skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The numbers for GPU databases look “good” because you can get pretty high cross-sectional bandwidth to a reasonably large memory from 8 GPUs in one box, and advertise blazing speed from that. But it’s just a trick.

The only thing that matters for them here is the aggregate, cross-sectional bandwidth to your data’s working set in memory. For databases, especially for the approach that many GPU databases take (light on indexes since GPUs aren’t great at data-dependent memory movement or pointer chasing, just brute-force scan much of the data), the working set size is something that will only fit in main memory.

Instead of using 8 GPUs with a peak global, cross-sectional memory b/w of 8 * 320 = 2560 GB/sec and brute-force scans, you can parallelize across ~40 CPU nodes each with ~60 GB/sec b/w to main memory. The cross-sectional bandwidth will be about the same, and the cost to split and join the results of the query is likely small in comparison to actually doing the work, assuming the intermediate results are reasonably small. You can use a broadcast and reduction tree; the added latency of the broadcast and reduction tree's depth likely won't add much, since there isn’t much data to broadcast in a query, and the data returned by each machine for the reduction is hopefully (!) tiny in proportion to the actual data scanned.

If you want to consider indices on data, then maybe the heads of that can remain resident in a CPU’s cache, and will make the individual CPU scans even faster. The GPU caches are tiny and mainly serve to patch up strided loads and other bad uses of memory.

Whether or not it’s worth it one way or another depends upon how large your database size is, the relative cost of GPUs versus CPU nodes to get the memory you want and the cross-sectional b/w you need, perf/W and other issues.

You’re probably nowhere near close to arithmetic throughput bounds on GPUs or CPUs since these workloads have very low op / byte loaded ratios compared to typical HPC workloads, so that aspect of GPUs doesn’t matter. If you’re doing expensive pre- or post-processing on GPUs as well, then that may push the balance more towards GPUs.
As you may know, the presentation mode for macOS Finder windows and tabs can rapidly be changed. Command 1 for icon view, Command 2 for list view, Command 3 for column view, and Command 4 Cover Flow. Each has its uses, including Cover Flow.

The ability to rapidly switch modes means I can, for example, use column view to drill down into deeply nested directories that contain thousands of automatically generated screenshots. When I'm in the directory I want, I then can choose Cover Flow view and use it to navigate a directory containing thousands of images to find the image that I want.

That is, if the images are very similar with subtle differences, I can relatively quickly find the state I'm looking for by scanning for changes using Cover Flow and scrolling left or right.

If I need to sort on demand, I can simply type Command 2 to access list view and then click on the column by which I'd like to sort. I can type Command-J and add additional columns if the one I need is not already visible.

Basically, the different Finder view modes are not one-size-fits-every-task. Many people never have an opportunity or take the time to understand how the different presentations of the file hierarchy can provide different features. Some users swear allegiance to the CLI (technically not a GUI). Others insist on list view. Still others insist that column view is the best way.

But there are some people who use different GUI modes depending on their purpose. I know I do. Personally, I'm grateful that the macOS Finder has several modes for presenting the same data because each mode provides a different set of features and I depend on these features in different ways at different times.

EDIT: grammar, clarity
Are you serious? A 30 second lease is insane.

I've seen DHCP servers that TAKE 60 seconds to give a lease.
Some of these are bad defaults, some of these are common defaults that turned out to be bad, some of these are not easy to fix. Many of these things just take time to do right. Examples:

ntpd is clearly not great software, but OpenNTPD is maybe a little bit too minimal. When ntimed is worthy, I'm sure it'll make it into FreeBSD base, but it's most likely going to be in a .0 release, so it'll be a while and people will be impatient.

OpenSSL is hard. software in base needs libcrypto and libssl, so you need to pick a version and stick with it throughout the release cycle; but the FreeBSD release cycle is longer than the OpenSSL cycle; OpenSSL has also historically not been very good at keeping ABI compatibility. There's a lot of smart people working on this, but I think the least bad option is to not use openssl from base for anything outside of base.

Firewall: I don't think default to no firewall is a problem -- if you want something, you can set it up.

> Five months after this document was published, FreeBSD disabled DSA hostkey and SSHv1 server support in their bundled version of OpenSSH. This was done more than a year after upstream OpenSSH removed them, and both will remain enabled the 10.x branch until its end of life date.

This decision upsets the author, but is the right thing to do. You don't turn off things that people may be depending on in a .x release, you do it in a .0 release. 11.0 was the first .0 release since he wrote this, so it was done as fast as possible. As a FreeBSD user, I appreciate that the .x releases do not contain major changes that break things I may have been depending on. I accept that I need to carefully read the release notes for a .0 release, to see what things I can expect to be broken.
I used Reader daily, but after it was shut down I never picked up a new RSS aggregator. I stopped reading all but one of those bloggers. A big part of Reader's appeal was the network -- I enjoyed sharing blogs with friends of mine that were linked through Gchat. And I say that as someone who never got into any other social network.

