I like that. I work on algorithmic performance, making the big-oh notation better often accompanied by a better hidden constant (both at the same time), and I would say...

Waiting for a machine is considered harmful. You are never to wait for your machine, it ought to wait for you. You yes want it running at 1% or so. Then it's at your beck and call, ready to fire up at a moment's notice. Instead of the other way around, you planning your schedule around the machine's work. I've done that, there's problems with this, for instance experiments failing half-way while I was out on a walk. I think one time I left it running overnight, that's a classic.

But if the computer can go all-out for 110 minutes, that's good, means it's a good sprinter, that's actually better than a good marathoner for the type of mathematical experiments typically carried out on a laptop. And for the laptop? Nobody cares about the energy efficiency when it's working hard. Then you plug it in. Or you think the problem over harder.

Like I've never had to do a long mathematical experiment without connecting to the wall. In 13 years as an algorithmist, doing all kinds of shit, not one time. Because then you can't use it for listening to music, or writing essays on Hacker News, or applying to anything, or using emacs. I guess the reason for that is lack of will, so that 110 minutes according to a child node of this poster is much less on an older battery, like 60% of that, so 66 minutes. Then, don't assume I start out on a full charge, I have to code up the algo first, that takes a lot of time at low intensity, a lot of battery, plus you have to finish up the experiment properly, save some files before shutting down. So I guess if you were allotted a limited amount of charge overnight and that's all you could use, then sure. Plus the TDP is lower than if you do really fucked up things with the cores, one time the jumping I think would use up more than TDP. I think I've broken the conceivable limit on one chip, one chip for sure. They assumed my algorithms were sane, reasonable, that's where they fucked up. And all these considerations, I could brainstorm more, but all the considerations reduce the effective battery. Nothing makes it bigger again, it's all a drain. Even writing about the drain like I am now causes drain, accounting for accounting should be accounted for in the total. In other words the Silva Paradox https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... . In practice I behave totally differently on eg an airplane trip with limited battery than plugged into the wall. Might as well get another user account on everything, full on Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde with power versus battery.

.

.

And I had fucking old old batteries most of the time, my laptop was only a supercomputer due to algorithms, not software or hardware. Only a few of the algorithms were that good yet, when I had it, so in practice I couldn't say it was truly a supercomputer like this machine. Single thread, dual core, like a crappy plastic Macbook. It got looks at Stanford because your laptop is always visible in class (pre-covid) and a status symbol. Well mine was becoming the best, under the hood. And I did all sorts of stunts on it. It's not meaningfully different than now, that was 2.0 GHz, this is less than 3.0 GHz, clock speed for me is still king. Well I guess it depends. Yeah so in fact because of the clock speed factor, your experiments will run on one core usually, I wonder how that compares with the assumptions that lead to a 55W TDP.