Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the system that produced the greatest standard of living increase in human history is whatever Communist China's been doing for the last century.
Not century. Mao and communism brought famine and death to millions. The move from that to "capitilism with Chinese characteristics" is what has brought about the greatest standard of living increase in human history. What they're doing now is a mix of socialism, capitilism and CPP dominance. I'm not an American, but I understand FDR wielded socialism too, and that really catapulted the US towards its golden era.
The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
731–740 of 842 posts
Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
#732Earlier quoted context omitted.
So again, what you're saying is there is a tradeoff. You just think it should be made in a different place than where the vast majority of engineers in the world choose to make it. That's fine! It's probably because they're idiots and you're really smart, but it's obviously not because there's no tradeoff. > that asm is some sort of necessity for software that runs faster than scripting languages. It seems you're not…
So again, what you're saying is there is a tradeoff. You just think it should be made in a different place than where the vast majority of engineers in the world choose to make it. Show me what it is I said that makes you think that. That's fine! It's probably because they're idiots and you're really smart, but it's obviously not because there's no tradeoff. Where did I say any of this? I could teach anyone to make f…
Is one or two hours of two engineers' time more than zero hours, or no?
> just a little learning up front
Is a little learning more than zero learning, or no?
IMO your argument would hold a lot more weight if people felt like their software (as users) is slow, but many people do not. Save for a few applications, I would prefer they keep their same performance profile and improve their feature set than spend any time doing the reverse. And as you have said multiple times now: it does indeed take time!
If your original position was what it is now, which is "there's low hanging fruit," I wouldn't disagree. But what you said is there's no tradeoff. And of course now you are saying there is a tradeoff... so now we agree! Where any one person should land on that tradeoff is super project-specific, so not sure why you're being so assertive about this blanket statement lol.
Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
#733Earlier quoted context omitted.
> heavy anti-virus or corporate security scanning that's slowing your computer down more than you expect. Ugh, I personally witnessed this. I would wait to take my break until I knew the unavoidable, unkillable AV scans had started and would peg my CPU at 100%. I wonder how many human and energy resources are wasted checking for non-existant viruses on corp hardware.
Every Wednesday my PC becomes so slow it is barely usable. It is the Windows Defender scans. I tried doing a hack to put it on a lower priority but my hands are tied by IT.
Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
#734Earlier quoted context omitted.
We haven't really been trying to find such a system. The technological progress that we've had since the last attempts at a different kind of a system has been huge, so what was once impossible might now be possible if we put some effort into it.
There is no system that fulfills your requirements. It is even easy to explain why: Humans are part of all the moving pieces in such a system and they will always subvert it to their own agenda, no matter what rules you put into place. The more complex your rule set, the easier it is to break. Look at games, can be a card game, a board game, some computer game. There is a fixed set of rules, and still humans try to c…
i argue that what we have today is the so called next best thing - free market capitalism, with a good dose of democracy and strong gov't regulations (but not overbearing).
Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
#735Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bad deal as a developer. I receive 50% of the money but still provide 70-80% value to the company.
As someone who straddles two fields (CS and Healthcare) and has careers/degrees in both -- the grass isn't always greener on the other side. This could be said about most jobs in the 21st century these days in any career field given. That's a culture shift and business management/organization practice change that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
#736Earlier quoted context omitted.
My modern machine running a modern OS is still way snappier while actually loading the machine and doing stuff. Sure, if I'm directly on a tty and just running vim on a small file its super fast. The same on my modern machine. Try doing a few things at once or handle some large dataset and see how well it goes. My older computers would completely lock up when given a large task to do, often for many seconds. Scanning…
I struggle because everything you're saying is your subjective truth, and mine differs. Aside from the seminal discussion about text input latency from Dan Luu[0] there's very little we can do to disprove anything right now. Back in the day asking my computer to "do" something was the thing I always dreaded, I could navigate, click around, use chat programs like IRC/ICQ and so on, and everything was fine , until I op…
This is exactly what I'm talking about. When I'm actually using my computer, its orders of magnitude faster. Things where I'd do one click and then practically have to walk away and come back to see if it worked happen in 100ms now. This is the machine being way faster and far more responsive.
Like, OK, some Apple IIe had 30ms latency on a key press compared to 50ms on a Haswell desktop with a decent refresh rate screen or 100ms on some Thinkpad from 2017, assuming these machines aren't doing anything.