It was probably better for my productivity, I suppose, but I still miss it.
It would be incredibly difficult, but I've always wished we could develop a (formal) axiomatic system of morality, such that with independent axioms that each person takes as true by default, all of that person's positions on the major issues would be immediately derivable from the axioms and would essentially be indisputable. Heated emotional debates that last for hours would instead turn into each party running a short computer program to determine whether their views are compatible.

For example, one such axiom (not being rigorous here) may be "human life is valuable". If someone else takes "human life has no inherent worth", then you're kind of at an impasse, as each statement forms the basis of entirely different systems of morality.
Let it prove something first then we have something
I have LLBean sheets that fit those parameters, and I'm quite happy with them. I chose them based on this comparitive review: http://m.thesweethome.com/reviews/best-sheets/
It is basically the source of the SuperMario ROM from the first PowerPC Macs I think.
I agree. Do you know of Datameet? A bunch of people who try to do this a lot.

But I'm a big believer in technology being able to leverage RTI and data.gov.in to build an AI ombudsman
How do you manage what servers clients trust?

I've seen a few SSH CA projects for signing user certs, but not for the server side certificates.

When you're running containers, if they're spawned frequently, that can mean a significant amount of known_hosts file churning. It sounds like everyone funnels through a small set of bastions, so you'd only need to update them there, but I'm wondering if anyone else uses an SSH CA to solve that side of the equation?

All the ingredients needed are in `ssh-keygen`, but that doesn't feel super awesome to me.

Solving server identity is why I built https://github.com/square/sharkey
Giving Nietzsche's bio-metaphysical claim of a "will to power" a bit more empirical ground (in the order of the millions starving) to stand on.
Thync
If somebody calls you a pointless moron, they are probably not trying to teach you anything.
Why Bezos’ rocket is unprecedented–and worth taking seriously
Oddly enough, I think that both of these viewpoints work together very nicely.

Human beings are, generally speaking, irrational. We have a sort of flashlight'o'rationality that we can shine on specific things for periods of time, but most of how we behave is guided by a mixture of instinct, culture, emotion, and our life experiences.

It is pretty well-established that even highly rational people tend to choose a position and then build chains of logic to support it. As a very strong case in point, look at how the world of mathematicians worked to "correct" Marilyn vos Savant's solution to the Monty Hall problem.

And while we can work to change our habits, to instill more rational behaviors, we are still operating from within a system that is mostly irrational and emotional. And more importantly, we have to either want to change, or be made to want to change.

This is rarely accomplished by telling somebody that they are wrong.

Personally, I tend to think of human beings as being rational-at-the-core, but with that rational core being surrounded and filtered by a wall of culture, emotion, and experience.

So when people disagree with me, it is because their chain of logic is based on a different cultural-emotional-experience state than mine.

And if I can not understand where they are coming from -- listening is a superpower here -- I can not hope to either learn the thing that they know and I don't, and nor can I hope to change their minds.

Now, when it comes to arguing for a viewpoint, it is our natural instinct to defend ourselves -- a verbal challenge to what we believe is still very much an "attack".

The simplest way to bypass this reflex, is to start from a position where you are on the "same team". To agree with where they are right, and to validate the parts of their position that you share.

From there, you can then work in small steps and gentle pressure to engage both their rational core, as well as their culture-emotion-experience filter.
This is also known as the "shit sandwich" (when leavened with another helping of praise on the other end), and is instantly recognizable once you see the pattern. The risk is that your initial praise is seen as disingenuous by its recipients, or that it goes too far and reifies their underlying value system when it actually is contradictory to yours.

Incidentally, Barack Obama was particularly good at this construction in his first term, but fell victim to the first trap. Pre-Trump Republicans in general fall victim to the second, when they have any effective rhetoric at all.

Like most rhetorical devices, it works better in person than in print.
I was able to explain to a first time Linux user how to edit a network/interfaces file using nano. I'm not sure I could have done that with vim. That makes a difference in my book.
The goal of online conversation is usually not to convince the purported target of the rhetoric.
My friend got an Apple IIGS in 1986 and kept it going almost this long (until about 2000 if I recall). He had it upgraded to the gills with 8MB RAM, and the TransWarp GS accelerator card. It definitely was a parallel universe from Mac OS where there were amazing graphics and sound capabilities that didn't start to land on Mac OS until the mid-90s.
See also the "humblebrag".
You never tried NetBSD?

If you are suggesting NetBSD has more things enabled by default than OpenBSD I would bet that is incorrect. I have tried a lot of different projects and NetBSD is the best I have seen for not enabling anything. It forces you to figure things out.

