tanderson92

The problem is less of scheduling and more of communication. Typically all nodes will run (facilitated by a program like mpirun or mpiexec) the same executable which will be launched simultaneously in each OS. This is done inside a job scheduler and the resulting host list results in a defined communication pattern.

By the way, even systems completely across the room may be "close" to each other, depending on the topology of the system. You can imagine this being important for solving a physical system which is periodic in certain dimensions, so there should be little interconnect distance between physically-distant nodes.

These machines typically have many thin clients ('nodes') each running their own kernel with network-attached storage (but high-performance storage/interconnect/filesystem technology)

See the top comment on this very HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18336811

A common misconception is that gifts within a family are taxed. They are, but only after one exceeds the lifetime limit. That limit is around $11M (per parent). It is true that if you exceed a certain amount per year you have to fill out a form, but that is not to be confused with paying actual tax on the excess gift. It's good that you feel the same about the inheritance tax because it's the same tax code that govern each.

FT methods are different from Fourier-spectral methods which typically have periodic BC requirements. That was not what my question was about.

The method in the paper exactly represents the solution as a Fourier-type integral which must be computed numerically. The error in the quadrature rule is the sole source of pricing error.

I guess whether the extra computational cost in computing those integrals exactly with the method the author used would carry a corresponding financial cost.

The paper mentions (page 117) that there are accuracy concerns with the FT quadrature method used for equation 8.21 (and analogous ones for others) for "near maturity deep OTM and ITM calls (puts)". This is attributed to the highly oscillatory nature of the Fourier Transform kernel. Is performance important here? Like, would a better quadrature rule which didn't suffer due to the oscillatory kernel help in an important way?

I ask, of course, because there are better ways to treat Fourier-type integrals than trapezoidal rule (I even wrote a numerical analysis paper on such a method).

I didn't downvote you. It remains the case that citing problems exclusive to its Opinion page, as you did in your first post, is a poor way of critiquing the news reporting section.

That article is the WSJ Opinion page which is very different from their reporting.

It's also not true that because only two outcomes are possible that the null hypothesis is a 50/50 split between them.

I think it is generally well-understood that individuals more senior in their career have generally higher incomes. So, when it is stated that "the rich" are obtaining wealth gains, it is explicitly looking at structural changes rather than simply an earnings cycle for individuals continuing to be true. Your first sentence is "Adjusted for inflation, the US economy has more than doubled in real terms since 1975" -- but it was the case even in 1975 that there was absolute income mobility as one progressed in their career. So, your argument purports to disprove the relative mobility or inequality arguments of Saez/Piketty but in fact cannot.

That is why there is so much pushback on this piece of yours: because it appears to be attacking a strawman unrelated to real inequality in the system.

One huge blind spot in using panel data over a 34 year period is that a lot of the people you are initially looking at are retired, and so do not typically pay as much tax or otherwise need to make the same amount of income to have the same standard of living.

The article is very poorly framed and argued.

> Here he presents a few studies that go against general economic consensus popularized mainly by Piketty in "Capital in the 21st century" and through papers/writing by Krugman, Saez, Zucman, Stiglitz, etc. that most of the economic gains in the past 100 years have gone to a concentrated few owners of capital.

> Basically - absolute mobility (how much people gain over time) is still decently healthy today in percentage terms in the US, but relative mobility (how easy it is to move between classes) is widening and the wealthy in 1980 still have a much higher income on average than the poor in 1980.

These are not at all in conflict. As you say, the studies he discusses are not related to, much less undermine, any of the arguments that Krugman/Saez/Zucman/Piketty are making. I don't see any reason why individual characteristics like absolute mobility should be used to measure the health or inequality of an overall economy. Income mobility is a different thing from concentration of wealth or inequality.

Correct. Details can be found discussed in the "Tesla" section of this link: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-22/front-...

Yes, it's an interesting result of corporate mismanagement, that he gets to sign off (with board approval, but let's be honest about the control they have) on even more equity stake. However, he did have to give up the chairmanship, so overall he lost control of the company though in this dimension (portion of equity ownership) it is an interesting curiosity and contradiction.

Worth noting that Tesla didn't really experience those losses due its special stock issuance to Musk to cover the portion of the fine that was due to Tesla. The only material effect to Tesla's corporate finances from that debacle was Musk now has more concentrated equity ownership of the company.

This was, indeed, the inspiration for my comment. It’s cogent and persuasive encapsulation of current free market thought.

I disagree that governments necessarily must be inefficient, but yes this is an area with some nuance. I could see myself being in favor of an incentivized tax structure for OZs, along with a highly redistributional tax system for income, wealth and equity, but I don’t think too many of the people who argue for the power of markets to incentivize investment of OZs are also in favor of the redistibutional part ;)

The article is about a tax break for people, not companies, so this should not affect any investment decision that companies make.

And, of course, the 401k/pension plan, or company that the 401k/plan owns, could easily invest in the OZ if they so desired, if it made financial sense separately from the individual tax break.

The government investing the money would be nice. Apparently they have a lot of money to invest, they just redistributed $2T to primarily rich people through the TCJA.

(I'm a socialist in part because of the market's inability to effect change, such as investment in OZs, which doesn't have a sufficient monetary reward but has significant societal reward. Some people call this a "market failure")

You won't find me arguing against the need for more investment in opportunity zones, or the social benefits of doing so. We don't need a redistributional giveaway to rich people to do so, of course.

Filling out and finding ways to minimize taxes due to 1040 Schedule Ds, that regular feature of tax season that people making $50k/yr or less know and love.

"Poor people are just as free to avoid taxes on their long-term investments in illiquid capital-intensive projects as millionaires and billionaires" is not a take I expected to see, but thank you HN for proving me wrong.

You can do GPGPU programming with Fortran, which is definitely not C-derived, predating C by at least 20 years.

I'll just note here that it is possible to disable password login to your account on a machine to which you do not have root access:

Use a combination of the "ssh_command" option in a authorized_keys to launch a bash session with a chosen environment variable set, and you set up your bashrc so that the lack of existence of this variable in the environment results in an immediate logout.

It’s convenient for deficit hawks that they can simultaneously blame deficits for deflation in Japan and fear monger about hyperinflation in the US.

Your comment also doesn’t link the deficit to the deflation, only speculates on the effects of and policy response to that deflation.

It doesn't follow that the deflation has been due to the deficit.

It doesn't matter. And you're right, MMT is purely descriptive.

FFTW author is commenting on LOC and Github appears to be going off of number of files. Github also incorrectly counts C headers as C++.

The spreadsheet seems to be missing e-mail.

Not to mention that his/her comment does not represent a rebuttal to the Marxist critique, only a critique of marxism itself.

Integrating factors are important motivations in the design of some numerical algorithms. Some keywords: matrix exponentials, semigroup theory, exponential integrators.