Leave the field. I have never met someone who "eventually learned". Programming seems to be bimodal. Either they can or they can't. There are those who can't and seem like they can, until you dig into their Rube Goldberg code only to realize it was working only by pure luck. These are the most dangerous "programmers".
One common characteristic that I've noticed with people who I would considered "programmers" is they can debug code without ever seeing the code or using a debugger. Computers are logical and you can reverse-engineer their high level designs based on their operational characteristics and there are only so many reasons why certain errors can occur. Using nothing but logic should be enough to debug most problems.
You have to be able to manage both high level and low level details *in the same context*
I code in C#, while I don't code in ASM I have respect for it and have done a lot of reading on it when I was around 7 and have read about modern CPU architectures and cycle latencies and cycle throughputs of different instructions. I have also read about how C#'s GC works, how objects work(More than 128 bytes for an empty object), how interfaces are work(method indirection can be O(1) when you have one implementing class, but O(N) when you have many and they're being used), casting for inheritance (casting child to parent is pretty much free but casting parent to child is expensive, like hundreds of cycles), method parameters work (large structures or too many parameters cause an object to be allocated on the heap that holes the parameters, same with method return types if they're too large).
I can many times jump into some other programmer's code and make it a few factors faster. It some cases, orders of magnitude. My pet peeve is that most people think of performance as an afterthought because "don't preemptively optimize", but they apply this to their architecture. A high performing architecture needs to be designed from the beginning, and this also requires being able to mix high and low level details, even before the low level details are fleshed out.
AT&T is a private company and I hate it when they disconnect me from calling Pizza Hut because they didn't pay their monthly ransom. Interfering with communications is a human right issue.
I've always constantly switch between logic and creative when problem solving hard issues since I was a child, think a few seconds or less. First I logically think about the problem to identify main parts, then I "blank" my mind and the creative part start spamming me with all kinds of ideas on how to arrange those parts, then I use logic to filter those ideas. In the past few years this switch has been becoming less of a switch and just a more seamless part of my thinking. As this became more seamless, I've started to be able to visualize problems. And I don't mean "visualize" in a way that can be represented as a drawing, unless you can draw multi-dimensional images where some of the dimensions are forms of logic and the interactions that arise from the logic. It's more like a new form of perception that cannot be analogized to anything you can see in real life, but it still distinctly something I can "see" in my mind's eye. Explaining this would be like trying to describe what "iridescent" means to someone who has been blind since birth.
The more seamless it becomes, the more I can intermix creativity and logic at the same time. My creative ideas are more bounded by logic, which helps creating useful ideas more quickly, and my logic can be more creative, allowing me to realize when there is a better way to solve an issue without consciously trying to invoke my creative side. The more these two sides intermix, the clearer my internal visualizations become. I have gotten to the point where problem solving is less of a conscious effort and more of a perception that just immediately happens.
Space exploration has a dangerous risk of contaminating other worlds and destroying their indigenous life. Such things may well have happened already on Mars, where Earth-based microbes hitched a ride on the many landers and rovers.
Possible but unlikely. The same way 99.999% of bacteria and viruses are not harmful to humans, unless they're specialized for the extreme environments, they'll just die. The typical worst case is contamination that creates a false positive in detection of life
Some large group of high end Universities from around the world, like Berkeley, Cambridge, Harvard, and others, wanted to find out more about this whole "Women in tech" issue. They got the brightest minds together to create a survey to produce as little bias as possible and try to be immune to cultural differences. They sent this survey out to hundreds 1st and 3rd world countries. Assuming no major issue with the wording of the questionnaire, women are just not that interested in tech. The really interesting part is that the rate of interest in tech is nearly identical in ALL countries, from Iraq to India to Germany to the USA. Even the most oppressive countries showed the same interest as the least oppressive countries. Also interesting is that in the USA, the rate of interest matches the rate of enrollment which matches the rate of employment.
In countries like India or China, it's not that women are wanting to get into tech, it's just a good way to make money and people will do anything to live. As far as we can tell, there is no issue other than lots of males attracted to the promise of easy money or "cool" factor, even though a rare minority have any ability.
Something still seems off, so it's worth looking further into.
Anyone have any anecdotal experiences that back this up?
Yes. For the past decade, since I graduated and joined the work force, I have told my boss that interruptions during deep problem solving is already a major issue, but if the interruption requires any amount of thinking, I will quickly burn out and may only get about 2 productive hours in. Other people I work with claim to not have this issue, but it's easy to see their mistakes increase quickly. I'm very introspective and consciously monitor my thinking. I can easily tell my ability to think has been affected, I can sense it in the first task switch. I know when to stop and take a break, while others keep on trucking and pumping out mistake after mistake.