Whenever I read OpenBSD mailing lists or blogs, they often seem more aggressive in trying to make their users adhere to the default system provided. That's fine, but NetBSD generally does not do this. Users are not assumed to be idiots and are not discouraged from experimentation.

The BSD projects share more similarities than differences. None of them require anyone to use the entire base system or the defaults. Users can compile their own kernels, write their own configs e.g., based on examples provided, and cherry pick utilities.[1] In my opinion this is made just a tad easier than with Linux.

1. But if you do this with OpenBSD and advertise it, I think you may draw some criticism. Frankensystem, etc. They are not encouraging experimentation, they are encouraging conformity.
MacBooks have issues with WMM (WiFi QoS). I've seen my connection drop for dozens of seconds at a time when I enable WMM on my router. Selectively disabling it for my Mac (leaving it on for my wife's Lenovo and my HTPC) fixes the issue.
Yunfs description
Was that the server, or the client waiting that long? THe DHCP spec requires the client to broadcast a request, then wait for a while (unspecified) and collect answers, then choose the best answer (metric unspecified).

Sometimes when I write DHCP clients I choose the metric as "fastest", then just choose the first answer and don't wait for any more. And it takes on average a few milliseconds to get a lease.
I use ConqueTerm, inside vim, a plugin that supplies a terminal inside Vim. If you put the emulator inside the editor, you can take advantage of vim's extremely capable text manipulation. If I tmux then vim, I have to find some way to get the text out of tmux, and then back into vim.

Also, who says vim is running in a terminal?
... 1 billion is Big Data.
Another example is the abortion debate, every one is quick to show the evils of the other side of the debate. But often they simply disagree on when human life starts and fail to ever identify that as the issue. Because of this most discussions on this topic become far more vitriolic than productive.
I thought you could get a similar behavior in Windows by dragging a folder into the path bar at the top of the 'Save' modal window. (I don't have a Windows machine or VM handy at the moment to test it, though.) You can definitely achieve a similar behavior by Ctrl-C'ing a directory and then Ctrl-V'ing into the File Name text box; the result populates the File Name with the copied directory's path. (Being able to get a folder's full path by copying it and pasting into a textarea is actually pretty nice, and arguably more useful than the Mac convention of grabbing the basename.)

Since Apple screwed up the Open/Save dialogs a couple of updates back, I've actually come to appreciate the Windows open/save browser more by comparison. Being able to manipulate files from within Open/Save is a fairly neat trick, as is the ability to pull in remote files from within Open by pointing to a URI. I still can't exactly love Windows as an OS taken as a whole, but Apple's changes haven't improved things.
One interesting observation was, that human life is continuous and has been for a million years. Don't know how that changes the discussion but its interesting.
It's a faster link between between future IBM POWER processors and NVidia GPUs, but won't make waves in database market since those systems are niche HPC/supercomputing hardware.
I have to agree.

I'm reminded of OpenBSD's move in 6.0 to enforce W^X on binaries. This breaks the use of my cooperative threading library: in order to avoid requiring specific compilers/assemblers (for the portion that's impossible to write in pure C), I use ~50 bytes of pre-compiled code so that it'll compile anywhere. To do that, I have to mark the block R|X. But I can't know with 100% certainty that the codepage doesn't overlap with something that was writable (since there is no mgetprotect), so I have no choice but to set R|W|X.

So probably what I'll have to end up doing is allocate at least three codepages at run-time, set to R|W, copy the code there, then set R|X, and take a performance penalty for needing a pointer to the code block.

What I would like to see FreeBSD do to help with migrating to stronger security is something like "freebsd-harden" that you run once after a new installation or version upgrade, and it will walk you through a series of yes/no prompts, and advise, "if you aren't sure, say no."
Woman in sibling company to where I work sell efficient wood stoves by the container:

http://www.primestoves.com/

They are very well received, saves fuel (and thereby CO2) and gives cleaner air indoors.

And, yes: people with money are buying them.
Your observation is a non-sequitur, and the conclusions you draw are not based on facts. The fact we do have is that they said they did a thing for a particular reason. Nobody has "observed" Iranians protesting against their own government in the form of an empathic reaction to 9/11.

At the very least, what degree of organization are you imagining would motivate and populate an ironic protest like that, and who exactly is the audience who would see through the irony? "Ah yes, the world thinks we're being nice to the US, but really we're stickin' it to The Man." It's hard enough to get 5 people together for a practical joke that doesn't get spoiled by someone.

I'm sorry if "dictatorial Iran" is a personal hobby horse of yours, but you're really kind of threadshitting by bringing it into the conversation.

Lastly, it appears you don't know what "disingenuous" means.
Managing Terraform Versions on Jenkins
HoloLens Spatial Mapping with real environment textures
Here is a method to get the other person on your side of the issue: ask them the reasons the counter point could be reasonable.

