I only got a FB account to manage my art/theatre gigs, and it's been OK that way -- no need to share the rest of my life there. I only "friend" those I've worked with in that field, and I regard them like LinkedIn contacts, although some of them are genuine friends too.
IMHO, there can be a difference between "having a FB account" and "being on FB". Or perhaps you can "be on FB" as your artist persona only.
I also browse FB as a different user, so it won't contaminate the rest of my system.
I only got a FB account for organizing art projects a few years ago, and I keep it that way.
It helps that I've seen enough life online since the 1990s. I still find it hilarious how the cool kids who laughed at us geeks back then, were soon hooked on FB and smartphones themselves, and they're finally starting to realize what a bad idea it was.
If that 1 hour shift is so great, why not shift the clock a full 24 hours? We'd get so much more done in that extra day, with no jetlag. Extra points if each year we'd lose a Monday and gain a second Sunday.
legislating what times jobs start would be an impracticable disaster of governmental micromanagement.
Heh, it already is, even if they are effecting the same change via DST. At least that's how I understand micromanagement -- unnecessary and annoying control when the individual worker knows much better.
In this case, you have a group of people that are genuinely happier to start work earlier than usual, but they still choose jobs with fixed hours. Their "solution" is a government mandate that everyone must start work an hour earlier, no matter what. If that isn't some kind of micromanagement, I'm not sure what is.
Noon is when the sun is at its peak, and changing that is foolish. If people want more daylight after work is done, then they should push for working hours to change to 8-4.
Here in Finland, traditional office hours are 8am to 4pm (or as we call them, 8 to 16), and many people still want their idiotic DST.
DST is really a "solution" to a particularly stubborn set of requirements: (a) I want to go work earlier, and (b) I still want the clock to show the same time as I start work. Even if that means changing the entire system of measurements for everyone.
While (b) is downright stupid, I'm not even sure if (a) is a good thing for most people. The argument is about getting more free time in the evenings, at the expense of being even more tired at work. All this while governments are keen to increase national productivity.
While we're at it, let's change measures of length for the summer because of thermal expansion.
The same people that were making out with people their same age when they were 10, grew up to be adults and are now wringing their hands at all that "dirty teenage sex" that's happening and they just can't believe it!
It's one thing for teenagers to make out with each other. It's completely different when one is 14 and the other over 20, for example. There's an imbalance of authority and power, even if there's no literal authority (teacher, coach etc). The teenager will be less likely to realize if they're being taken advantage of, and when they do, they'll be less likely to do anything about it (fear of losing respect).
This is why the age of consent generally applies only when the other party is considerably older. It has little to do with the physiology of sex, it's mostly about psycho-social maturity.
As a musician and an occasional songwriter, I think a lot in terms of sounds and phrases. However, I also try to avoid saying things in my mind when I think of more abstract problems, because it would limit the process a lot. Languages are serial protocols and as such very useful for conveying messages to others; putting a complex idea into a short phrase is an interesting problem in itself. But you wouldn't use RS232 within your CPU.
This has been particularly interesting in math studies, mostly writing proofs. I often have a visual solution, but the hard bit is translating that into the language of math. OTOH, the visual/graphical bit is often very useful in the final proof as well. I find that some people can crank out long proofs in written math alone, but I feel the essential idea gets lost along the way, and I need to find a visual alternative to convince myself.
It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers
We all like to believe we know ourselves inside and out, but the fact is we don't know shit. We're just kinda riding these chemical signals. Our bodies are this amazingly complex machine; we can't hope to know a 10th of what's going on, nevermind being fully cognizant of what we like. Your exclusionary list that you seem to fond of would only serve to deprive people of their choices, virtually guaranteeing misery except for those lucky few.
Are you seriously suggesting that riding on the love hormones will cure cat/dog allergies? Because that was a good example of a deal breaker, something you cannot change by willpower alone.
More generally, I agree with your general argument that we people don't really know what we want. If you're looking for the "10" you imagine right now, it's probably not that great for you in the long run. OTOH, from personal life experience of myself and others, I believe it's much easier to know what you don't like than what you do.
For starters, you can only know how you feel about things you've actually experienced. If you're choosing a "10" only based on your past experience, you're missing out on a lot of potential happiness. But you know your bad experiences and you know to avoid them in the future. Besides allergies and other physiological limitations, there are personality traits such as introversion/extroversion you cannot simply grow out of.
The same idea is often discussed on/. with political elections. There are a lot of OK candidates but a few bad apples stand out, so it would be great to give negative votes. In other aspects of life, it's often easier to weed out sources of unhappiness than come up with new positives. For instance, when your parents told you not to hang out with that particular kid because he's bad influence.
