zasdffaa

Brill. It's only taken an hour to get the first solid piece of info. Now, where's the "unscientific, unencyclopedic woo-woo" and hyperspace?

> VLIW works _really_ well on a deterministic ISA

that's a very good point.

> Otherwise I really like the GPU derivative form where N instructions are ready to go and the hardware picks one where the prerequisite memory access has completed, despite that being variable

Hmm, isn't that OOO (out of order) execution? And isn't that something GPUs explicitly don't do? (AFAIUI)

and where is the 'unscientific, unencyclopedic woo-woo'?

And where is the evidence it's related to wikipedia?

Can you provide links to any of this? I'm also unable to find any org called SeRCH, perhaps I mis-spelt it.

edit: I repeat my request more strongly. I've looked more and even "intersectional scientific method" gets almost nothing except a couple of posts on twitter claiming the same and a website https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wikipedia-is-a-source-of-... which doesn't back anything up - are you affiliated with either of these?

I am wondering if you are deliberately spreading FUD

That guy just keeps repeating "it's hard" then 'explaining' why in obtuse terms and in ways that don't stand up (I don't think he understands database behaviour). Frankly I don't think he has much experience in this area. I'm going to give up now, he's spent a fair bit of your and my time and still can't accept he's not right.

> No cache gets you 10x

I've done much better. Think sticking a a cache in front of a database with seriously complex queries. Yes you need to be be aware of staleness, no it's not a magic wand, but it delivered massive improvements.

> When the cache was put in place it accounted for 40% of run time

If looking shit up in a hash table, at a few hundred or thousand cpu ticks, cost 40% of your runtime then I smell PEBKAC[1], not cache problems.

[1] Not you personally but someone

> The more the dynamic behavior of the profiled system and the real system deviate

Maybe. I've never found it a problem, but maybe. When I've added a cache, the cache comes with instrumentation for exactly that.

> Yes, but by doing this they also tremendously increased the complexity of the project

It depends. EG if you don't need to worry too much about cache invalidation, adding caching can be as simple as adding a single function call eg like python's lru_cache. It depends on the use case.

You raise a good point but I would never have thought caching appropriate to an RTS, not that I have any experience with those. But yes.

Exactly! People here seem to be making a complex thing out of a simple thing.

You're making a lot of assertions without any backup, and they don't make much sense.

> Caches, being cheap imitations of ACID 'compliant' databases

No they're not, not remotely.

> which themselves cheat all day every day

I don't believe a word of this, have you any actual evidence (other than I believe Oracle's serialisable is actually snapshot isolation IIRC)

> Half of a decision can be made with one version of a piece of data and the other half with another, resulting in undefined behavior. In a system that asserts that A = !B you can have an interaction that did some of the activities for A and some of the ones for B

And this just makes no sense, you're claiming that databases are not producing the results they should, if that's the case then I don't believe you understand transaction isolation levels or indeed how database queries work, in which case you have problems other than and larger than caching.

This whole thread s just getting weirder.

WTF?

> If real-time or near real-time is the expectation, then avoiding the cache usage

Because looking up a precalculated result in a hash table is so much slower than not looking it up? And what, recalculating it instead is faster than an O(1) hash table lookup? If so,why are you caching?

I am just getting more confused by what people are saying here.

It's dificult to refute your argument because I don't understand your points:

> Because of the locality aspect, people will assume that it's 'free' to look up a value multiple times instead of passing these data dependencies between the relevant methods

what does that even mean? What does 'data dependencies' mean specicially?

> then you can end up evicting data in the middle of a transaction

So in the middle of a transaction, instead of looking up data from a key - very cheap - you should do ... what? Recalculate it instead?

> The less obvious consequence is now you have concurrency bugs, because the code assumes that decisions made about the data will go the same way on each call, but due to eviction, two halves of the transaction may make conflicting decisions with undefined behavior

Assuming I even understand this, you are saying where there's concurrencty there's a risk of pulling stale data out of a cache. Well, true. That's just something you have to be careful of. Add a Tx reference to the cache key.

