Being a prescriptivist creates no end of everyday pains. Language just won't conform.

>Knowing how to make sure the compiler sees through a given construct to give you the low level expression you want is too much art and randomness; we need better ways to express optimization expectations so that if the compiler fails to match expectations it becomes a loud compiler error.

There's a parallel with hardware there. Verilog is a kind of hardware language designed for an abstract simulator, in the same way than C is designed for a standard abstract machine for the sake of portability. You end up with an idea of the assembly/RTL you want the compiler/synthetizer to generate in your head, and then it's a game of writing the right pattern that will be recognized and generate the output you want.

I think this is partially unavoidable, because we're inherently asking the compiler to generate a non-portable target-specific output in what is supposed to be a portable high-level language. If you start injecting compiler hints or requirements in your "portable" code, it all becomes a bit of a mess. Part of the problem is also that the high-level languages we're using were designed at a time were many questions were still unsettled. Things like signed integers being two's complements is a recent change in C and C++. But I think some of it is intrinsic impedance mismatch between high-level code and machine code.

I'm not sure I would like a proliferation of annotations that direct exactly how the compiler should optimize (like "must use cmov/csel here"), because if internal optimizer choices become public API, people will rely on internals in their large legacy codebases. I expect this would be a force that ossifies the compiler and prevent optimizations from improving. The "register" and "inline" keywords in C used to mean something to the compiler. But they were misused, having them be a requirement would have held back performance more than anything.

Then again I accepted the same justification against Postgres planner hints, and now that the idea has been recast as a plan stability feature I'm actually very happy with that idea. I'm uncomfortable with letting old calcified codebases hold back compiler internal, but at the same time once you find a way to have the compiler generate what you want, there's a real need to not have it break silently when you upgrade.

Personally I actually haven't read too many books on optimizations, I just absorbed information over years one thing at a time, but something like Computer Organization and Design is a pretty good intro to the low-level picture. If you want to drown in extremely dense technical topics that will give you a lot of jumping off points to search, read Agner Fog's microarchicture optimization guide (https://www.agner.org/optimize/). It won't tell you what LLVM is doing, but it'll tell you why it's doing it. Fair warning, it's dense and pretty dry.

Then it depends how interested you are in doing low-level nonsense. If you spend a lot of time writing performance oriented systems code, you'll come to use profiling tools that show you the assembly. If you stare at it long enough, you sometimes start to question why the compiler wrote it this way. And you're naturally led as you try to optimize your code to wonder how LLVM is coming up with this ASM that it spits out and why it sometimes gets it wrong.

There's nothing magical or that requires innate talent. You can learn all of this very naturally if you work close to the metal and take the time to question how the abstraction layer below you actually works. If you keep doing this, you eventually find out it's not that deep, it's just a lot of stuff accumulated over time, but none of it particularly difficult or inaccessible.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48816606

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

But I'm pretty sure they thought of all of this and many more objections already. It's not like this is a super advanced thread of skepticism that physicists would have overlooked

Price is not the reason people chose AWS. Some companies use Azure. The current startup at $WORK uses yet another smaller Cloud. And yet AWS sill has the clear lead in market share. That's because price is far from the only factor, and not even the main factor.

I want to broadly agree but I still can't resist arguing :)

EC is really cheap on the CPU and I trust that libsodium's X25519 is implemented pretty solidly. After Q day, the $ price to break EC is still not negligible.

Whereas PQ+PQ is really expensive. I'm anti PQ+PQ hybrid just on cost. PQ+EC is practically free and still inflicts $'s on attackers after Q day (attacks do get cheaper and you discard the EC at some point, but practically I don't see EC as instantly worthless).

At this point S3 is a standard interface. All sorts of cloud providers and open-source projects provide S3. If you're on AWS, price isn't the reason. You pick AWS because you don't see your company taking a risk with anything else.

S3 doesn't mean expensive. AWS does. But AWS users are fully locked-in, they'll pay whatever the price is.

That's the fundamental underlying reason behind all the rules and all the deletion discussions. It's not that the article isn't important, it's not that the content is wrong or not useful or that we don't want it. It's that Wikipedia would be pure chaos if it let people just write without sources, and the fights over content would never end.

Notability just boils down to "can we find enough reliable sources to write an article we can verify and stand behind?". Just quoting what authors of the topic say about their own work would of course fall a little short of what people expect from an encyclopedia.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48783981

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

This original study has been used to market these CO2 monitors for years, but the evidence is quite thin and doesn't support a strong effect. It seems likely that there is a small effect, and it has been wildly exaggerated thanks to a small study with N=22.

On the other hand when a new high-level concept becomes clear and seems to emerge like a revelation, and people start thinking in terms of those new definitions, it seems that a hundred pages worth of smaller results can fall out of it almost effortlessly. This way of describing it is more top-down.

I don't know that there's an exact parallel with software. Math keeps feeding into itself in a way that software dreams about with our ambitions of code reuse. The old Object Oriented dreams of perfectly encapsulated classes and abstractions partially worked out, but not to the degree that was envisioned.

The current situation with package managers doesn't look like a tower that keeps growing higher and higher levels of abstractions. It looks like a tower where each person wants to place one tiny brick that they call left-pad, and next year we will rebuild the lower levels instead of going higher. So the top-down and bottom-up building that we do is different. We keep rebuilding the bottom, and we don't very much like when the tower of abstractions get too tall and hard to reason about.

On the other hand when a new high-level concept becomes clear and seems to emerge like a revelation, and people start thinking in terms of those new definitions, it seems that a hundred pages worth of smaller results can fall out of it almost effortlessly. This way of describing it is more top-down.

I don't know that there's an exact parallel with software. Math keeps feeding into itself in a way that software dreams about with our ambitions of code reuse. The old Object Oriented dreams of perfectly encapsulated classes and abstractions partially worked out, but not to the degree that was envisioned.

The current situation with package managers doesn't look like a tower that keeps growing higher and higher levels of abstractions. It looks like a tower where each person wants to place one tiny brick that they call left-pad, and next year we will rebuild the lower levels instead of going higher. So the top-down and bottom-up building that we do is different. We keep rebuilding the bottom, and we don't very much like when the tower of abstractions get too tall and hard to maintain.

I feel like a lot of the challenge in early Pyanodons is place-and-route and belt congestion. Unlocking trains feels amazing. They're definitely optimal for a lot of recipes in that mod I think

When Claude writes things like "as someone who has spent a lot of time doing X", I think this is also a kind of failure of alignment. LLMs shouldn't write as if they had personal experience. It's something a person might say in the training data, but I just think LLMs shouldn't claim life experience they don't have, even if that's a statistically likely sequence of tokens.

You don't, but you smile and just delete the content. And then you've done your part as a platform. You're very happy to delete things when notified, and you do it promptly. Then you get to publish a very factual transparency notice.

Someone will have archived the page already? Social media is upset when they hear that the big company tried to attack the small independent site to take down this page that They Don't Want You To See? That's out of your hands, you're a neutral platform and you've done your part.

You just need to fold immediately, and you're covered by all the safe harbor neutral platform protections. Same as forums, social media, any website with user-generated content.

Now that won't stop an asshole from suing you over frivolous nonsense. But it does make it easy to throw their suit away - like you said, if you have the spite and money to follow through with a defense.

Random people on the Internet have been at it long enough that there is plenty of precedent to establish that you can safely host a platform. But then again, I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and for legal reasons this is not the legal definition of legal advice, etc.

Factual statements about bad employers are very much free speech. Judges aren't particularly fond of frivolous lawsuits. There are already mechanisms in place to quickly throw those away without wasting everyone's time and money.