_yosefk

This is OT, but - most of linear algebra dies quickly even in single precision, meaning that your equation system solver produces a solution that doesn't really solve these equations, etc. One exception is neural networks where Google's TPU is just the start and in general GPUs while beating CPUs leave a lot of room for improvement.

I think the new Stratix might well beat GPUs, not?

The Reduceron specifically tries to quickly perform application of lambda expressions that GHC will try to avoid generating in the first place. The Reduceron speeds things up using several memory banks etc. but it still does things that shouldn't be done at all and the overhead is there at least in area and power.

Alan Kay likes to fail at least 90÷ of the time (shows you aim high enough) and says the industry is too dumb to digest good ideas. I like to succeed at least 90÷ of the time so that the dumb industry keeps employing me. I'm afraid we have irreconcilable differences. (And, this is me reigning in A LOT right here. Don't get me started...)

#2 saves a little but not much and precludes unsafe low-level code completely. #1 I think impairs many HLLs, certainly every multithreaded imperative shared memory ones (and IMO nothing is close to these in terms of efficiency on multicore); which languages can work well without cache coherence? (I worked in C++ on multicore with no hw coherence btw. Quite the cruel and unusual punishment.)

You mean the great advances in Deep Learning we keep reading about did not revolutionize search? Still PageRank?

It could be that people telling others about such quests seem to fail in those quests. Not sure most people seeking therapy for issues greatly bothering them are going to tell you.

Well, I guess I agree with Rob Pike in that the "tools doing one job and doing it well philosophy is dead and the eulogy was delivered by Perl." I think you should write build rules in a programming language and a programming language is something that doesn't make you upgrade to a new version to avoid shelling out to find. Let's agree to disagree :-)

You use $(shell) and sed in there which I don't think is much different from $(foreach), and perhaps it's gnarlier. Perhaps my counterpoint is "a build system is a program using a library/framework for scheduling work based on dependencies" and make's insistence on builds being about the dependency graph and delegating programming to shell commands and afterthoughts like $foreach, plus its very painful evaluation model with unclear order make for a terrible programming environment.

I dunno, I've never seen a readable Makefile in any system above say 300 files. If you could write readable declarative Makefiles getting the job done, would there be autotools? This is not to say that autotools get the job done beautifully, just that their existence demonstrates how the problem gets us all contort violently to terrible effect like a wounded animal screaming and running into trees.

I admit that I despise make and maybe I don't get the beauty (I get the beauty of the idea but I've never seen it result in actual beautiful Makefiles), and maybe if you linked to what you consider a good open source Makefile, we could discuss this in more concrete terms.

This is the funniest thing I read today. The problem of course is how to trade them.

Actually it's a 3 in one example, and the strongest of the 3 players is the strongest woman chess player ever. So I guess that yes, I think it's pretty strong evidence, and no, I don't hold this opinion particularly strongly; I don't really give a shit which group is better at what but it's always fun to watch people foaming at their mouths trying to prove how similar or different groups are when it's obviously false.

If my "value system" shouldn't apply to someone else, then you are making my point - women are less interested in pro chess than men, and their different value system is not a problem.

If you do think it's a problem, you can only argue that it is based on a judgement of what's productive that is applicable to others. Here I am ready to defend my belief that chess, which I like, is a waste of time.

The father of the 3 Polgar sisters deliberately pushed them to play chess to prove a point. All 3 got very good, Judith was #10 in the world. This strongly suggests "not interested" is more true of other women than "not that good."

A guy playing very shitty chess here.

* Not sure if pro chess needs more women, men or computers spending their energy on it. I guess stuff like this is its own reward but being good at it comes at a price and competition guarantees that this price will be the highest people can possibly pay. I guess it should be kept legal but I don't see why encourage it.

* Judith Polgar, who ranked #10 among humans and #1 among women, had a crazy dad set out to prove that "any child can be raised to become a genius." Here I use "crazy" in colloquial terms but AFAIK men are more likely to experience mental illness in professional terms.

* Could it be that fewer women are crazy enough to devote their lives to chess than men? Is it really a problem? The societal benefits of chess are not obviously worth the opportunity cost, as someone with a potential as a chess player could probably do something most of us consider more productive.

None of this is in response to TFA (and I wish Hou Yifan success in everything she does), I'm only replying to your point about women being as "good" as men at competing at an inherently unproductive mental activity.

