skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It was that difficult. In my anti-subversion and OSS HW research, I've been collecting papers on EDA techniques and issues going back to the beginning so teams can build replacements for commercial tools over time. The reason it's not doom and gloom for the ASIC developer is that CompSci, EDA startups, and Big Three threw so many PhD's worth of thinking at each set of problems it isn't even funny. Talk about conquering chaos with human ingenuity every time a node shrinks.

As you said, the EDA companies and foundries always came through. It was hard work, though. Work OSS will have to duplicate at least on EDA side.
What? Evolutionary psychologists believe in inherited memory?

I thought the idea was that fear of spiders (a heuristic in an arachnophobic's amygdala that they inherited genetically) was at some point adaptive for their ancestors. That is, people with a fear of spiders are around today because their ancestors had some random genetic mutation that caused them to exercise caution around spiders, which conferred a survival advantage in their particular context. In our context it's maladaptive (evolution is very slow), and so considered an irrational phobia.
We'll see a lot more co-design of hardware and software. So far, outside of major trends (e.g. multi-core CPUs, GPUs), authors of different abstraction layers (programming languages, compilers, OSes, etc.) have worked towards improvements independent of other areas. I suspect that much of the improvement over the next 50 years will come clever tricks that require collaboration across more than one area.

Consider a simple example: CPUs have had caches basically forever. Caches are the epitome of independent development, because they require modest performance improvement with no effort. (Advanced users and compilers can of course put in more effort to get more improvement, but the maximum improvement is limited because CPU vendors have been reticent to allowing direct user control over the cache.)

What if these caches were instead scratch pads? Frankly, this sounds like painful way to program, especially in traditional languages, because now everything will have to be explicitly moved into the scratch pad. Maybe high-performance users will benefit, but the vast majority will not.

But we can reinvent the language as well. Let's propose a different programming model: tasks (blobs of code) with explicit data usage declarations. The rule is that a task only runs when its data is available. Thus the processor can copy data into the scratchpad asynchronously, and only run the task when all the data is there. Suddenly, there are no more cache misses! We just had to give ourselves permission to modify the programming model too.

Well, actually this is not a hypothetical programming model. I've described Legion, a programming system from Stanford [1]. A software-only implementation of Legion was able to scale to 1000s of nodes on a distributed system [2], so we know the basic approach works. Even better, the Legion folks described a type system which allows you to hide the gory details behind an easy-to-use apparently-sequential programming language [3, 4].

So far, these results have focused on software only. What would it look like if we were able to change the hardware as well? To answer your original question: I think this will require more expertise (and more diverse expertise) on the part of the system designers, but if we do it right, we can still design a system which is easy for everyone else to use.

That's where I think the biggest wins will be in the next 50 years.

(Disclaimer: I work on Regent, the Legion programming language)

[1]: http://legion.stanford.edu/
[2]: http://legion.stanford.edu/pdfs/legion-fields.pdf
[3]: http://legion.stanford.edu/pdfs/oopsla2013.pdf
[4]: http://legion.stanford.edu/pdfs/regent2015.pdf
Show HN: SeaCanal – Arithmetic pattern identifier in Rust
Probably because their territories were conquered by the early Romans and little remained of their history after the Romans overtook those areas... And Romans are seen, along with the non-conquering Greeks, as _the_ pillars of Western Civilization.
Eventually we will be reduced to smoke signals in the sky. Unless its over Washington DC where the hot air is moving fast.
Simply not true as a general statement. There is a completely automated path from Verilog to GDS through modern EDA tools. While the back end complexity has increased, the folks at Synopsys, Cadence, Mentor have solved all of the problems for the designer (IR drop, cross talk, DFM, OCV, etc). Good designs have fully automatic flows with a turnaround time from RTL to tapeout of less than 24hrs.
> He is asking that researchers produce code that he can put into production.

Provided someone's willing to pay for it, that could be a fun engineering job: implementing research papers as production code.
This would be a good example of why you need a large crew besides normal operations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_Washington_(CVN-73)...

The fire lasted 12 hours. You need more than one group of people to fight fires for that long. You can't realistically man hoses that long with a small crew not to mention everyone is at battle stations during something like that and putting out fires primarily relies on the people on duty that day since everyone can't just stop doing their jobs in scenarios where for example they're already in a combat mission.
Linux 4.6-rc6 Named “Charred Weasel”
Mentor, the little guy, was spending around $300-400 million a year on R&D. They also often acquire research and tooling from CompSci much to my irritation given I'm digging it up for OSS EDA purposes. So, yeah, ridiculously huge investments.
This is a depressingly simplistic tracker, they simply average on the latest polls, discarding some outliers first.