In the end, I put in much less effort while getting out more value because I know when to stop. Extra effort beyond one's limit creates negative value at an alarming rate."I put in 12 hour days! Derp!" "Good job, now excuse me while I spend the next week cleaning up your mess from the past 3 days of binge coding. BTW, I noticed you have 40 commits with over 8,000 lines of code added and fewer than 20 lines of code deleted. I cleaned up your code and removed 2,000 LOC and added 500. And you have a lot of empty catch blocks." Mind you, these are not bad programmers, they just don't think strait when they put in too many hours. I guess the code technically works, so the upper management sees it as a win until it goes pear-shaped. And if you wait for the world to be on fire, you'll always be under the gun to create bandaids to "fix" technical debt, which just increases the technical debt more.
Extra-intelligent people tend to get poor grades. They're a horrible metric to measure a student's ability to learn. In some professions, getting an A is more correlated with poor performers because the high performers are too bored with the simple material to put any effort into it, and making the material hard enough for the intelligent students to have to try would fail 80%+ of the class. Before you say "well they should put more effort into it", smart people are smart because they find something fun. If you want mindless drones, find people who put in lots of effort. If you want creative workers who are "naturally" good at something, find someone who does it for fun with passion.
Robots free humans from having to do mundane chores that we call "jobs". This frees humans to do jobs that require creativity, which is something that will take a while for robots and AI to catch up. Once they do, humans will be useless in every way. The only thing that makes humans unique is our curiosity and creativity, everything else is basic biology.
You can tell the quality of a review site by how detailed they get into how their tests work and how to interpret the numbers. Then you read 5 or so review sites that do a bit more than just "here's some FPS numbers", look for patterns.
100Gb is nothing these days. We now have 32Tb/s trunk lines with 400Gb/s channels, soon 1Tb/s channels. Core routers rated in petabits per second. 100Gb just doesn't seem like a lot.
Relatively few people complained about Vista, 8, and 10. Same difference. Just a vocal minority that actually cares. For the most part, Vista, 8, and 10 all worked fine. All the same.
Ad revenue is not cable channel's only revenue. Haven't you heard about the multi-hundred million dollar contracts cable companies like Comcast and Verizon have to pay places like Fox and Weather channel to rebroadcast their content. Ad revenue seems to go to your cable provider, to whom you already pay to access the channels.
Too bad it's not secure. SMS is easily intercepted because the telcom systems have no authentication. Lots of stories about SMS and phone call trivial interception have hit the tech news over the years.
Ohh, personally on the hook, how scary. When you get dropped a $200k bill, you just claim bankruptcy and the other person has to pay for it. That's the issue. People can't afford the damage they cause, so other people have to pay anyway. No matter what, someone is going to pay, you just need a way to guarantee the person who caused the damage will pay their fair share.
Believe it or not, but I like to download files off the Internet. Of course the browser could be designed in a way that downloads are a separate process that is heavily locked down to basic function. Possibly even creating a whitelist of which directory is can even access.
AchilleTalon is correct, each processing group in the GPU can only execute the same instruction on all cores in that group. Every time you have a branch in your code, the GPU takes one branch, executing the instructions for that branch and stalling all cores that took a different branch, then takes the other branch, and stalls the other other cores. GPUs hate branches. Yes, they can do them, but at a huge performance penalty. You may want to write better code.
To get into a bit more details, I'll use AMD as an example, but Nvidia pretty much does the same thing with slightly different terms for the same concepts. The AMD RX 480 has 2304 streaming processors(cores), that are grouped into 36 CUs(execution groups). Each streaming processor can handle up to something like 4 wavefront(threads, like hyper-threading to hide memory access latency) at a time. All streaming processors in a CU for a given wavefront must be executing the same instruction at the same time, except in the case of a branch. When a branch happens, one fork of the branch will process, stalling the other streaming processors taking the other fork. Once that fork is finished, the first group of streaming processors will stall while the other processing finish their fork.
Sorry, multi-terabit backplane. Seems I typed in a hurry. Fiber chassis with 2-4Tb/s of backplane, and 1-2 Tb/s of uplink into a core router that support multiple terabits/s of line-rate routing.
Slashdot Mirror
Leave the field. I have never met someone who "eventually learned". Programming seems to be bimodal. Either they can or they can't. There are those who can't and seem like they can, until you dig into their Rube Goldberg code only to realize it was working only by pure luck. These are the most dangerous "programmers".
