- Creating a thread may cost thousands of CPU cycles - 1 Update
- Read again, i have formatted better my following webpage about my powerful product - 1 Update
- More precision about: You cannot scale creativity - 1 Update
- Sorting already sorted arrays is much faster? - 1 Update
- We are getting smarter as a matter of survival - 1 Update
- You cannot scale creativity - 1 Update
- Where does innovation come from? - 1 Update
- The myth of the unavoidable specialization - 1 Update
- The future of innovation is in software - 1 Update
- We are only visiting the shore of mathematics - 1 Update
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 04:38PM -0700 Hello, Creating a thread may cost thousands of CPU cycles. If you have a cheap function that requires only hundreds of cycles, it is almost surely wasteful to create a thread to execute it. The overhead alone is going to set you back. Read more here: https://lemire.me/blog/2020/01/30/cost-of-a-thread-in-c-under-linux/ This is why i have invented a powerful Threadpool that scales very well, read my following thoughts about it: https://community.idera.com/developer-tools/general-development/f/getit-and-third-party/72018/about-the-threadpool Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 02:25PM -0700 Hello, Read again, i have formatted better my following webpage about my powerful product: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-freepascal And read the following because it is so important: More precision about: You cannot scale creativity Please read the following about Applying the Universal Scalability Law to organisations: https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/04/29/applying-the-universal-scalability-law-to-organisations/ I am a white arab that is more smart, and i invite you to read the following thoughts, it is related to my following powerful product that i have designed and implemented, because as you will read below: "The solution is to lessen the need for coordination: have different people work on different things, use smaller teams, and employ fewer managers.", here is my powerful product (that can also be applied to organizations): https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-freepascal So read the following to understand: Read the following from the following PhD computer scientist: https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/ You cannot scale creativity As a teenager, I was genuinely impressed by communism. The way I saw it, the West could never compete. The USSR offered a centralized and efficient system that could eliminate waste and ensure optimal efficiency. If a scientific problem appeared, the USSR could throw 10, 100 or 1000 scientists at it without having to cajole anyone. I could not quite understand why the communist countries always appeared to be technologically so backward. Weren't their coordinated engineers and scientists out-innovating our scientists and engineers? I was making a reasoning error. I had misunderstood the concept of economy of scale best exemplified by Ford. To me, communism was more or less a massive application of the Fordian approach. It ought to make everything better and cheaper! The industrial revolution was made possible by economies of scale: it costs far less per car to produce 10,000 cars than to make just one. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world because software offers an optimal economy of scale: it costs the same to produce one copy of Windows or 100 million copies. Trade and employment can also scale: the transaction costs go down if you sell 10,000 objects a day, or hire 10,000 people a year. Accordingly, people living in cities are typically better off and more productive. This has lead to the belief that if you regroup more people and you organize them, you get better productivity. I want to stress how different this statement is from the previous observations. We can scale products, services, trade and interaction. Scaling comes from the fact that we need reproduce many copies of the essentially the same object or service. But merely regrouping people only involves scaling in accounting and human ressources: if these are the costs holding you back, you are probably not doing anything important. To get ten people together to have much more than ten times the output is only possible if you are producing an uniform product or service. Yet, somehow, people conclude that regroup people and getting them to work on a common goal, by itself, will improve productivity. Fred Brooks put a dent in this theory with his Brook's law: Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. While it is true that almost all my work is collaborative, I consistently found it counterproductive to work in large groups. Of course, as an introvert, this goes against all my instincts. But I also fail to see the productivity gains in practice whereas I do notice the more frequent meetings. Abramo et al. (2012) looked seriously at this issue and found that you get no more than linear scaling. That is, a group of two researchers will produce twice as much as one researcher. Period. There is no economy of scale when coordinating human brains. Their finding contradicts decades of science policy where we have tried to organize people into larger and better coordinated groups (a concept eerily reminiscent of communism). We can make an analogy with computers. Your quad-core processor will not run Microsoft Word four times as far. It probably won't even run it twice as fast. In fact, poorly written software may even run slower when there are more than one core. Coordination is expensive. The solution is to lessen the need for coordination: have different people work on different things, use smaller teams, and employ fewer managers. