meisanother

I feel like this should be the norm.

Also, when we consider capacity to focus instead of just time spent at work, I think normal rate is 2 focus bouts of 1.5h each per day. You can get to 3 if you train, but not much more. (I got this from Hubberman's lab podcast, not sure what's the underlying research)

So if you decrease work time to 5h, you give 2x bouts of focus + 1h break between bouts and have 1h left for marginal stuff/meeting.

Maybe going up to 6h would allow for the extended stuff (email, meeting, discussion, lunch) But I feel like 8h just create a world where you need to waste time in the end, just because of physiological concerns.

From Data Parallel algorithms by Hillis and Steele conclusion: 'if the number of lines of code is fixed and the amount of data is allowed to grow arbitrarily, then the ratio of code to data will necessarily approach zero. The parallelism to be gained by concurrently operating on multiple data elements will therefore be greater than the parallelism to be gained by concurrently executing lines of code'

I feel like this sums up the way of thinking one must have in this paradigm.

It's funny because when designing digital hardware, you're kind-of trained to see things under that angle, since often the commands you write will expand in that tree-like structure, but to gates/ALU instead of data.

Then managing the data-path often piggy-backs on the hardware structure you just generated.

I feel like I have a overall grasp on these concept, yet there's so much interesting results that I don't know about...

Well, just got it. Thanks for the reference!

A bit sad that 1974 papers are still behind a IEEE paywall...

Edit: Just finished reading it. I have to say that the generalization of 3.2 got a bit over me, but otherwise it's pretty amazing that they could define such a generalization. Intuition for those type of problem is often to proceed one step at a time, N times.

That it is provably doable in log2(N) is great, especially since it allows for a choice of the depth/number of processors you want to use for the problem. Hopefully next time I design a latency-constrained system I remember to look at that article

There's also something beautiful about seeing or creating a Kogge-Stone implementation on silicon.

I know it was one of the first time I thought to myself: this is not just a straightforward pipeline, yet it all follows such a beautifully geometrical interconnect pattern. Super fast, yet very elegant to layout.

I don't know how much we can relate to smaller business, but it does seem like the average life expectancy of a business is lesser than the expected work span.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1259275/average-company-...

I do agree on the case for the value of the business as an asset.

> cash savings and running a business are not exclusive, actually, usually people running business have more assets/cash that people working for somebody else.

It's true that it does make sense, especially since you probably get more financial literacy by running a business.

I've been pondering how to have my own consulting myself for a while. Maybe I'm a bit sour of not having found a proper way yet...

I feel like the "leaving them a profitable business" is quite hopeful.

Chances are that the business will go under by the time you want to get out of it. Then giving the burden to your kids down the line seems even more risky.

They will probably not want to follow your path and maybe having this weight on their shoulder will change their life decisions in an unfavored manner.

Just my two cents, I think working for yourself is fine, but it still seems like a time-constrained endeavor.

>>> As with everything nuclear, the real problem is that we stopped progressing in the early 1970s and are still using blown up submarine reactors.

The real problem is not nuclear, but technology stagnation because of societal issues.

<<<

About this, I wonder if the number of new works mean that we are getting over the bump of stagnation. Do you think enough is getting done on that end? Also, I wonder what type of work can have the most impact on this side. My Government (Quebec, Canada) closed our last nuclear reactor years ago, but there's still some knowledge base around smaller reactors in Universities.

There's also plan to expand investment into private-held reactor development (https://www.cnl.ca/clean-energy/canadian-nuclear-research-in...). Is this an avenue, considering the legislative/regulation overhead, that will ever be sustainable or it should be spearheaded by governments like it was in the 50s?