xoroshiro

I guess the next low hanging fruit would be to prove (or disprove!) the same for chess960

Maybe a dumb question, but speedier in reference to what? Design of Experiments?

> something like ~15 clock cycles

Even less with PEXT! https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/BMI2#PEXTBitboards

Poking around and reading through the wiki blew my mind. I hope they are archived somewhere.

If Google can "basically determine web standards", then I don't see how it's possible for anyone else to "still have a seat on the table". I mean, if they cared enough about it and were actually on the table in the first place...

Oh, wow. I couldn't really figure out which parts of AMPL were proprietary and I guess I immediately dismissed it after that without understanding how it worked.

As for Pyomo, while at first glance I dislike the syntax (it's not as easy to share with others, at least compared to something like GNU MathProg, where the receiver doesn't need to concern themselves with python or julia), I like python enough to maybe give it a try. I'll have to learn more about it though. Thanks to you and the others!

I guess it doesn't matter that much, but if there were a common language, it would be a nice feature that would allow you to skip the middleman altogether and have simpler dependencies if you know which solvers you want.

It's the common language that matter more though. I've used GAMS in my undergrad, so I'm under the impression that it's had at least some adoption, but it's proprietary AFAIK. I've know some people who use AMPL too, which also seems popular, but I'm not sure about it's licenses.

Maybe I was confusing my terms or something. I think of these as like an API as well, although packaged into a nice library that automates some stuff. So I guess I'll try to describe my ideal scenario instead.

What I was thinking of was a common language that can be used by all solvers. Similar to how C can be compiled by gcc or clang, this language can be used directly with the solver binary. Something like `export CC=my_solver` and `CC -d data.dat -m model.mod`, if you will.

What a lot of these projects do feels like calling a solver by translating it into some format that's different for everyone, whereas I wanted for the solvers to all agree on some language.

Or at the very least, some standard similar to how languages have libraries for something like XML. It would be nice if JuMP and PyOmO could read these standardized formats.

Then again, it's probably a pain to implement and even C compilers implement different extensions. But one can dream.

Thanks, but it was not really what I was looking for. I was looking for something that feels closer to a DSL than an API. In OR, a language like AMPL (IIRC, by Brian Kernighan) or GAMS is typically used where you define sets, variables, etc. It's something I feel I can more easily share to co-workers with different backgrounds, since it's closer to math, and follows the whole objective function, constraint, etc. organization in OR problems.

If you want to get a feel for it, here's an example in GMPL, which is a subset of AMPL used in GLPK:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GLPK/GMPL_%28MathProg%29

>One thing i've learnt is that comparing optimisation algorithms is really hard

It still boggles my mind how simplex, something that theoretically runs worse that interior point methods is competitive (at least based on what I've read online). I guess with these problems, the instances of the problem has a huge effect on how long approaches take.

>In particular, i get the impression that a lot of the cutting-edge research is about being able to solve huge problems at all

This is also the impression I get. When I look at benchmarks (btw, does anyone know an updated publication for these? A lot of what I find seems to be from years ago. I'm not sure how fast development of these are, but it would be nice to be updated once in a while) it always has some measure of time along with number of instances solved.

>Perhaps those algorithms will be more useful for ML hyperparameter optimisation

I thought about this, and maybe the reason why they largely don't use these have to do with getting results that are good enough (generalize well). A global optimum might not be worth the effort, so they stick to some variant of gradient descent. The measure they look at, after all, is performance on the test set. Aside from that, there may be something specific about a well defined problem that they can use to speed computations up, and a more general approach probably can't assume these for other instances of NLP for example.

Glad to see someone posted about COIR-OR!

I've been looking at open source solvers for a while now to solve an MIP, and this one seems to be the best.

There is this annoying thing about the whole ecosystem though, aside from the proprietary bits.

I started by looking at GLPK and wrote my MIP in GMPL. For some reason a lot of tools I looked at don't "just work". I have to export it to some other format. It works, but feels like a work-around.