There are a ton of cheap FPGA boards left out there that were used for Bitcoin mining. Why not repurpose them? I can pick a decent one on Ebay for $60-100.
Can you repurpose them for the kind of processing that is heavy in floating point math, Fourier transforms and I/O? Bitcoin mining on FPGAs made sense because it was a relatively simple integer operation with embarrassingly little I/O. My hunch is that SETI processing on FPGAs is not cost-effective, since GPUs are so much better for the kind of math and memory access.
This reminds me of early discussions on FPGA miners with other algos such as Scrypt, which is memory-hard, so if you're developing a custom chip, you'll end up with something that looks like a GPU in terms of memory. The Scrypt ASICs that eventually came out are only sensible because the algo can trade memory hardness for extra computation.
(Disclaimer: I co-developed the first opensource FPGA Bitcoin miners.)
having a source distribution makes running with local patches trivial.
It also makes building or developing non-distro software much simpler. With binary distros, you always run into the issue of installing "devel" packages of libraries if you need to compile against them. You may also need to worry about compilers -- I mean, who needs a compiler when you're only trying to "use" a system? But in practice you often need to compile stuff even if you're not developing it.
Mac and Windows users may be used to this artificial separation between users and developers, so I have a hard time understanding why so many Linux distros strive for the same, by removing headers from library packages and entire compilers.
To me, DST looks like the solution to a particularly stupid problem: (a) I want to go to work one hour earlier, but (b) I still want the clock to show the same time when I go to work.
Besides redefining a physical measurement system willy-nilly, I'm also worried about the whole ideal of going to work earlier. Most of the arguments are about leisure time in the evenings, as if no one cared about their performance at work, no matter how tired.
Well, you could use Vulkan to do all things computing, and even OpenGL, that's how the whole GPGPU idea started. In the long run Vulkan might be more efficient than Cuda/OpenCL as it gives more low-level control. Of course people are not switching overnight, and the old interfaces are generally maintained as they make sense for those specific needs.
Frankly, the article sounds like Nvidia wants to sell locked-down game consoles instead of general-purpose computers. I guess they don't want any customers who do non-gaming things on GPUs, such as scientists or graphic artists.
Also, "It arguably all started with Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic" -- never mind PKD and other nameless SF authors of yore, in an era where the director of the movie adaptation is everything.
BTW, we just had the presidential election in Finland on Sunday. Linus's father was one of the 8 candidates and he got the least votes, much to my dismay; he stood out as the intelligent and frank one among all the typical politicians who try not to hurt the feelings of the drooling masses. It's easy to see where Linus got his way of speech:)
I'm also missing some of the co-processors that the nice normal social people seem to have. I have to do all that stuff in software on the CPU, i.e. by conscious thought. However, I believe we have all roughly the same amount of wetware, so the CPU might be stronger in cases like mine. Use geeks can get amazing things done in a short time, as long as we're allowed to focus on it.
Another useful computing analogy would be I/O and memory access. Your local memory is a fast cache, so it makes sense to remember the data you use often, instead of looking it up online every time. A similar idea applies to large organizations, as the I/O bottleneck makes them relatively less efficient.
I've come up with these ideas independently, and I've been delighted to see something like them in research on education and intelligence. For instance, the g-factor of intelligence is sometimes interpreted as the clock speed of the brain.
Where the fuck are we supposed to grab a window in order to move it if the title bar is crammed full of junk?
Under X, you press Alt and grab the window anywhere to move it. Left mouse button for move, right for resize. I guess this depends on your window manager, but I've used it since forever under many different systems.
This is how it should work with the desktop metaphor, after all. Because if you have papers lying on your desk, it would be silly if you had to grab them carefully by the top edge to move them.
Pretty much every CPU maker was affected by Spectre. It was an oversight in how speculative execution could be abused and thus affected all CPU designs, it wasn't an accidental implementation bug like the FDIV bug.
Meltdown was more specific to Intel, and fixing it eliminates a good chunk of Intel's performance advantage over AMD. So it will cost them in lost CPU sales to AMD.
Apparently, Meltdown is neither "an oversight" nor "an accidental implementation bug". It's more like "fuck security, let's make this fast". Meanwhile, AMD is left looking like the square, nerdy kid who did everything right in a world of loudmouth salespeople, and we can only hope he gets the girl before the end titles.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us smoke the grass. The others smoke the sheep (therefore, vicariously, smoking the grass too).
"The era of the U.S. Department of Justice as world police is over."
In other words, extradition is an ex-tradition.
