Live data from Hacker News

Distributed Systems Classics (2017)

nvartolomei.com

61–64 of 64 posts

Re: Distributed Systems Classics (2017)

#61
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot take of the day: Computer scientists are in denial about it, but CS is a branch of theoretical physics, not mathematics. You can point to this or that model of computation, such as lambda calculus or mu-recursive functions and try to claim its abstracted well beyond the particular laws of physics for some specific universe, but they all have some kind of rate limit built into them... and where does the motivation…

A thought provoking leading question I have is (1) a space heater throws power into a coil and generates heat and nothing more in the world (2) an LLM into a GPU throws power into the GPU and generates heat and organized information. Is (2) generating less heat so that the laws of thermodynamics account for the increased amount of "useful stuff" generated (the organized information)? Switch (2) for a bitcoin miner if…

> Is there a fundamental minimum cost to flipping bits?

Yes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle

But modern computers are nowhere near this theoretical limit, nor any of the other limits I mentioned above. Nevertheless, most of heat generated from modern CPUs does come from bits turning on and off. Each transistor is a tiny capacitor, that holds a charge when its ON. When it switches OFF, it dumps that charge down the drain, creating waste heat. This is a limitation of our technolgy, not a fundamental limit of physics.

Could be worse, though; early chips would disipate heat even when they weren't doing anything. CMOS improved this enormously by pairing up "complementary" transistors so current only flows when something changes.

Still, from the universe's point of view, what we consider a super advanced computer is a lot closer to a space heater than anything that pushes up against its computational limits. Consider, for example, that quarks operate on time scales of 10^23 Hz, and the universe is happy to run three of those in every proton in every star in the universe. In fact, it runs 10^24 of them for one CPU, and that same CPU can't even simulate the quarks of one proton in real time.

Let's face it: we're like kids in Minecraft who think it's cool watch a calculation of 2+2 trickle through a redstone computer in a minute, while the GPU is rendering a billion triangles every second to give them that view.

Re: Distributed Systems Classics (2017)

#62
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related hot take Maybe thats why one of the not-so-bad ideas how to go about distributed systems came from a guy who was trained as a physicist and used to complain to his fellow programmers that “a lot of systems actually break the laws of physics”[1]? > In distributed systems there is no real shared state (imagine one machine in the USA another in Sweden) where is the shared state? In the middle of the Atlantic? -…

And yet we have CRDTs.

CRDTs are eventually consistent data structures

Re: Distributed Systems Classics (2017)

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the thing that baffles me the most with those people, the Knuths and Lamports and Carmarcks, and whatnot. It's not like they have light schedules - they do research, they have classes, they attendconference, and they have jobs, etc... And some benefit from tenure, which give them time to deeply focus on some topics. But I can't imagine how I would write tex in ten years in Pascal on archaic machines if I had all…

My brother was something of a prodigy. Whatever it is that people like Carmack have, he had it too (and Carmack was one of his personal heros). I would say with my brother it wasn't just that he was analytically extremely sharp, it's that he could focus it on things in a way that bordered on unhealthy obcession. For example during undergrad he took a semester off because he burned himself out taking an insane course…

I'm assuming this was a while back, mind sharing how far he went or what he was able to produce with this focus?

Re: Distributed Systems Classics (2017)

#64

I am a Lamport admirer. I gradually realized that Lamport is more of the godfather of distributed system than Hinton is to deep learning. Lamport is less prominent than Shannon is to information theory. Shannon is the closest to any title of "gold-like" figure to a scientific discipline of universal relevance in modern society. Lamport specifically revealed a philosophical connections between computer systems and phy…

> One thing I think Lamport falls short is that his writing is not easy to read and understand

Interesting; I actually grew to be a fellow admirer of Lamport primarily because I actually found his papers to be a lot more approachable and relatively straightforward.

Post reply on HN