Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 842 posts

Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

#781

Post by jen20 »

CelestialMystic wrote: post #767
jen20 wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Dysons] are rendered useless by cat fur Patently untrue. Mine works fine.

Argh yes the "Works for me" argument. I suppose my mother was lying when she was complaining about it then? I will take her word for it rather than random internet user. So not it isn't patently untrue. I really dislike it when people try to gaslight me, on things that I have first hand experience with, so please don't do it. BTW The old Henry Hoover (not bagless) never had any problems.

Indeed, your own anecdata are as good as mine, and taken just as seriously.

Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

#782

Post by CelestialMystic »

jen20 wrote: post #781
CelestialMystic wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argh yes the "Works for me" argument. I suppose my mother was lying when she was complaining about it then? I will take her word for it rather than random internet user. So not it isn't patently untrue. I really dislike it when people try to gaslight me, on things that I have first hand experience with, so please don't do it. BTW The old Henry Hoover (not bagless) never had any problems.

Indeed, your own anecdata are as good as mine, and taken just as seriously.

Not to me it isn't. I think you are trying to justify the fact that you paid far too much for a vacuum cleaner, like most people do when they buy overpriced item and point out the obvious problems with their products.

I own a Land Rover. It is old, expensive and unreliable. You know how I justify my spending on it? I like driving it.

Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

#784

Post by monkeyelite »

Aurornis wrote: post #776
monkeyelite wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And why is that?

Interpreted languages and garbage collection. Bounds checking barely registers as a factor.

You can write Java that uses arrays that are allocated once - will it have loops as fast as C? Why not?

And furthermore I don’t suspect you’re proposing we should be using C + bounds checking (that’s already a Gcc flag?). But rather bounds checking is one of many safety features.

The whole pitch of Java is exactly what OP said - let’s just pay 10-30% cost to get these nice portability and memory benefits over C++, and it didn’t work that way especially as memory speeds have diverged from CPU.

Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

#785

Post by ngneer »

fsflover wrote: post #766
ngneer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment and analysis that most humans prefer short term gains over long term ones. One correction to your example, though. Dynamic bounds checking does not solve security. And we do not know of a way to solve security. So, the gains are not as crisp as you are making them seem.

> And we do not know of a way to solve security. Security through compartmentalization approach actually works. Compare the number of CVEs of your favorite OS with those for Qubes OS: https://www.qubes-os.org/security/qsb/

Playing devil's advocate, compare their popularity. You may have fallen prey to the base rate fallacy.

Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

#786

Post by ngneer »

HappMacDonald wrote: post #109
ngneer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment and analysis that most humans prefer short term gains over long term ones. One correction to your example, though. Dynamic bounds checking does not solve security. And we do not know of a way to solve security. So, the gains are not as crisp as you are making them seem.

You don't have to "solve" security in order to improve security hygiene by a factor of X, and thus risk of negative consequences by that same factor of X.

I am not suggesting we refuse to close one window because another window is open. That would be silly. Of course we should close the window. Just pointing out that the "950X" example figure cited fails to account for the full cost (or overestimates the benefit).

Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

#787

Post by chii »

TFYS wrote: post #751
pixelfarmer wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Cheating happens in competition based systems. No one cheats in games where the point is to co-operate to achieve some common goal. We should aim to have a system based on recognizing those common goals and enabling large scale co-operation to achieve them.

> co-operate to achieve some common goal.

all systems are competitive, if the system involves humans - after all, even in a constrained environment like academia, where research is cooperative, the competition for recognition is still strong. This includes the order of the authorship presented in the paper.

What you're asking for, regarding cooperation to achieve common goals, is altruism. This does not exist in human nature.

Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

#788

Post by mike_hearn »

perlgeek wrote: post #757
mike_hearn wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an inherently serial problem and regulations require it to be that way. Users who submit first want their orders to be the one that crosses.

Stupid question, since I know next to nothing about exchanges and regulations... but couldn't you just process serially by security? E.G. if user A wants to buy Apple stock and user B wants to buy Facebook stock, does it matter which order came first? And if yes, why?

I think that's allowed but this is where my meagre expertise runs out. You normally have to process orders serially or at least using algorithms that yield the exact same outcome that serial execution would give, but only within a single order book.

Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

#789

Post by fsflover »

ngneer wrote: post #785
fsflover wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And we do not know of a way to solve security. Security through compartmentalization approach actually works. Compare the number of CVEs of your favorite OS with those for Qubes OS: https://www.qubes-os.org/security/qsb/

Playing devil's advocate, compare their popularity. You may have fallen prey to the base rate fallacy.

https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/are-we-safe-because-we-re-a-rel...

tl;dr: Qubes security relies on Xen, which is quite popular. But even Xen has more vulnerabilities than Qubes thanks to a clever design: https://www.qubes-os.org/security/xsa/#statistics.

Re: The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

#790

Post by kortilla »

mint2 wrote: post #627
kortilla wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some regulations are written in blood, a huge chunk are not. Shower head flow rate regulations were not written in blood. Your post started out talking about labor laws but then switched to the FDA, which is very different. This is one of the reasons that people like the DOGE employees are tearing things apart. There are so many false equivalences on the importance of literally everything the government does that the…

Efficiency related regulation like the energy star is THE reason why companies started caring. Same with low flush toilets. I vaguely remember the initial ones had issues, but tbh less than the older use a ton of water toilets my family had before that were also super clog prone. Nowadays I can’t even remember the last time a low flush toilet clogged. Massive water saving that took regulation. Efficiency regulations…

Low flow shower heads, not toilets. The stupidity of it banished things like recycling showers if too much water flows through the head.

Not a regulation on water usage, but flow.

Additionally, the fact that it was federal and not per state made it farcical because significant portions of the eastern US are inundated with fresh water.

Post reply on HN