I only got a FB account to manage my art/theatre gigs, and it's been OK that way -- no need to share the rest of my life there. I only "friend" those I've worked with in that field, and I regard them like LinkedIn contacts, although some of them are genuine friends too.
IMHO, there can be a difference between "having a FB account" and "being on FB". Or perhaps you can "be on FB" as your artist persona only. I also browse FB as a different user, so it won't contaminate the rest of my system.
I only got a FB account for organizing art projects a few years ago, and I keep it that way.
It helps that I've seen enough life online since the 1990s. I still find it hilarious how the cool kids who laughed at us geeks back then, were soon hooked on FB and smartphones themselves, and they're finally starting to realize what a bad idea it was.
+1
If that 1 hour shift is so great, why not shift the clock a full 24 hours? We'd get so much more done in that extra day, with no jetlag. Extra points if each year we'd lose a Monday and gain a second Sunday.
legislating what times jobs start would be an impracticable disaster of governmental micromanagement.
Heh, it already is, even if they are effecting the same change via DST. At least that's how I understand micromanagement -- unnecessary and annoying control when the individual worker knows much better.
In this case, you have a group of people that are genuinely happier to start work earlier than usual, but they still choose jobs with fixed hours. Their "solution" is a government mandate that everyone must start work an hour earlier, no matter what. If that isn't some kind of micromanagement, I'm not sure what is.
Noon is when the sun is at its peak, and changing that is foolish. If people want more daylight after work is done, then they should push for working hours to change to 8-4.
Here in Finland, traditional office hours are 8am to 4pm (or as we call them, 8 to 16), and many people still want their idiotic DST.
DST is really a "solution" to a particularly stubborn set of requirements: (a) I want to go work earlier, and (b) I still want the clock to show the same time as I start work. Even if that means changing the entire system of measurements for everyone.
While (b) is downright stupid, I'm not even sure if (a) is a good thing for most people. The argument is about getting more free time in the evenings, at the expense of being even more tired at work. All this while governments are keen to increase national productivity.
While we're at it, let's change measures of length for the summer because of thermal expansion.
Yup, I mean special as in education or olympics.
The same people that were making out with people their same age when they were 10, grew up to be adults and are now wringing their hands at all that "dirty teenage sex" that's happening and they just can't believe it!
It's one thing for teenagers to make out with each other. It's completely different when one is 14 and the other over 20, for example. There's an imbalance of authority and power, even if there's no literal authority (teacher, coach etc). The teenager will be less likely to realize if they're being taken advantage of, and when they do, they'll be less likely to do anything about it (fear of losing respect).
This is why the age of consent generally applies only when the other party is considerably older. It has little to do with the physiology of sex, it's mostly about psycho-social maturity.
What the hell is going on here?
The usual, reinventing perfectly good open technologies (such as IRC) with proprietary alternatives.
I earn $13.37 per hour.
As a musician and an occasional songwriter, I think a lot in terms of sounds and phrases. However, I also try to avoid saying things in my mind when I think of more abstract problems, because it would limit the process a lot. Languages are serial protocols and as such very useful for conveying messages to others; putting a complex idea into a short phrase is an interesting problem in itself. But you wouldn't use RS232 within your CPU.
This has been particularly interesting in math studies, mostly writing proofs. I often have a visual solution, but the hard bit is translating that into the language of math. OTOH, the visual/graphical bit is often very useful in the final proof as well. I find that some people can crank out long proofs in written math alone, but I feel the essential idea gets lost along the way, and I need to find a visual alternative to convince myself.
It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers
We all like to believe we know ourselves inside and out, but the fact is we don't know shit. We're just kinda riding these chemical signals. Our bodies are this amazingly complex machine; we can't hope to know a 10th of what's going on, nevermind being fully cognizant of what we like. Your exclusionary list that you seem to fond of would only serve to deprive people of their choices, virtually guaranteeing misery except for those lucky few.
Are you seriously suggesting that riding on the love hormones will cure cat/dog allergies? Because that was a good example of a deal breaker, something you cannot change by willpower alone.
More generally, I agree with your general argument that we people don't really know what we want. If you're looking for the "10" you imagine right now, it's probably not that great for you in the long run. OTOH, from personal life experience of myself and others, I believe it's much easier to know what you don't like than what you do.
For starters, you can only know how you feel about things you've actually experienced. If you're choosing a "10" only based on your past experience, you're missing out on a lot of potential happiness. But you know your bad experiences and you know to avoid them in the future. Besides allergies and other physiological limitations, there are personality traits such as introversion/extroversion you cannot simply grow out of.
The same idea is often discussed on /. with political elections. There are a lot of OK candidates but a few bad apples stand out, so it would be great to give negative votes. In other aspects of life, it's often easier to weed out sources of unhappiness than come up with new positives. For instance, when your parents told you not to hang out with that particular kid because he's bad influence.