I hear you, I just think you're a lot like that Soviet cybernetician [1], meaning that you think you're very close to the technology of that ever-elusive tomorrow, but you aren't :-) Of course it's not really fair to say that since you qualified your statements, it just sounded good and I can't miss an opportunity to fire a cheap shot at the AI/big data bubble :-)

[1] Nobody was called that as cybernetics was declared "a servant of Imperialism", I guess nominally because automating away jobs hurts workers or something, which is one reason the USSR never produced particularly good computing machinery. But I get whom you refer to.

There's a huge difference between a vertically integrated company competing for customers and vendors and the entire economy of a country, IMO. One evidence is that large companies keep ossifying and failing to adapt all the time which means the economy needs more than one giant company to move forward. A new Google needs a way to tell the state/the giant computer/whatever, "you're wrong, search works badly and we can do better." It's very hard to do that if the giant computer is running everything and effectively decides what you do (and it cannot run the economy if it cannot decide who does what, or at least what projects are funded and which aren't.)

Also the USSR didn't just have problems optimizing supply chains. It had a problem deciding what to make. You couldn't buy woolen sweaters so you bought woolen socks and made sweaters from the woolen threads making up the sock (yes, I fucking participated in this fuckery). How is a giant neural network going to figure out how many socks and sweaters people want better than demand affecting prices affecting production, even if I grant you the assumption that the problem of managing the socks supply chain is nailed today?

You mean today's computers can assign prices to existing products and decide which new products to develop better than the market? The iPhone coming out of a neural network which isn't close to passing even a pale shadow of the Turing test (which a lot of humans pass who certainly cannot develop new products or set prices better than the market)? I wouldn't put my money on it.

(BTW Botvinnik, the first Soviet chess champion, was trying to push his (weaker than competition) chess-playing program as a basis for running the entire Soviet economy (he explained the weakness of his program for chess by it being more general than the competition; it apparently did not occur to him however that the fact that it lost to other machines and of course to people - this was 1990 - could perhaps mean it might run the economy somewhat worse than say a person. He was an engineer.))

As to electing engineers - let's put it this way: all else being equal, I'd rather be ruled by an EXPERIENCED ex-engineer (not just a guy with a degree) with a track record of achieving something, for which people who worked with them can vouch, than an ex-lawyer or an ex-journalist. But "engineer" by itself is not even a certificate of basic sanity, let alone the ability to lead someone somewhere other than the abyss, and for this HN's comment section provides ample evidence on a daily basis.

It's good as long self-termination is a nice-to-have feature. If you REALLY want them to self-terminate but you found out that they mutated and can now synthesize X & Y, you're in trouble.

Genetically modified organisms are a bit scary, but genetically modified organisms that replicate autonomously are more than a bit scary. As programmers - a profession that managed to spread Shellshock, the dumbest imaginable backdoor, so widely as to make much of human population vulnerable, we should understand this better than others. We have no idea what happens in our own code, code that we copy from place to place ourselves, written in languages we designed and running on machines we designed, and there's nothing like mutation and self-replication with this stuff, for the most part. I kinda doubt that biologists modifying "code" which is actually pretty large molecules existing and interacting in a 3D space with a lot of forces pulling and pushing things, and without the benefit of comments or design documents, can make something that can be trusted to autonomously replicate and gradually mutate.

I think the attitude toward "self-enhancement" using mind-altering substances reflects the suspicion that it really isn't, meaning that the side effects are not worth the positive effects. People have very positive attitudes towards "self-enhancement" through various life-saving surgeries as they don't doubt that being alive a few more years is better than dying from a curable disease in the next few weeks.

I'm sure that a mind-altering substance the users of which appear to experience no negative effects and major improvements in their functioning will be met with applause by most people. At the moment however there are plenty of drug users for any value of "drug" that I know who do not serve as a great advertisement for that drug.

It doesn't seem easy to reason about the performance of a program under lazy evaluation. Generally there are many aspects of a system that you may want to reason about, and making it easier to reason about one often comes at the expense of making it harder to reason about another. Pure functional code, for example, makes it easy to reason about what outputs are produced from what inputs, but that is one (important) aspect among many (and to take one thing that's really simple without purity and really tough with it - consider "pure functional data structures" vs data structures in imperative languages assuming a mutable RAM.)

Right, because it's better to be paid $X/year and have 0 stock options than it is to be paid $X/year and have Y stock options, and no sane person would prefer the latter or negotiate for a Y large enough to be worth something even if the startup doesn't "make it" but is sold for 5x less than they tell you the IPO is going to be. And a company that has already got $200M invested into it is just as likely to fail to grow in value as a 1-person startup operating from a dorm room - it's always a 1 in a million lottery ticket. Only after IPO do RSUs suddenly gain value from 0 to something.