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 02:00PM -0700 Hello, More precision about: You cannot scale creativity Please read the following about Applying the Universal Scalability Law to organisations: https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/04/29/applying-the-universal-scalability-law-to-organisations/ I am a white arab that is more smart, and i invite you to read the following thoughts, it is related to my following powerful product that i have designed and implemented, because as you will read below: "The solution is to lessen the need for coordination: have different people work on different things, use smaller teams, and employ fewer managers.", here is my powerful product (that can also be applied to organizations): https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-freepascal So read the following to understand: Read the following from the following PhD computer scientist: https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/ You cannot scale creativity As a teenager, I was genuinely impressed by communism. The way I saw it, the West could never compete. The USSR offered a centralized and efficient system that could eliminate waste and ensure optimal efficiency. If a scientific problem appeared, the USSR could throw 10, 100 or 1000 scientists at it without having to cajole anyone. I could not quite understand why the communist countries always appeared to be technologically so backward. Weren't their coordinated engineers and scientists out-innovating our scientists and engineers? I was making a reasoning error. I had misunderstood the concept of economy of scale best exemplified by Ford. To me, communism was more or less a massive application of the Fordian approach. It ought to make everything better and cheaper! The industrial revolution was made possible by economies of scale: it costs far less per car to produce 10,000 cars than to make just one. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world because software offers an optimal economy of scale: it costs the same to produce one copy of Windows or 100 million copies. Trade and employment can also scale: the transaction costs go down if you sell 10,000 objects a day, or hire 10,000 people a year. Accordingly, people living in cities are typically better off and more productive. This has lead to the belief that if you regroup more people and you organize them, you get better productivity. I want to stress how different this statement is from the previous observations. We can scale products, services, trade and interaction. Scaling comes from the fact that we need reproduce many copies of the essentially the same object or service. But merely regrouping people only involves scaling in accounting and human ressources: if these are the costs holding you back, you are probably not doing anything important. To get ten people together to have much more than ten times the output is only possible if you are producing an uniform product or service. Yet, somehow, people conclude that regroup people and getting them to work on a common goal, by itself, will improve productivity. Fred Brooks put a dent in this theory with his Brook's law: Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. While it is true that almost all my work is collaborative, I consistently found it counterproductive to work in large groups. Of course, as an introvert, this goes against all my instincts. But I also fail to see the productivity gains in practice whereas I do notice the more frequent meetings. Abramo et al. (2012) looked seriously at this issue and found that you get no more than linear scaling. That is, a group of two researchers will produce twice as much as one researcher. Period. There is no economy of scale when coordinating human brains. Their finding contradicts decades of science policy where we have tried to organize people into larger and better coordinated groups (a concept eerily reminiscent of communism). We can make an analogy with computers. Your quad-core processor will not run Microsoft Word four times as far. It probably won't even run it twice as fast. In fact, poorly written software may even run slower when there are more than one core. Coordination is expensive. The solution is to lessen the need for coordination: have different people work on different things, use smaller teams, and employ fewer managers. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 01:30PM -0700 Hello, I am a white arab that is more smart, and i invite you to read the following webpage: Sorting already sorted arrays is much faster? https://lemire.me/blog/2016/09/28/sorting-already-sorted-arrays-is-much-faster/ This is why i have also designed and implemented my new Parallel Sort Library that is powerful, read about it and download it from here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/parallel-sort-library-that-is-more-efficient Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 12:37PM -0700 Hello, Read the following from the following PhD computer scientist: https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/ We are getting smarter as a matter of survival A journalism student got very depressed after reading my post on genetically engineered intelligence (read it here: https://lemire.me/blog/2013/03/17/is-genetically-engineering-intelligence-worth-it/). His feeling can be summarized by this question: if at some point in the near future, human beings or machines become orders of magnitude smarter than we are, why bother making an effort now? Won't the great novel you are writing look quaint? Won't your mathematical theory appear childish? Why bother learning calculus if IBM is about to come up with a computer able to solve all college calculus problems perfectly in seconds? I want to make two important points as an answer to this question: 1. Each successive generation has been getting smarter It shouldn't be shocking to think that our children will be smarter. We are smarter than our parents. A thousand years ago, if you knew how to read or write, you were a scholar (by definition). A few centuries ago, anyone who could read silently (without having to vocalize the words) was regarded with awe. Fifty years ago, people who could use computers for their daily tasks were wizards. A common mistake is to think that "intelligence" is made of the piece of meat in your brain. Your intelligence is actually an aggregate of your brain with your environment and the tools and ideas around you. Tools extend our intelligence… with computers and robots being obvious examples. Physical tools are not