Given how poor pollsters have performed recently they could just as well average over all polls that shows the "stay" side wins, would at least been more fun.
You do know how hard it would be to find a SHA-256 collision? We haven't even found /one/. Sure, if you used MD5, you could expect a collision, but SHA256?
Go doesn't have support for using compiled libraries (although support is coming). It's always using the source code.
It doesn't seem to be opinion, nor does it appear to be false. PolitiFact only seems to take issue with Cruz's use of gender identities. Apparently it's incorrect to identify genetically male students as boys.
How would this effect hashing algorithms? You can't reverse a password hash for example. Probably the least of the many many problems this bill would cause.
Not sure I see what the purpose of taping out Leon at 180nm? Is it just to have an open source CPU? Hardware is only useful if it's competitive.
There's not much difference between an American style public equity option and private equity option. Both can be exercised at any time. Perhaps you're thinking of European style options, that can only be exercised on a fixed date (expiry).

While neither are great, binomial is better for American style options than BS.
Okay, let's assume that a smart contract with a particular blockchain is going to remain viable and secure for an entire decade.

The issue here is taxation before gains are realized. Are you assuming the government isn't going to tax you, just because it's a smart contract?
"He wants to re-run the authors analysis with new data. He's not looking to recreate the research from scratch or publish a new paper. Saying that this is the only valid usage of the results is awfully short sighted. It misses the point that the research has use beyond usage by other researchers."

That sort of thing has been done for years in the scientific computing world. The end result is that you are making decisions based on code that may have worked once (Definition of 'academic code': it works on the three problems in the author's dissertation. There's production code, beta code, alpha code, proofs-of-concepts, and academic code.) but that you have no reason to trust on other inputs and no reason to believe correct.

Case in point: I had lunch a while back with someone whose job was to run and report the results of a launch vehicle simulation. Ya know, rocket science. It required at least one dedicated human since getting the parameters close to right was an exercise in intuition. Apparently someone at Georgia Tech wanted to compare results so they got a copy. The results, however, turned out to be completely different because they had inadvertently given the researchers a newer version of the code.
Indistinguishable from Magic: Manufacturing Modern Computer Chips
Tor creates new routes every X minutes (usually 15). It also uses a different route for every IP it routes to. So they'll always go through a different exit node.
> Go is great for what is describe as "plumbing" - things like proxies, infrastructure tools or simple microservices. The simplicity is a great benefit in these cases.

Those reasons aren't really convincing to add another platform into the stack for me. I'd just continue using the many good-enough technologies to build those things on.

I was getting into Go some years ago and came to the same conclusion as you stated. It's good of course if its someone's favorite language to use, then it doesn't matter what it is and isn't great at. But in the end for me it didn't do enough, or do enough better than existing broad PLs that I already knew.

I think Go is still in need of a "killer usecase" to justify its usage for people like me. Rails was that for Ruby. Linux entrenchment and Django was that for Python (now numerics and scientific computing). Node for JS. That said, I'm a Go fan in theory as a "simple is better" type.
This is in reference to the Large Hadron Collider being shut down because a Weasel decided to snack on a high voltage electrical transformer.
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-weasel-large-hadron-collider.ht...
I spoke to a guy from google recently, and it sounds like they are totally going to do this. General purpose QC is still a while away, but these guys are about to step into the void so to speak, within the next year or so.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544421/googles-quantum-dr...
You seem to imply (but sort of dance around it) that this is a bad thing. It's a good thing that politicians can't be outright bought.

Most senators are afraid of looking weak on national security, and this usually outweighs whatever financial clout you can bring to bear. Your average voter does not understand encryption, but understands "this will let us crack into terrorist's phones."
Is this source and data set not open? Is this not the source:

https://github.com/satoshiiizuka/siggraph2016_colorization

And is this not the dataset:

http://places.csail.mit.edu

I'm really asking, because I've downloaded the project and skimmed the paper, but haven't had time to vet these assumptions. On the face of it, it seems everything is provided, but you've vetted it further and learned that isn't true?
Abortion the reason I had one
>he takes it apart and puts it back together

?
You Dont Need To Work For Someone When Am Making My Money From Google.Com, Now Know How To Make $100,000/month From Google.Com Just Visit [url] www.Skyvibes.Com [/url]
But it's not clear--and it should be--whether Dan is advocating for a norm yet to be instated, policing a norm he happens to think is a good idea, or just taking part in conversation.

Opens up some really ugly, probably baseless speculation ("It's an odd coincidence my comment went from the top comment on this article to far down the thread in a single reload") for no real reason.

