins at the same time within nanoseconds, and while we cannot reasonably increase the simulation speed of an individual protein, we can at least simulate as many proteins at once as possible.
There is a ton of important scientific work waiting for core hours that really shouldn't be. A loosely-connected grid of laptops would serve a lot of projects very well. On the other hand, there is a large body of work that does require a classical supercomputer, so it doesn't really do anyone any good to accuse MPI of being a sales gimmick.
An isolated, off-net computer - even a desktop PC- stuffed to the gills with GPUs can do HPC. On the other hand, machines connected with 10gbit might do HPC, but you'll have trouble getting codes to scale in a way that is "high performance", relative to what you can get out of threading on a single machine, or a small number of GPUs.
Very little work truly requires classic supercomputers or MPI- there are very few codes where an important engineering problem must be run on a system with low latency, high bandwidth.