kmaitreys

I hope you don't do science because this is how reputation get tainted.

How do you develop a program which will run for longer duration on HPCs. How do you quickly modify struct definitations, how do you define imports (using vs include syntax is so confusing!)

REPL-based workflow doesn't make sense to me other than scripting work.

A lot of people have focussed on the LSP in their replies when it is was only one of the problems I mentioned.

rust-analyzer is a great LSP and paired with clippy it can teach you the language itself. Also, writing numerical code is extremely easy in Rust. I can write code and just run cargo run to see the output. Julia, on the other hand, forced a REPL-based workflow which never has made sense to me. REPL-based workflow makes sense when you just want to do some script stuff. But when writing a code which will run for a long duration on a HPC? I don't get it. Part of the problem is I'm not "holding it correctly", but again, out of the box experience isn't good. You define a struct and later add or remove a field from it. Often you'll get an error because Revise.jl didn't recompile things. It was a sub-par experience and I was hoping to people would share their dev workflow in more detail

I think LSPs like rust-analyzer are very good tools to learn the language itself. I think I learnt Rust solely through LSP and clippy.

I really like Julia as a language but I have struggled to adopt it and be productive in it. Part of it is because of the JIT runtime and a sub-par LSP (at least when I last tried).

To those who regularly write Julia code, what is your workflow? The whole thing with Revise.jl did not suit me honestly. I have enjoyed programming in Rust orders of magnitude more because there's no run time and you can do AOT. My intention is not write scripts, but high performance numerical/scientific code, and with Julia's JIT-based design, rapid iteration (to me at least) feels slower than Rust (!).

I used healpy[1] once during my undergraduate years. It was a summer project to develop an algorithm to find void galaxies.

[1]: https://healpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

Thank you for such a great reply!

There's a lot of useful advice here that'll surely come in handy to me later. For now, yeah I'm just going to try to make things work. So far I have mostly written intra-node code for which rayon has been adequate. I haven't gotten around to test the ergonomics of rs-mpi. But it feels quite an exciting prospect for sure.

Please do not get swayed by nor defend the words vomited by a snake oil salesman.

Also what benchmark? How will you you design it?

Right. I have seen Zig where one needs to specify allocators as well. I'm sorry I'm not well versed enough to know how it makes things better for HPC though?

For now my plan is to write fairly similar style code as one may write in C++/Fortran through MPI bindings in Rust.

I see. Fortunately, I'm aware of that and I don't use clone (unless I intend to) as much. Borrow checker is usually not a problem when writing scientific/HPC code.

Because passing pointers isn't as ergonomic in Rust, I do things in arena-based way (for example setting up quadtrees or octrees). Is that part of the issue when it comes to memory bandwidth?

Can you elaborate on this? Slightly concerned because I have written (and planning to write more) Rust HPC code

I think there's a lot of difference between sounding like someone and being someone. The models are excellent at pretending indeed.

>If we are worried we will be less good at doing job X once we don't do job X anymore, why are we not worried about people who never did job X in the first place? If we are worried about people not doing jobs anymore, why are not worried for the human development of people wealthy enough not to work anymore for the rest of their days?

None of this is equivalent to the topic of discussion. The point is that even in a world of division of labour and shared expertise, there is no atrophy in general populace because someone is trying to become expert in something. The whole point is that the brain is being put in use to do something. If not in X, then in Y. If none of the alphabets are available, where do you put your brain in use to?

>I would not assume someone who won the lottery is going to have their life become uninteresting or see some cognitive decline. It could probably happen, but you can also see a path where the person just chooses to do the activities they always wanted to do, where they keep learning and exploring without the burden of usual life constraints. People already play chess when machines have beaten us for decades, just because they enjoy it.

Again, please play attention to the main idea of the article linked. Most of cognitive development happens in the early formative years. Yes, learning itself never stops, but the primary period of it during perhaps the first 25 years of someone's life. You NEED to make mistakes and learn from them during this period. If you are offloading work that your brain was supposed to do here, it's extremely worrying.