Hu cares.
There are a ton of cheap FPGA boards left out there that were used for Bitcoin mining. Why not repurpose them? I can pick a decent one on Ebay for $60-100.
Can you repurpose them for the kind of processing that is heavy in floating point math, Fourier transforms and I/O? Bitcoin mining on FPGAs made sense because it was a relatively simple integer operation with embarrassingly little I/O. My hunch is that SETI processing on FPGAs is not cost-effective, since GPUs are so much better for the kind of math and memory access.
This reminds me of early discussions on FPGA miners with other algos such as Scrypt, which is memory-hard, so if you're developing a custom chip, you'll end up with something that looks like a GPU in terms of memory. The Scrypt ASICs that eventually came out are only sensible because the algo can trade memory hardness for extra computation.
(Disclaimer: I co-developed the first opensource FPGA Bitcoin miners.)
having a source distribution makes running with local patches trivial.
It also makes building or developing non-distro software much simpler. With binary distros, you always run into the issue of installing "devel" packages of libraries if you need to compile against them. You may also need to worry about compilers -- I mean, who needs a compiler when you're only trying to "use" a system? But in practice you often need to compile stuff even if you're not developing it.
Mac and Windows users may be used to this artificial separation between users and developers, so I have a hard time understanding why so many Linux distros strive for the same, by removing headers from library packages and entire compilers.
To me, DST looks like the solution to a particularly stupid problem: (a) I want to go to work one hour earlier, but (b) I still want the clock to show the same time when I go to work.
Besides redefining a physical measurement system willy-nilly, I'm also worried about the whole ideal of going to work earlier. Most of the arguments are about leisure time in the evenings, as if no one cared about their performance at work, no matter how tired.
Who's this "Clarke" you're talking about? I mean, it was a Stanley Kubrick film after all.
Well, you could use Vulkan to do all things computing, and even OpenGL, that's how the whole GPGPU idea started. In the long run Vulkan might be more efficient than Cuda/OpenCL as it gives more low-level control. Of course people are not switching overnight, and the old interfaces are generally maintained as they make sense for those specific needs.
Frankly, the article sounds like Nvidia wants to sell locked-down game consoles instead of general-purpose computers. I guess they don't want any customers who do non-gaming things on GPUs, such as scientists or graphic artists.
Also, "It arguably all started with Ridley Scott's 1982 cult classic" -- never mind PKD and other nameless SF authors of yore, in an era where the director of the movie adaptation is everything.
Picky WASP eaters
sound like squeamish ossifrages.
BTW, we just had the presidential election in Finland on Sunday. Linus's father was one of the 8 candidates and he got the least votes, much to my dismay; he stood out as the intelligent and frank one among all the typical politicians who try not to hurt the feelings of the drooling masses. It's easy to see where Linus got his way of speech :)
I'm also missing some of the co-processors that the nice normal social people seem to have. I have to do all that stuff in software on the CPU, i.e. by conscious thought. However, I believe we have all roughly the same amount of wetware, so the CPU might be stronger in cases like mine. Use geeks can get amazing things done in a short time, as long as we're allowed to focus on it.
Another useful computing analogy would be I/O and memory access. Your local memory is a fast cache, so it makes sense to remember the data you use often, instead of looking it up online every time. A similar idea applies to large organizations, as the I/O bottleneck makes them relatively less efficient.
I've come up with these ideas independently, and I've been delighted to see something like them in research on education and intelligence. For instance, the g-factor of intelligence is sometimes interpreted as the clock speed of the brain.
Where the fuck are we supposed to grab a window in order to move it if the title bar is crammed full of junk?
Under X, you press Alt and grab the window anywhere to move it. Left mouse button for move, right for resize. I guess this depends on your window manager, but I've used it since forever under many different systems.
This is how it should work with the desktop metaphor, after all. Because if you have papers lying on your desk, it would be silly if you had to grab them carefully by the top edge to move them.
Pretty much every CPU maker was affected by Spectre. It was an oversight in how speculative execution could be abused and thus affected all CPU designs, it wasn't an accidental implementation bug like the FDIV bug.
Meltdown was more specific to Intel, and fixing it eliminates a good chunk of Intel's performance advantage over AMD. So it will cost them in lost CPU sales to AMD.
Apparently, Meltdown is neither "an oversight" nor "an accidental implementation bug". It's more like "fuck security, let's make this fast". Meanwhile, AMD is left looking like the square, nerdy kid who did everything right in a world of loudmouth salespeople, and we can only hope he gets the girl before the end titles.