> Once you introduce caching you poison the performance well.

Not my experience at all. I can't understand why you're saying this.

> Flame charts lie when cache is used

How so?

> and after people rely on the cache it is lying in the other direction when the cache is off, because you're calling that path 5 times now and it's swamping other bottlenecks

I've no idea what this means

> This is what I really mean when I say it's a weapon of last resort. Because once you use it, it attempts to take any other options off the table

Heh! Absolutely not! Other optimisations are orthogonal to caching IME:

Better algo - orthogonal

Go lower level - orthogonal

Go multicore - orthogonal

Noobish SQL query is begging for a rewrite - orthogonal

Use L1/2/3/ chip cache better, or RAM, by careful data layout - orthogonal

Use a better library - orthogonal

Use better data structure eg. than linked list - orthogonal

> The goal is for the cache to go unused most of the time

Then you have a useful cache sitting there unused unless at peak time - why? Just enable it always. This makes no sense.

In my extensive experience of optimising stuff...

> Caching is a weapon of last resort. In most cases it is the last major performance improvement

...is wrong. It is one of the very first things I reach for because it is the most effective and simplest, once you've eliminated O(n^2) behaviour etc. It's not a magic wand but nothing is.

You can ge an awful lot of music onto a modern MP3 player, and have a backup of it on a hard disk or two at home.

Assuming your reparations claim was correct, injustice becomes ok if it happens often enough.

'pubnixes/tildes' - no idea what this means.

Edit: a little digging and "A tilde is a multi-user online system designed to be a "home" for users by providing services such as shell access via SSH, email, small site hosting (on www, gopher, gemini), chat, or other programs. It is a loose term, akin to a public access unix systems (a.k.a. pubnixes), but with some connotations of a small community" https://tilde.wiki/wiki/Tilde

I think 'yes' is too broad a claim.

See my other comment. But where they don't I'm sure they make a fine placebo.

We probably haven't lost as much as you think - we either still use it or it was bunkum (for a given application).

eg. Chamomile - still used for bad stomachs (is a costive), whether it works on herpes simplex seems really dubious.

How do you feel such an AI would change the game - what would it add? TIA

I think you misunderstand, some stuff has to go in but it is absolutely necessary as a dev to push back[1] on bad requirements, or at least that's my take.

[1] admittedly in some cases you can't for various reasons, including bosses that won't listen.

The "doubled in price for every 20 miles" bit is extremely interesting, do you have anything I can follow this up on, thanks.

Yup. And the more strongly opinions are given, the more uptight they get when you ask for a cite or two (with a few honourable exceptions).

He says 'I' meaning he's choosing for himself for his own reason, he's not forcing it on others. You might at least respect that even if you, and I, don't share the reasoning.

I avoid self-checkouts because it almost always takes longer; something always goes wrong.

The ones I will never use are those which have a voice you can't turn off. Having to listen to those as I queue nearby, all I want for xmas is a HIMARS.

No, if you claim you bloody well cite. It's not on us to fill in your omissions.

Given that, your 2nd paper is interesting and supports you. The first seems (emphaisis: seems) to back up findings that most damage is done to the adolescent developing brain with cannabis, but still reading it.

Edit: 2nd paper doesn't seem to ask when cannabis use started so it's quite possible the damage was done in adolescence, not adulthood:

"Cognitive tests were conducted at ages 7, 9, and 11 using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised and again at age 45 using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV. Additional neuropsychological tests were administered to measure the participants’ verbal learning, attention, memory, processing speed, and more"

so tested as pre-teens then at age 45. That seems a very big gap between them.

I can't answer your question but be aware that you are looking through a very western lens, and probably US-centric lens particularly, and other cultures can see things in very different way, starting with assumptions (or simply unthought practices) that you have nothing to compare with.

> Drinking huge volumes of water on the order of a gallon per day is important for general health

I don't believe that is true, and excess water can be dangerous by causing hyponatremia.

Pounds sterling