"Could you think of some reasons why one would vote for Trump? Seriously."

Use responsibly.
I dream of the day when the IDE is in vim. There has been some great work around c# for this lately, where the compiler is running as a service and vim makes an async call for file completion, etc.
Chemistry says Moon is proto-Earth's mantle, relocated
There's reality and there's sensitivity.

Sensitivity would be an awareness of the tragedy the Florida nightclub attacks were to the vicitms, their families, and friends.

Reality would be recognising that that event in no way, shape, or form presented the least existential threat to the US itself, and that the ties of the madman involved to organised international terrorist groups are tenuous at best. And that armed toddlers and children present a far larger clear and present danger to the United States.
There were dozens or more different desktop and mobile RSS apps which used Google Reader as their back-end. As soon as Reader shut down, they all lost their ability to have Reader download all the content from the cached feeds and sync to the client when connecting, which allowed people to have their computer off for days and come back without losing any content from their feeds (many feeds have 30 or less items at a time, and if you don't check for a while, you'll simply miss many posts).

New syncing systems came up in its place, but it fragmented the market and different apps started using different backends, or their own paid backends, and there was no longer a de-facto standard backend protocol that everything supported.
I wish they would create a simple and fast basic photo editor for the PC first. Their current Photo takes 5-7 secs to open a photo.
No one was available to benchmark HPN vs no-HPN to illustrate it still made a difference.
Heh, I had this on my towatch list for so long.
Liveaboards have dogs onboard without much issue, unless they're frequently transiting other countries and having to clear customs (ie your pet needs to be quarantined for 30 days).
> 1. Why is it so hard to keep track of recently recently touched files and folders in Finder?

This one's sort of on the user. Not sure how it could be simplified.

> 2. Why does the save/open dialogue constantly forget where I was just saving/opening stuff?

This is dependent on the application doing the saving, not on the Finder. Some applications are very good at remembering last-saved location. Photoshop and BBEdit are good examples of this, especially Photoshop which has per-menu-item preferences for things like Open, Save, and Export. However, many applications have developers not familiar with macOS conventions and so don't provide such affordances (I won't single out any applications because they really are too numerous to mention.)

> 3. Why doesn't opening a new tab open to your current location instead of ~/?

This is customizable in Finder > Preferences… I'm not sure what you mean by "current location". If you mean duplicate where you are now there are other ways to do it.

I personally have a AppleScript that copies my current POSIX path to my clipboard. I type Command T to open a new tab, Type Command-Shift G to "Go to Folder" and type Command V to paste what's on my clipboard.

But I'm not sure that's what you're looking for. You might head on over to http://discussions.apple.com and ask over there.

> 4. Why can't I completely customize the sidebar in a Finder window?

Yeah the customizability is restricted, mainly because letting it be too customizable means inexperienced users can get their sidebar where it's next to impossible to provide support. That said, advanced users usually know that the sidebar is only to store a few handy items. I mainly use it only for visual confirmation that my remote mounts and local disks are mounted.

I use keyboard shortcuts to navigate the file system in the Finder.

> 5. Why isn't there a native window switcher keyboard mapping?

I think you're looking for Command ` and Command-shift `. This works pretty much system wide (except for a few applications by software vendors that. Just. Refuse. Native. Keyboard shortcuts.)

> 6. Why do menubar items just vanish without a trace when menus need horizontal space?

Do you mean that your menubar is so crowded that you lose menu items? I think I recall this happening and, to be honest, I don't have any solutions here. You might head on over to http://discussions.apple.com. People can be really helpful there.

Good luck.
It is implied that mining is how they are familiar with bit error problems in GPUs.
> Any CS knowledge initially lacking should be acquired through experience and self-teaching by then

Sure, but how many people involved in a day-to-day job of (let's say) supporting a Rails application in their spare time read up on (let's say) data structures, algorithm design, operating systems, game design, database management systems or functional programming?

In an ideal world everyone does this, in reality I found that professional experience is more conducive to growing as a specialist vs growing as a generalist - conversations with coworkers, dealing with bug reports, browsing StackOverflow and attending conferences are all centered around getting deeper, not broader.
The problem with Omnia is that it's a niche product that is very unlikely to ever sell outside of its niche.

Also, it's being made by people who haven't made a router before. 99% of the issues you'll ever have with your wifi router are driver issues. Omnia is using OpenWRT for their base, however they'll still have to make the chipset driver work with OpenWRT, and at a reasonable speed.

Even if they get the driver working, it's unlikely that the device will be running at speeds comparable to other market competitors. It takes lots of unpleasant driver hacks, custom networking stacks, and prioritization magic to hit the benchmark numbers that Asus, Netgear, and Linksys push out.

I'm not saying you should write off the Omnia completely, I just recommend sitting back and waiting for it to be released/benchmarked before purchasing it.