"Treat as zero" is bad advice. "Treat as 10x or 50x cheaper than they say it is" - that's good advice. The difference is that 10x more equity solves a lot of problems with equity, and it's not what you'll be gunning for if you think its value is zero.

Short-selling? Where's patio11? He said he badly wanted to short BTC, all that was lacking is a mechanism.

Having dialed back to 3 days/week, I believe that "how much time I'm willing to spend working" is a somewhat orthogonal question to "what motivates me during the time when I'm working." Not entirely orthogonal but also very far from the same question.

What also amazes me is that the same heterodox crowd critiquing capitalism goes on to say "money doesn't make you happy", citing surveys of millionaires and billionaires who all say they'd be happy with 2x-3x their current net worth! I mean, not necessarily the same people say it, but the same press outlets for sure.

But if it doesn't make you happy and you always want more, that desire must motivate you, right? Make up your mind!

I'm guessing few would book a management consultant simply telling to pay people more money - consultants who want a job instead have to explain how to motivate for free.

But the people who share a lot of the blame for this idiocy and who have no good excuse are "heterodox economists" and TED talk presenters telling us how money doesn't motivate people past a certain point, or how it actually makes people less creative, all supposedly to criticize "capitalism" but in fact to make the market work worse for employees who now actually have to argue with management that yes, money does motivate them, with the manager replying "I know it doesn't so tell me what's really bothering you" or what-not. I mean it's not like companies seek less profit having seen the TED talk, instead they learn that they can cut expenses by avoiding "needless" raises. Quite the heterodoxy, that.

It's not the cloud - it's the sad downside of the democratization of hardware design, as in fabs like TSMC and IP companies like ARM making it relatively cheap to make your own chips with competitive functionality in a wide range of areas. There's a lot of custom hardware outside the cloud, say in embedded electronics, that's just as closed as the stuff in server farms - closed specs and no way to program the thing, increasingly often no ability to run binaries unsigned by someone in a small set of vendors.

Moreover, the GPUs and more so, DSPs and ISPs in your phone or PC are hidden from you in that they run code written by a very small number of people. You don't even have an idea how many small DSP cores are scattered throughout a desktop-class chip, let alone what they do or how to program them. Effectively it's for internal use of a very small number of hardware and software vendors, and the software is very much tied to the hardware.

The reason computing hardware used to be open is that very few could make it and they only stood to gain from making it usable in as many applications as possible, or at least so they thought. Once (almost-)cloning hardware products became increasingly cheap with less and less vertically intergated hardware vendors (from fab to design), vertical integration moved to design+software because that's how you fend off competition today.

You might see logical consistency in the above; I see a bunch of things tied not by any logic but solely by the fact that a set of people agree with all these things.

For instance, why is making noises infringing on your freedom from noise, but the requirement of silence is not an infringement on your freedom to make noises? Freedom from noise and freedom to make noises are both "freedoms" and one comes at the expense of the other. What is the way to weigh their relative importance which is universally applicable to other cases and not rooted in culture or personal preference?

One problem is defining what "intruding on others' happiness too much" means - it's not obvious how to derive from this principle the hours when making loud noises within city limits is OK, or what about necrophilia in public, or pollution, etc. Almost anything I do might make someone very unhappy and I'm not sure what philosophical principle can be used to distinguish cases where I should stop doing it from cases where I should be able to reply "toughski shitski."

Another problem is whether it's OK to require a thirsty person in a desert to give up all their assets in exchange for water, and whether it's OK for the thirsty person to knock you out and take the water in response; most people would side with the thirsty guy for what I think are very good reasons in terms of the practical implications while objectivists would not.

I understand your opposition to Eich's donation, but I think that what you said strengthens my point rather than weakens it; my only point was that most tech employees would see an Eich-like quiet, private donation to Trump as a "predictable PR problem that might get away from them and prevent them from effectively leading", and that as a result they would avoid creating such a "PR problem", and therefore we cannot learn much about support for Trump in tech circles by looking at donations.

As to someone somewhere... Show me someone, somewhere on HN attacked by thousands of commenters for supporting some liberal cause in the US the way Eich was attacked by thousands of commenters (who keep mentioning it every time say Brave is brought up) for supporting a conservative cause. (I'm not saying you SHOULD be able to find this example, whatever "should" means; I'm only saying that you CAN'T, and that "someone somewhere" doesn't cut both ways the way you implied. If it were that symmetrical, then it would have invalidated my point.)