>Regarding education I think AI is a huge revolution waiting to happen. Usual courses have become boring? Have future super powerful AI generate per student highly personalized programs, create bespoke video games where succeeding can only happen once the student has validated all the notions you wanted them to validate etc.

I think there is some truth to it, but you need to regulate how much AI can assist a student. It can be a patient teacher but it shouldn't replace their cognitive abilities. That is the whole point.

Why and how do you think it applies to broader domains?

Children learning in schools should not become product managers. If they are, what exactly is the "product" that they are "managing"? Reducing everything to and looking everything from a corporate viewpoint is bizarre.

Padé approximations are not discussed as much, but they are much more stable than Taylor series approximations.

High level languages that replaced assembly are not black boxes.

> You never (or rarely) write the wiki yourself — the LLM writes and maintains all of it.

Then what is the point? Why be averse so to use your own brain so much? Why are tech bros like this?

Reminded me of the anecdote mentioned in the classic "Real Programmer Don't Use Pascal"

> Some of the most awesome Real Programmers of all work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Many of them know the entire operating system of the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft by heart. With a combination of large ground-based FORTRAN programs and small spacecraft-based assembly language programs, they are able to do incredible feats of navigation and improvisation -- hitting ten-kilometer wide windows at Saturn after six years in space, repairing or bypassing damaged sensor platforms, radios, and batteries. Allegedly, one Real Programmer managed to tuck a pattern-matching program into a few hundred bytes of unused memory in a Voyager spacecraft that searched for, located, and photographed a new moon of Jupiter.

> The current plan for the Galileo spacecraft is to use a gravity assist trajectory past Mars on the way to Jupiter. This trajectory passes within 80 +/-3 kilometers of the surface of Mars. Nobody is going to trust a PASCAL program (or a PASCAL programmer) for navigation to these tolerances.

The article is satirical so I am not sure how true is this, but over its history, the maintainers of these probes have done truly remarkable stuff like this.

https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rni/papers/realprg.html

Great take. I have seen the discussion on this often gets turned into a hard vs soft science debate where in actuality it's just simply about money.

Fair. That number is for a rock of size 1 km.

https://catalina.lpl.arizona.edu/faq/how-often-do-asteroids-...

Multi-worlds is not really relevant here. You are just asking the question how the building blocks of life form in the Universe and how can they reach a planet like ours.

It had to start somewhere which is favourable to preserve the necessary molecules. Early Earth was not such place.

Why are you assuming couple of asteroids? Life first appeared 3.5 billion years ago. The frequency of an asteroid impact on Earth is ~500,000 years.

Those smaller rocks are in the outer solar system, where the solar irradiation is lower. But the way they are composed is lots of ices (volatile molecules in solid form) being built on the silicate/graphite refractory core. The ices remain preserved in the environment provided by the outer solar system.

Relevant

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36151140

Informed trader needs to be properly defined. Suppose a person just does some research at individual level (read, OSINT, make their own computer models to do prediction etc), then that's permissible.

But if you're defining an informed trader to already know the answer, then it's problematic. I hope you see that as well. The market should reward some logically deduced conclusion, not power. That's my position.

Also it's not noise, an average trader is not choosing a random number between (0,1). They can do research and their guess can be informed. Hence, the use of word wisdom. By your definition, this is gambling then.

No.

Please look at the name again. It's "prediction" market. So if you have credible information before resolution, it's no longer a prediction.

Also your premise is incorrect. The goal of prediction market isn't that. It's to represent wisdom of crowd. Informed traders who can influence the outcome are no longer using any wisdom, nor they're part of the crowd.

This looks rather interesting. I implemented a quadtree as part of writing a radiative transfer code during my masters using numpy/numba. Wasn't fun at all, but learnt a lot. But seeing someone try quadtrees in Python refreshed those memories

What exactly is the point of making a unverifiable statement(s) like this?

Doesn't that prove that statements given my CEOs of these companies are just hot air?

What is enheartening about hearing a liar who makes provocative statements all the time, make another one?