The computers are fast, but you don't know it • Hacker News Board

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#421

Post by Aeolun » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 5:48 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #269

grishka wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of video. Which probably was 30 fps. I mean, the splash screen just blinked for a barely noticeable split second before the main window appeared. You double click the shortcut, and it's already done launching before you realize anything. That's how fast modern computers are. (actually, some things on the M1 are fast enough that I'm now getting annoyed at networking taking what feels like ages)

Why would you assume video is at 30fps? Geographic location? People not in the US (and a handful of other countries) would assume video framerate of 25fps. Does the refresh rate of a computer monitor get referred to as frames? Usually, it's just the frequency like 120Hz type units. Sorry for the conversation break, but I've just never heard app start up times with a framerate reference. Was just an unusual enough thi…

It comes across as fairly pedantic. Whether it is one frame at 25hz, 30hz, 120hz or 240hz is pretty much irrelevant to the point.

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#422

Post by onion2k » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 5:57 AM UTC

bouke wrote: post #403

jiggawatts wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the days, an integer division took something like 46 clocks (original Pentium), and now on Ice Lake it's just 12 with a reciprocal throughput of 6. Multiply that by the clock speed increase and a modern CPU can "do division" about 300-400 times faster than a Pentium could. Then multiply that by the number of cores available now versus just one core, and that increases to about 2000 times faster! I used to pla…

And things are slow as we waste all that processing power on running javascript one way or another. And everything requires a slow blocking connection to the mainframe. Nowadays the “always connected” mindset is really slowing us down.

That explains why Electron apps and Web pages are slow but the post you're replying to is about games...

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#423

Post by ruined » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 5:59 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #266

orzig wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another consequence of our society’s reduced investment in fundamental physics - instead we go ether.

Perhaps the solution is more on the bioengineering side of things: make smaller people so they can fit in smaller rooms.

this has been tried before. the vast majority of the smaller people that get made simply keep getting bigger until they become normal size.

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#424

Post by bouke » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 6:03 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #422

bouke wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And things are slow as we waste all that processing power on running javascript one way or another. And everything requires a slow blocking connection to the mainframe. Nowadays the “always connected” mindset is really slowing us down.

That explains why Electron apps and Web pages are slow but the post you're replying to is about games...

Ok fair enough, but the mindset is spreading: json (javascript) parsing is what caused GTA Online loading times to balloon and I dread playing Call of Duty online as it wants to download and install dozens of GBs every time I launch it.

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#425

Post by a-dub » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 6:08 AM UTC

323 wrote: post #346

lynguist wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree except for the Python bit, which is factually wrong. Python allows you to program as if you’re a jazz pianist. You can improvise, iterate and have fun. And when you found a solution you just refactor it and use numba. Boom, it runs the same speed as a compiled language. I once wrote one little program that ran in 24 min without numba and ca. 8 seconds with numba.

There is more to programming than iterating over number arrays, which is pretty much the only scenario where Numba shows impressive speedups.

most numerical algorithms are loops over arrays, accumulators and simple arithmetic. this is where numba shines.

for the other cases, there's a python compatibility mode (on by default) that allows for use of arbitrary python.

the hard parts in numba are ensuring type inference works correctly and adding it to existing python environments that might have dependencies pinned at inconvenient versions or other drama associated with adding an entire llvm to your python environment.

also, there's the explosion of python versions cross numpy/mkl versions cross distributions cross bitwidths... but that's the nature of publicly shipping numerical code in python in general.

all that said, when it's all set up, numba can be quite elegant and simpler than cython.

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#426

Post by rocqua » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 6:12 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #415

aeonik wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jamtaba and ninjam are an open source solutions to this problem. They allow you to buffer everyone's playing, at a user specified interval, then replays the last measure of music to everyone. It's definitely not the same as live playing, but it's still pretty fun, and actually forces you to get creative on different ways. https://jamtaba-music-web-site.appspot.com/

How does that work for the one playing ahead of everyone else? He just doesn’t hear anything? Or he hears his own music from 1 second ago? Or worse, other people’s music from 1 second ago.

I think everyone hears everyone else playing x milliseconds ago? Where x is probably decided based on the beat.

The weird side-effects are why I guess the parent said that "it's still pretty fun, and actually forces you to get creative on different ways."

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#427

Post by somenameforme » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 6:12 AM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #108

forinti wrote: post #22

On a 3GHz CPU, one clock cycle is enough time for light to travel only 10cm. If you hold up a sign with, say, a multiplication, a CPU will produce the result before light reaches a person a few metres away.

I ran across an animation once that showed graphically the time it takes light to travel between the planets and the sun. It's weird, but light doesn't seem that fast anymore.

The much more remarkable thing is to consider that that speed of light is also the speed of causality itself. It takes light from the sun about 8 minutes to reach Earth. If the sun suddenly disappeared, we'd still see it shining brightly in the sky, and the Earth would continue revolving around it - all for another 8 minutes until reality finally caught up to us. So we're already computing at a rate on the verge of the speed of reality itself.

It's interesting to consider this paired against how technologically primitive we ostensibly must be, given that digital computers didn't even exist 90 years ago.

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#428

Post by Scalene2 » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 6:15 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #266

orzig wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another consequence of our society’s reduced investment in fundamental physics - instead we go ether.

Perhaps the solution is more on the bioengineering side of things: make smaller people so they can fit in smaller rooms.

So, there's actually a proposal for "real-time" communication between galaxies. Just upload your consciousness to a computer and run it slow enough that a few hundred million years feels like a couple seconds.

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#429

Post by Scalene2 » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 6:17 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #330

scarmig wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the solution is more on the bioengineering side of things: make smaller people so they can fit in smaller rooms.

That would have a nice side benefit or making space exploration much more economical. Faster too if you can bioengineer higher G resistance at the same time. Maybe someday the outer planets will be colonized by tiny humans measured in millimeters, with 125mm humans darting around the various moons shot out of repurposed tank canons, all laughing at the slow giants stuck down the gravity well on Earth.

This is one reason an all female astronaut team has been considered.

Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it

#430

Post by chowells » Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 6:18 AM UTC

LoveMortuus wrote: post #187

bayindirh wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person who uses both languages for various needs, I disagree. Things which takes minutes in optimized C++ will probably take days in Python, even if I use the "accelerated" libraries for matrix operations and other math I implement in C++. Lastly, people think C++ is not user friendly. No, it certainly is. It needs being careful, yes, but a lot of things can be done in less lines then people expect.

I personally find C++ more friendly, just because of the formatting that python forces upon you. But I do have to say that I never managed to really get into python, it always just felt like to much of a hassle, thus I always avoided it if possible.

The formatting python enforces is just "layout reflects control flow". It's really not any more difficult than that, and it's a lot better than allowing layout to lie about control flow.

https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/software-security/understandi...