If you try to design rockets, and the imagined rocket in your head is 1000x off the capabilities of a real rocket, you probably ain't getting to orbit. I am not sure where walking-on-hands comes from.
-
-
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow
You’re using singularity level fluff talk to inflate the basic concept that the better you understand a system the better you can work with it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
-
Replying to @chris_sisk
If you are a programmer and you think that what I am saying is "singularity-level fluff talk", then I am afraid you are exhibiting exactly the problem I am talking about. This isn't singularity-level anything, it is objective reality today.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @chris_sisk
The only reason it would sound like "singularity-level fluff talk" is if indeed your picture of a computer is way slower than what they actually are, such that 1000x greater performance sounds like some far-future singularity thing. It's not. It's what we would get if we
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @chris_sisk
cleaned up our act on current-day, existing, computers.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow
This would be simple to test. Write a 1000x more efficient compression algorithm, let me know when you’re done.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow
Nope. You’re making a claim. A programmer who knows a system fully could make 1000x better implementations. That logic should be simple to test. Choose a system you know fully, a known problem, and solve it 1000x more performantly. You will have proved your thesis.
7 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Sorry, this discussion isn't one that I want to participate in. Good luck!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.