But I'm not usually doing nothing when I want to press the key. I've got dozens of other things I want my computer to do. I want it listening for events on a few different chat clients. I want it to have several dozen web pages open. I want it to stream music. I want it to have several different code editors open with linters examining my code. I want it paying attention if I get new mail. I want it syncing directories from this machine to other machines and cloud storage. I want numerous background agents handling tons of different things. Any one of those tasks would cause that Apple IIe to crawl instantly and it doesn't even have the memory to render a tiny corner of my screen.
The computer is orders of magnitude "faster", in that it is doing many times as much work much faster even when it's seemingly just sitting there. Because that's what we expect from our computers these days.
Tell me how fast a button press is when you're on a video call on your Apple IIe while having a code linter run while driving a 4K panel and multiple virtual desktops. How's its Unicode support?
Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
#737The title made me think Carmack was criticizing poorly optimized software and advocating for improving performance on old hardware. When in fact, the tweet is absolutely not about either of the two. He's talking about a thought experiment where hardware stopped advancing and concludes with "Innovative new products would get much rarer without super cheap and scalable compute, of course".
Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
#738Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Investing in engineering quality is pointless if there is no headroom to deliver experiences that will make a customer say "Wow, I need to have that." This. Per your example, this is exactly what it was like when most of us first used Google after having used AltaVista for a few years. Or Google Maps after having used MapQuest for a few years. Google invested their resources correctly in building a product that was…
>> Or Google Maps after having used MapQuest for a few years. Google invested their resources correctly in building a product that was head and shoulders above the competition. Except that they didn't: they bought a company that had been building a product that was head and shoulders above the competition (Where 2 Technologies), then they also bought Keyhole which became Google Earth. Incidentally they also bought, n…
They did build a large part of those products, Keyhole is just a part of Google earth google maps in general has many more features than that.
For example driving around cars in every country that allowed it to take street photos is really awesome and nobody else does that even today. Google did that, not some company they aquired, they built it.
Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
#739Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the kind of economics that shifts the financial debt to accumulating waste, and technical debt, which is paid for by someone else. It's basically stealing. There are --of course-- many cases in which thorough optimizing doesn't make much sense, but the idea of just adding servers instead of rewriting is a sad state of affairs.
> It's basically stealing. This is exactly right. Why should the company pay an extra $250k in salary to "optimize" when they can just offload that salary to their customers' devices instead? The extra couple of seconds, extra megabytes of bandwidth, and shittery of the whole ecosystem has been externalized to customers in search of ill-gotten profits.
'Externality' does not mean 'thing I dislike'. If it is the customers running the software or waiting the extra couple of seconds, that's not an externality. By definition. (WP: "In economics, an externality is an indirect cost (external cost) or benefit (external benefit) to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party's (or parties') activity.") That is just the customers picking their preferred point on the tradeoff curves.
Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority
#740Earlier quoted context omitted.
Windows 3.1 wasn't checking WiFi, Bluetooth, energy saving profile, night light setting, audio devices, current power status and battery level, audio devices, and more when clicking the non-existent icon on the non-existent taskbar. Windows XP didn't have this quick setting area at all. But I do recall having the volume slider take a second to render on XP from time to time, and that was only rendering a slider. And…
For a more balanced comparison, observe how long it takes for the new "Settings" app to open and how long interactions take, compared to Control Panel, and what's missing from the former that the latter has had for literally decades.
I'm far faster changing my WiFi network with the new quick settings menu than going Start > Control Panel > Network and Sharing Center (if using Vista or newer) > Network Devices > right click network adapter > Connect / Disconnect > go through Wizard process to set up new network. Now I just click the quick settings, click the little arrow to list WiFi networks, choose the network, click connect. Way faster.
I'm also generally far faster finding whatever setting in the Settings menu over trying to figure out which tab on which little Control Panel widget some obscure setting is, because there's a useful search box that will pull up practically any setting these days. Sure, maybe if you had every setting in Control Panel memorized you could be faster, but I'm far faster just searching for the setting I'm looking for at the moment for anything I'm not regularly changing.
The new Settings area, now that it actually has most things, is generally a far better experience unless you had everything in Control Panel committed to muscle memory. I do acknowledge though there are still a few things that aren't as good, but I imagine they'll get better. For most things most users actually mess with on a regular basis, it seems to me the Settings app is better than Control Panel. The only thing that really frustrates me with Settings now on a regular basis is only being able to have one instance of the app open at a time, a dumb limitation.
Every time I'm needing to mess with something in ancient versions of Windows these days is now a pain despite me growing up with it. So many things nested in non-obvious areas, things hidden behind tab after tab of settings and menus. Right click that, go to properties, click that, go to properties on that, click that button, go to the Options tab, click Configure, and there you go that's where you set that value. Easy! Versus typing something like the setting you want to set into the search box in Settings and have it take you right to that setting.