One common characteristic that I've noticed with people who I would considered "programmers" is they can debug code without ever seeing the code or using a debugger. Computers are logical and you can reverse-engineer their high level designs based on their operational characteristics and there are only so many reasons why certain errors can occur. Using nothing but logic should be enough to debug most problems.
You have to be able to manage both high level and low level details *in the same context*
I code in C#, while I don't code in ASM I have respect for it and have done a lot of reading on it when I was around 7 and have read about modern CPU architectures and cycle latencies and cycle throughputs of different instructions. I have also read about how C#'s GC works, how objects work(More than 128 bytes for an empty object), how interfaces are work(method indirection can be O(1) when you have one implementing class, but O(N) when you have many and they're being used), casting for inheritance (casting child to parent is pretty much free but casting parent to child is expensive, like hundreds of cycles), method parameters work (large structures or too many parameters cause an object to be allocated on the heap that holes the parameters, same with method return types if they're too large).
I can many times jump into some other programmer's code and make it a few factors faster. It some cases, orders of magnitude. My pet peeve is that most people think of performance as an afterthought because "don't preemptively optimize", but they apply this to their architecture. A high performing architecture needs to be designed from the beginning, and this also requires being able to mix high and low level details, even before the low level details are fleshed out.
Just wait until you include the 50+ watt difference in power consumption. The price difference dissipates as quickly as its heat.
Congrats, you just boiled away all of our oceans and probably turned our entire mantle into lava.
AT&T is a private company and I hate it when they disconnect me from calling Pizza Hut because they didn't pay their monthly ransom. Interfering with communications is a human right issue.
I've always constantly switch between logic and creative when problem solving hard issues since I was a child, think a few seconds or less. First I logically think about the problem to identify main parts, then I "blank" my mind and the creative part start spamming me with all kinds of ideas on how to arrange those parts, then I use logic to filter those ideas. In the past few years this switch has been becoming less of a switch and just a more seamless part of my thinking. As this became more seamless, I've started to be able to visualize problems. And I don't mean "visualize" in a way that can be represented as a drawing, unless you can draw multi-dimensional images where some of the dimensions are forms of logic and the interactions that arise from the logic. It's more like a new form of perception that cannot be analogized to anything you can see in real life, but it still distinctly something I can "see" in my mind's eye. Explaining this would be like trying to describe what "iridescent" means to someone who has been blind since birth.
The more seamless it becomes, the more I can intermix creativity and logic at the same time. My creative ideas are more bounded by logic, which helps creating useful ideas more quickly, and my logic can be more creative, allowing me to realize when there is a better way to solve an issue without consciously trying to invoke my creative side. The more these two sides intermix, the clearer my internal visualizations become. I have gotten to the point where problem solving is less of a conscious effort and more of a perception that just immediately happens.
Space exploration has a dangerous risk of contaminating other worlds and destroying their indigenous life. Such things may well have happened already on Mars, where Earth-based microbes hitched a ride on the many landers and rovers.
Possible but unlikely. The same way 99.999% of bacteria and viruses are not harmful to humans, unless they're specialized for the extreme environments, they'll just die. The typical worst case is contamination that creates a false positive in detection of life
Some large group of high end Universities from around the world, like Berkeley, Cambridge, Harvard, and others, wanted to find out more about this whole "Women in tech" issue. They got the brightest minds together to create a survey to produce as little bias as possible and try to be immune to cultural differences. They sent this survey out to hundreds 1st and 3rd world countries. Assuming no major issue with the wording of the questionnaire, women are just not that interested in tech. The really interesting part is that the rate of interest in tech is nearly identical in ALL countries, from Iraq to India to Germany to the USA. Even the most oppressive countries showed the same interest as the least oppressive countries. Also interesting is that in the USA, the rate of interest matches the rate of enrollment which matches the rate of employment.
In countries like India or China, it's not that women are wanting to get into tech, it's just a good way to make money and people will do anything to live. As far as we can tell, there is no issue other than lots of males attracted to the promise of easy money or "cool" factor, even though a rare minority have any ability.
Something still seems off, so it's worth looking further into.
Anyone have any anecdotal experiences that back this up?
Yes. For the past decade, since I graduated and joined the work force, I have told my boss that interruptions during deep problem solving is already a major issue, but if the interruption requires any amount of thinking, I will quickly burn out and may only get about 2 productive hours in. Other people I work with claim to not have this issue, but it's easy to see their mistakes increase quickly. I'm very introspective and consciously monitor my thinking. I can easily tell my ability to think has been affected, I can sense it in the first task switch. I know when to stop and take a break, while others keep on trucking and pumping out mistake after mistake.