Does he have his moderator hat on? I'd say not, I'd say he's raising an objection as his own opinion, for the simple reason that as far as I can tell there isn't actually a guideline he can cite. And he's certainly within his right to enter a conversation this way.

But he should have the political acumen to know that when he disagrees with someone as dang, he's not just another person with an opinion, he's The Moderator, and the first response is to disagreement (particularly about tone) is "Am I being punished?"

And if he actually was putting on the moderator hat, he'd do better to actually build the guideline rather than try to enforce it with this meager display of non-authority.

I'm surprised he doesn't have another account for conversational posting; but then, you Reputation Enforcement types tend to cling to attributing ideas to names.

>Given a couple minutes with the HN search bar, you can quickly find several other recent places where Dan has raised the same objections with respect to other companies.

I find this objectionable. I consider myself reasonably skilled with the search bar but don't know exactly what to search for. The only thing I can think of is "overgeneralized denunciation" but that sure doesn't work.

If you're going to say "Fuck off until you know how to search HN" like this you should maybe provide an example of a relevant search query.

But frankly that's a pointless objection, because your real argument is that there's some Community Knowledge about Dan's position that you think is public knowledge. Guess I disagree, but as the more reputable community member it is of course your opinion that matters.
It seems like politely writing to the researchers and asking if they still have the code lying around might have good results. (If nothing else, it lets them know someone cares.)
There's several macros in the kernel which contain inline assembly, and you can't use code written in assembly because it would require using the stack to call the function (the case I'm thinking of is the switch_to macro which switches between tasks in the kernel).
The existence of a distributed ownership mechanism isn't going to convince companies to use that mechanism.

Honestly, the best way to decentralize ownership is to lead by example and start a hundred-billion dollar company that distributes ownership. If the next Google has decentralized ownership, that would be a model for other companies to follow. Right now, there is no incentive for any company to do anything nontraditional here.
I think the reason academics don't publish their code is that they don't want to get stuck into an endless discussion on the code along with people asking for "support" on it.

What I have found is that if you need the code for a specific data analysis then send an email to the authors of the paper. More than ever you will be surprised. They do share code with fellow researchers.

So - if you do really want code, write the email. Be forewarned though - the quality is often bad from a s/w engineering perspective and suits a very specific purpose. It will also come in a language of the authors choice (Tcl/Tk for ns2 scripts, matlab scripts, octave, etc.)
Recent articles would suggest that tech firms are spending a lot of money on lobbyists:
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying... and
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-...

And this database would suggest some tech companies fall into the 5th highest spending industry: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&inde...

So, a the question is, why, despite these efforts are we still seeing this sort of thing? A few reasons, I'd guess...

1) Lobbying efforts by other industries and groups (law enforcement has a vested interest here, for example)

2) A tendency to wanting to look tough on crime and terrorism, especially going into an election year. Moderation and wise restraint are always a tough sell in politics.

3) The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit - politics edition. See http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-... and

4) A propensity on the part of many in government to want to hold more power (closely related to point 2, but more self-serving).
Ever read a systems performance paper? A really fun game is "spot the bullshit."
Ecto 2.0: The Database Tool for Elixir and Phoenix
An Extroverted Conference for the Introvert Designer
He clearly missed typing a s only.
Take away your bias please.
People over 40 usually have been around long enough to be able raise a bit of money without pitching to VCs. Hell if you're 40 you might even have enough equity in your house to fund it yourself.
We can't tell you the detailed costs because this would violate our NDAs, but until our 2011 28nm tapeout, we had raised less than $2.5M in capital and taped out 4 chips at 65 and 28nm.

There is no mystery here. EDA costs, tapeouts, engineering costs are all known. Tell me the chip you want to build, I'll tell you how much it will cost.:-)

People seem to have a hard time grasping that the term "SOC" is meaningless when it comes to predicting cost. It's like comparing the cost of a Ford Focus and a Ferrari. Sure they are both cars...
She is for sale, and apparently worth the money.
Flexport is hiring an email marketing manager
The Left thinks she's extremely intelligent and well-connected. In fact, people like the "Occupy Wall Street" folks believe she's behind "9/11". It's insane how respected/feared she is by the Left.
The parent was satisfied with a low-performing chip that was fully open. There's a niche of people that want fully-open, inspectable hardware they control totally. I keep calling out proponents with Leon given they've been able to accomplish that at 350nm w/ visual inspection and 180-130nm affordably at least with OSS HW. Plus, there's quite a few open, cell libraries at 0.13nm.

Anyway, you know what I wanted: open-source, 28nm FPGA w/ key I/O already included so I could synthesize my own CPU's and such on it. Verify one design in hardware, worry about the rest in simulation. You never got back to me on that one. Whether it was a good idea to solve most people's open-hardware concerns or what it might cost?