I wish there were a lingua franca in this domain and sort of have support from all major solver implementations, but each one seems to have their own way, or just provide an API (ehem google/or-tools)

I am happy I can make it work, but it may not be as easy for others.

Probably the wrong engine to test this with then. Although it's interesting nonetheless. It's pretty well known that chess engines have this trade-off between searching and evaluating. Among the consistent top 3 I suppose Stockfish is the easiest to test, being open source and all. It's pretty well regarded that Komodo has the best evaluation function though. Even if it doesn't keep up with the nodes/sec of Houdini and Stockfish, it's consistently up there with the top 3. The other chess engines doen't even come close. (Fire is probably number 4 but is on a league of it's own. Not quite good enough to challenge the top 3, but eats everything else.)

I know it's complicated, between the hardware differences, search method used, etc. But when claiming that NNs beat hand crafted evaluation functions, keep in mind that Stockfish is probably are not the best choice to compare, since it has made different tradeoff choices to get more depth (which goes back to search method and hardware choices).

Thanks for that. My undergrad was Industrial Engineering but I always loved the Operations Research stuff (which I'm hoping will lead me to more CS-y stuff if I can get a job or a Masters or something). All that OR with LPs and MIPs was a headache and but somehow Stochastic programming, GAs and NNs were scary and I never even tried to understand them. I always thought people describing them as simple were probably geniuses or something. Maybe one day I'll understand the second half of that link.

For something as well known as shortest path, no. One thing about LP/MIP formulations though, is that it's arguably easier to extend. Not to say there aren't tricks to modifying existing algorithms, but most of the time, there is no need to spend all that time, when adding in a few variables or constraints will do the trick for this one problem that you will probably not need to revisit for quite a while.

I have some idea how it MIGHT work, but it would be a very boring solution involving 'learning' Stockfish's parameters and HOPING to find improvements to something like integrating time management and search/pruning into it.

I wouldn't bet on it though. SMP is notoriously hard to work with alpha-beta search and there are a lot of clever tricks (which is probably still not perfect). Maybe with ASICs, you could make it stronger, but then it wouldn't be as fair a comparison.

Does this mean it learns what to search? I wonder why they thought it was a good idea. I thought the whole point of MC was that pruning algorithms like the ones in chess wouldn't work for a larger search space.

For those of us who just want Linux on the phone, but don't know much about hardware and low level stuff: What can we expect?

How powerful are these going to be? I guess asking how they compare to current phones performance-wise is not the point of this phone, but it would be nice to know where this stands.

Also, if it's not too early to make predictions, how long will the thing last battery-wise? Iirc the laptop situation in Linux had some stuff like powertop which helps, but it's still tricky.

I don't get the issue as well, but maybe from ignorance. Can't I just get the rust compiler in LLVM's IR form and bootstrap from there?

After this, do a bit of research on goal programming or other approaches to multiobjective optimization. It could really help and depending on the approach, it's not that hard. It usually just adds a bunch of constraints or some precompuations to an already existing set of in/equalities for your model.

And here I am, still waiting for the second edition of that book on learning Rust to be finished. I want to learn Rust for fun and I know I should probably just start on reading the book, but I keep making up excuses not to. I want my ++, --, ?:, SIMD, etc.

Can someone explain simply what this means for projects like libreboot and coreboot? I'm always interested with this stuff and it's implications, but don't have the background to understand a lot of low level details. Is the verdict still the same or are we gaining ground? Last time I checked, purism was quite optimistic about it, but the libreboot website seemed really pessimistic about it.

As much as I want a FLOSS phone to succeed, I have my doubts. Then again, I'm not sure how all the Matrix stuff works, but if I can't simply give someone my phone number and expect it to just work, I don't see how this can happen.

Can someone explain it more simply? Does it completely forego SIM cards? Will it 'just work', or is it more of a 'we made progress in this area, but not a lot of people are going to find it practical' thing like Replicant?

As someone who first learned how to program by implementing PRNGs but never really digging deeper into it, I found this post very interesting to read. I do have an idea about some (small portion) of the things behind it, but I have no background in cryptography.