In the end, I put in much less effort while getting out more value because I know when to stop. Extra effort beyond one's limit creates negative value at an alarming rate."I put in 12 hour days! Derp!" "Good job, now excuse me while I spend the next week cleaning up your mess from the past 3 days of binge coding. BTW, I noticed you have 40 commits with over 8,000 lines of code added and fewer than 20 lines of code deleted. I cleaned up your code and removed 2,000 LOC and added 500. And you have a lot of empty catch blocks." Mind you, these are not bad programmers, they just don't think strait when they put in too many hours. I guess the code technically works, so the upper management sees it as a win until it goes pear-shaped. And if you wait for the world to be on fire, you'll always be under the gun to create bandaids to "fix" technical debt, which just increases the technical debt more.
FreeBSD is not opposed to the idea of SystemD, just opposed to its implementation.
Extra-intelligent people tend to get poor grades. They're a horrible metric to measure a student's ability to learn. In some professions, getting an A is more correlated with poor performers because the high performers are too bored with the simple material to put any effort into it, and making the material hard enough for the intelligent students to have to try would fail 80%+ of the class. Before you say "well they should put more effort into it", smart people are smart because they find something fun. If you want mindless drones, find people who put in lots of effort. If you want creative workers who are "naturally" good at something, find someone who does it for fun with passion.
"Sun" is the English name for the Latin name "Sol". Same name, different language.
Robots free humans from having to do mundane chores that we call "jobs". This frees humans to do jobs that require creativity, which is something that will take a while for robots and AI to catch up. Once they do, humans will be useless in every way. The only thing that makes humans unique is our curiosity and creativity, everything else is basic biology.
Who gets the cards and the money? Sounds like a scam.
You can tell the quality of a review site by how detailed they get into how their tests work and how to interpret the numbers. Then you read 5 or so review sites that do a bit more than just "here's some FPS numbers", look for patterns.
100Gb is nothing these days. We now have 32Tb/s trunk lines with 400Gb/s channels, soon 1Tb/s channels. Core routers rated in petabits per second. 100Gb just doesn't seem like a lot.
Relatively few people complained about Vista, 8, and 10. Same difference. Just a vocal minority that actually cares. For the most part, Vista, 8, and 10 all worked fine. All the same.
Ad revenue is not cable channel's only revenue. Haven't you heard about the multi-hundred million dollar contracts cable companies like Comcast and Verizon have to pay places like Fox and Weather channel to rebroadcast their content. Ad revenue seems to go to your cable provider, to whom you already pay to access the channels.
Does matter which DE you select, I'm torrenting them all. Leech away! Over 100GiB of Fedora 24 uploaded by the time I woke up this morning.
Too bad it's not secure. SMS is easily intercepted because the telcom systems have no authentication. Lots of stories about SMS and phone call trivial interception have hit the tech news over the years.
Not quite true. I realize soda isn't good for me, yet I get drinking it. Businesses are ran by humans where fear can overrule logic.
Ohh, personally on the hook, how scary. When you get dropped a $200k bill, you just claim bankruptcy and the other person has to pay for it. That's the issue. People can't afford the damage they cause, so other people have to pay anyway. No matter what, someone is going to pay, you just need a way to guarantee the person who caused the damage will pay their fair share.
Believe it or not, but I like to download files off the Internet. Of course the browser could be designed in a way that downloads are a separate process that is heavily locked down to basic function. Possibly even creating a whitelist of which directory is can even access.
AchilleTalon is correct, each processing group in the GPU can only execute the same instruction on all cores in that group. Every time you have a branch in your code, the GPU takes one branch, executing the instructions for that branch and stalling all cores that took a different branch, then takes the other branch, and stalls the other other cores. GPUs hate branches. Yes, they can do them, but at a huge performance penalty. You may want to write better code.
To get into a bit more details, I'll use AMD as an example, but Nvidia pretty much does the same thing with slightly different terms for the same concepts. The AMD RX 480 has 2304 streaming processors(cores), that are grouped into 36 CUs(execution groups). Each streaming processor can handle up to something like 4 wavefront(threads, like hyper-threading to hide memory access latency) at a time. All streaming processors in a CU for a given wavefront must be executing the same instruction at the same time, except in the case of a branch. When a branch happens, one fork of the branch will process, stalling the other streaming processors taking the other fork. Once that fork is finished, the first group of streaming processors will stall while the other processing finish their fork.
Sorry, multi-terabit backplane. Seems I typed in a hurry. Fiber chassis with 2-4Tb/s of backplane, and 1-2 Tb/s of uplink into a core router that support multiple terabits/s of line-rate routing.