(I'll say a Virtex-6 amount of slices or memories with USB 2.0, DDR3, PCI-E, SATA, and 10/100/1000 Ethernet onboard. Should do.)
Each of these insect portraits is made up of ~10,000 photos
This has already happened with SQL databases. Performance tuning a database can be messy because sometimes you have to outsmart the query optimizer. But in the average case it is doing the Right Thing without you having to think about what engineering has gone into it.

Demand for new data models is insatiable and for each one, a software ecosystem can develop around a similar degree of automation, tuned towards the specific domain. It's a very, very black-boxed future.
Move to a building that has the NBN. ;)
Thanks for the clarification. That's hopeful. I just gave you a sample question on cost in another comment. Even a range will be helpful when soliciting academics on it.
Making judgments about people based on their age is as immature as this article. It is a tragic generalization of humans probably designed to make the author feel better about getting older. If it took you till 40 to realize everything is bullshit then I feel sorry for you. If you think that getting really old is when you finally get to rest then you're a real moron. You should be happy now. If you're putting it off or you think there is something that you just haven't quite learned yet that is going to make some difference then someone gave you some bad information. Remember when you were a teenager and you thought you knew everything? Guess what? You did. There are only 2 states of being: Confidence and Not Confidence. You choose it. I hope the author reads this and pulls his head out of his ass.
True, but how would one discover those bugs in the first place? In commercial software a client might run into them and report them. But for science papers? Algorithms that go into production might work the same way, but analysis papers such as the OP is talking about don't.

Worse, with the attitude that the OP has, do you really think they will take extra time to verify the entire code base or look for bugs?

Often the best way to find errors in these sorts of analyses is to do a clean room implementation then figure out why the two programs don't produce the same results.
No, rather it illustrates advantages of v2v comms. It could also aid merging to make it more seamless. Or, in cases of sudden stops or roadside emergencies, the car at the vanguard could alert the other cars trailing it of any upcoming driving conditions of interest.
One has to think though that especially for somewhere like Berlin most people are going to want to rent an entire apartment> I know when I go to Berlin, I would prefer not to have to stumble drunk through someone's apartment while they are there to get to a bedroom.
I'm not saying that it is a bad thing. I'm saying that it is a contradiction of the beliefs commonly found on HN, reddit, etc. about how corruption works.
The evidence indicates that Uber gleefully jumped over that line a long time ago.
Serious question for those with actual knowledge of Controlled Fusion Economics:

Does the smaller size of this reactor design mitigate the challenges that the Tokamaks face with material radioactivity? With the level of neutron bombardment those pistons undergo what material can they be made of to assure an economically viable operational lifetime?

I remember this being one of the bigger challenges for all of injector and heating equipment in Tokamak designs. After a point the devices are composed of different radioactive isotopes and have to be replaced/disposed of, making the economics... challenging.

Is it possible for this project to be successful without a Materials breakthrough? I don't think the Physics challenges are insurmountable with enough time, but finding new materials can be a rabbit hole.
It's not, actually, and I'm not sure why you think I'm talking past you. Your claim was that Ruby is comparable performance-wise to Go in your application, and you cited median latency to make that case. I pointed out that interpreted languages often have a long tail and that the long tail is more interesting and undermines the comparison. You replied that I am correct and, indeed, you do have a long tail but you wrote it off as "stuff that happens" regardless of language. I am replying that the "stuff that happens" is the interesting stuff that undermines the flawed comparison you attempted to make, and I disagree that all of it can be written off to language-independent concerns; if you investigate it further, you might find some of it comes from the choice of language itself.

I have not wandered off topic into irrelevancy nor talked past you. This is still addressing the point you attempted to make by citing median latency in defense of the performance characteristics of your chosen language, in order to assuage general hesitance to adopt Ruby over performance concerns. I think you'll find that your metrics do not support your data if you dig into that p99.

(I share that experience from handling tens of millions of users myself, which is all I can admit to publicly, so that request re: assumptions goes both ways.)

To recap: claim submitted with flawed supporting data, thread addressing why the supporting data is flawed. No talking past taking place.
Wow, I'm surprised that that's faster than the old byte-wise scanning of the instruction stream, and doubly surprised if the benefit isn't negated by the extra cache pollution.

Actually, it's a lot simpler than I expected!
"While you were gone" breaks completely when it grabs one tweet out of a series of tweets, out of context. And it has far too subtle a break (a tiny bit of vertical whitespace and no new heading) to indicate the end of the "highlights" and the start of the content I actually want.