Looking at the other posts, it seems like most PRNGs are fine for non-cryptographic applications, but what are other ways to make PRNG's though? Everything I've learned (mostly simple stuff; Linear Congruential, Midsquare, etc.) seem to need to store a state to work, because otherwise, wouldn't you just output the same thing over and over again? I know there's stuff like /dev/random (though I'm unsure how that works), but that doesn't seem like a good idea for getting a lot of numbers.

>Understanding this subject is very important in my opinion, this is one of the foundational things we do. Attaining a comfort level with compiler engineering is one the two or three things anyone can do to really "level up" as a software developer.

I think it depends on the level of abstraction.

Then again, I'm not really a software developer, most of the work I do is scripting stuff for data analysis, which is where I learned regex from. I did learn C in college which I somehow got fascinated with, but I never really do any serious work with it. Still, over time, reading about quite lower level stuff (compared to what I do) does seem like it helps take the mystery out of things like unintuitive behaviors with multiple references to a Python list (I suspect it was pointers all along). Taking it to the next lower level with studying compilers and how assembly gets generated doesn't seem like it will benefit me much more.

Still, I do like C enough to possibly consider doing something in it for fun if I get an idea, so maybe one day I'll come back to this.

I don't understand why this still looks scary to me. A while back after learning regex (though only at a basic level) I thought, maybe I can make my own custom C preprocessor as an exercise. Perfect right? I get to choose the syntax AND the rules. But somehow I just can't write it. Nested ifdefs, defines, undefs mixing together too OP.

Reading through this, it seems like there's a huge amount of work into real compilers. Front end, optimizer, backend, etc. I do appreciate it more, but as useful as compilers are, maybe I'll just leave it to the pros (:

As someone who was forced to learn Palmer style in school, I must say I always hated the capital Q. I don't know if I just couldn't get it right, or I never really saw it as legible, but it annoyed me that it looked too much like a 2. I went back to block letters in college and never thought much of penmanship.

Until college, when I learned a bit of LaTeX and became fascinated with fonts. Still hate that Q though. Thank goodness for computers.

Just curious, because I was thinking of using PulseAudio just for Firefox (which is kind of annoying). What's wrong with PulseAudio? Why did they stop supporting ALSA?

The Stockfish Makefile is probably the best example of this I've seen. It also does some advanced stuff I'm not sure I understand yet. Profiling, setting flags for CPU instructions and making profile builds, all with support for different C++ compilers. Pretty neat stuff from one of the best chess engines.

https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/...

I'd say Python would've been the 'safe' and 'sane' choice, but maybe it's just my bias against Java and JavaScript talking.

Just curious, has anyone ever heard off choosing to teach something like bash / PowerShell? It might seem less intimidating than downloading a lot of stuff and students can play around with stuff already in their computer. Hell, maybe even something like VBA (as much we might dislike it) since non-majors will likely encounter it in MS Office anyway.

I used to think I understand Linear Programming, and the transportation problem. Is there a relationship between this and the Markov formulation? I'm totally confused now. Posts like this make me feel guilty about not reviewing them once in a while. And I guess while I'm at it with the questions:

>We have to add an artificial source and sink on both sides of our bipartite graph to ensure flow conservation

Wasn't there a hack with the slack/surplus variable in the LP constraints to deal with this or was it a dummy variable? Pretty sure that was able to handle the case where supply was not equal to the demand.

Also, how were cases where the user stopped using GitHub altogether or a new user started programming are handled?

Interesting history!

>Sorting is a mostly "solved" problem in theory, but as new hardware emerges different aspects of implementations become more or less important (cache, memory, branch prediction)

This makes me wonder what other hardware tricks might be used for other popular algorithms such as ones used in graphs. I'm sure shortest path is also one of those algorithms that have been "solved" in theory but have a huge amount of research, but personally, what would be more interesting to hear about is something that isn't quite as easy. Something like linear programming with integer constraints or even something like vehicle routing or scheduling. To anyone studying those areas, is there anything you find particularly interesting?