the only things making us smarter however. If you study the work of Newton, the way he presented it himself, it may well be impossible to understand. Newton had to work with relatively weak intellectual tools: he had to do everything through geometry because that's how people did mathematics at the time. We can now do mathematics much more effectively. That is why there are millions of people who master calculus whereas it was once considered leading edge knowledge, only accessible to the great minds. In some sense, true mathematics is about constructing mental tools so we can be smarter. So mathematicians have been busy making humanity smarter for centuries. Many college students, if transported back a century or two in the past, would be phenomenal geniuses. Some might object to that statement. After all, the brains of these teenager is nothing extraordinary. But they are! Our brains are wired in ways that are vastly different. To learn is to rewire your brain. How would you differentiate a genius from someone who has visited the future long enough to steal the best ideas and train in their understanding? You simply couldn't! As Alan Kay put it: A change of perspective is worth 80 IQ points(read it here: http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/867/) . Of course, we are going to hack directly into our brains in the near future. I am still waiting for a chip that will give me access to the web at the speed of the thought. But this will not be a radical departure from what we have been doing for thousands of years: getting smarter faster and faster. 2. We absolutely need to get smarter at an accelerating pace. Unfortunately, it is not a given that we are going to get much smarter: we could also go extinct or our civilization could collapse. It has happened before. To maintain a sophisticated civilization, we have to keep out-innovating our problems. You may have heard that our civilization is not sustainable. We burn too much fossil oil, we pollute too much, there are too many of us, and so on. This is all true. If we are going to keep on surviving, let alone get better, we need to keep on getting smarter at a rate that exceeds our growing problems. We are not just getting smarter for fun, we are getting smarter as a matter of survival. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 11:45AM -0700 Hello, I am a white arab that is more smart, and i invite you to read the following thoughts, it is related to my following product that i have designed and implemented, because as you will read below: "The solution is to lessen the need for coordination: have different people work on different things, use smaller teams, and employ fewer managers.", here is my product: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-freepascal So read the following to understand: Read the following from the following PhD computer scientist: https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/ You cannot scale creativity As a teenager, I was genuinely impressed by communism. The way I saw it, the West could never compete. The USSR offered a centralized and efficient system that could eliminate waste and ensure optimal efficiency. If a scientific problem appeared, the USSR could throw 10, 100 or 1000 scientists at it without having to cajole anyone. I could not quite understand why the communist countries always appeared to be technologically so backward. Weren't their coordinated engineers and scientists out-innovating our scientists and engineers? I was making a reasoning error. I had misunderstood the concept of economy of scale best exemplified by Ford. To me, communism was more or less a massive application of the Fordian approach. It ought to make everything better and cheaper! The industrial revolution was made possible by economies of scale: it costs far less per car to produce 10,000 cars than to make just one. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world because software offers an optimal economy of scale: it costs the same to produce one copy of Windows or 100 million copies. Trade and employment can also scale: the transaction costs go down if you sell 10,000 objects a day, or hire 10,000 people a year. Accordingly, people living in cities are typically better off and more productive. This has lead to the belief that if you regroup more people and you organize them, you get better productivity. I want to stress how different this statement is from the previous observations. We can scale products, services, trade and interaction. Scaling comes from the fact that we need reproduce many copies of the essentially the same object or service. But merely regrouping people only involves scaling in accounting and human ressources: if these are the costs holding you back, you are probably not doing anything important. To get ten people together to have much more than ten times the output is only possible if you are producing an uniform product or service. Yet, somehow, people conclude that regroup people and getting them to work on a common goal, by itself, will improve productivity. Fred Brooks put a dent in this theory with his Brook's law: Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. While it is true that almost all my work is collaborative, I consistently found it counterproductive to work in large groups. Of course, as an introvert, this goes against all my instincts. But I also fail to see the productivity gains in practice whereas I do notice the more frequent meetings. Abramo et al. (2012) looked seriously at this issue and found that you get no more than linear scaling. That is, a group of two researchers will produce twice as much as one researcher. Period. There is no economy of scale when coordinating human brains. Their finding contradicts decades of science policy where we have tried to organize people into larger and better coordinated groups (a concept eerily reminiscent of communism). We can make an analogy with computers. Your quad-core processor will not run Microsoft Word four times as far. It probably won't even run it twice as fast. In fact, poorly written software may even run slower when there are more than one core. Coordination is expensive. The solution is to lessen the need for coordination: have different people work on different things, use smaller teams, and employ fewer managers. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 11:14AM -0700 Hello, Read this: Read the following from the following PhD computer scientist: https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/ Where does innovation come from? I just finished Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley. Because I am an overly pessimistic individual, I expected to hate the book. I loved the book. I should point out where I read the book, because context is important in this case. I was in Berlin. My hotel room was about 50 meters away from Checkpoint Charlie the central point of the cold war. I was within 2 minutes the remains of a train station where thousands of Jews were sent to their death. I was near the remains of the Berlin wall built to prevent people from escaping communists. Berlin could easily be the mecca of pessimists. Ridley is a very specific optimist: he believes that innovation is an almost unstoppable force. Food and energy shortages? We will invent new ways to produce more food and energy than we need. Effectively, human beings have become better at almost everything: producing goods and food, taking care of each other, learning, sharing and so on. But he is also a pessimist: he believes that if we stop innovation, we suffer. We must constantly out-innovate our problems. We will soon run out of food, energy and breathable air if we keep doing the same thing at a greater scale. Only by inventing drastically better technologies and organizations can we hope to prosper. Innovation is required for our survival. Civilizations eventually collapse, when they become unable to innovate around their problems. But where does innovation comes from? Ridley believes it comes from trade, taken in the broadest sense of the term. Traders are people who carry ideas from people to people. They are like bees in that they allow ideas to have sex… Traders allow people to specialize and to focus on perfecting ideas. Without trade, we would all need to be self-sufficient. Condemned to self-sufficiency, we would not have time to improve our methods nor share our ideas. Interdependency makes human beings better. How do you get more innovation? Do you have your governments entice researchers like myself to pursue "strategic" research? Absolutely not. Governments cannot create innovation. Instead, they should limit the wealth they extract from the economy by remaining small. Other institutions like banks should also be kept in check. In effect, central planning, wherever it comes from, should be avoided as it stops innovation in its tracks. Hence, civilization comes in as a result of trade, because it can siphon the newly generated wealth. It wasn't the Jewish traders in the 1930s who drained the wealth out of Germany. With their various enterprises, they were the source of much of the wealth that the state was extracting. They were not the parasites. Ridley does not have much faith in science as a source of innovation. Most innovation comes through tinkering and trading ideas. Science and law come after the fact to codify what was learned. In effect, science may support innovations and inventions, but it is not the causal agent. What you want is trade and the freedom it brings. I share his vision. After all, Russians had top-notch scientists, but they were still unable to innovate in most practical enterprises. He sees a cycle, where innovation creates value which is then captured and killed by bureaucrats or obsolete corporations. But innovation always reappears elsewhere. He believes that the best place to be right now is on the Web. One day, governments and corporations will kill Web-based innovations, but by then, a new frontier will have opened. Ridley predicts the fall of corporations and the rise of bottom-up economics where individuals freely assemble to create value. Apple, Google and Facebook will soon collapse, faster than comparable companies a century ago. This book also explains why Germany is at least marginally richer than the United Kingdom even though the United Kingdom won the two last great wars and Germany lost. Winning is overrated. Wealth cannot be put into boxes and piled up. Had you confiscated all the computers from 1970s, you would hold a collection hardly more valuable than a single iPad. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 11:00AM -0700 Hello, Read the following from the following PhD computer scientist: https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/ The myth of the unavoidable specialization In a recent essay, Malone et al. claimed that we were entering the age of hyperspecialization. Their core assumption: human beings are more efficient when doing specialized tasks. Thus, they claim, we are moving toward a future where software will distribute hyperspecialized tasks to expert individuals. They believe that we will progressively work on narrower and narrower problems. Among intellectuals, specialization is often seen as a good omen. It is the safe thing to do: stick with a narrow topic (e.g., how polar bears raise their offsprings, or the chemistry of sugar). The usual argument is that with the growth of knowledge, we have no choice but to become narrow specialists. Conversely, people with a wide range of interests are pursuing a high risk strategy. Whenever you attempt to contribute to a new problem, you risk ridicule: maybe everyone who has worked ten years on this topic knows that you are pursuing a dead-end. So, yes, humanity knows more about every single subject than ever before. Conversely, our brains are are biologically identical to what they were 2000 years ago. Thus, we ought to be increasingly mentally challenged. But this logic is flawed because it equates the mind with our brains. We are expanding our minds exponentially! Indeed, our minds are increasingly externalized. First, we started telling stories, using other brains to support our own cognitive abilities. Then we invented writing. Then we invented the Web. At each step, human beings become smarter and smarter in every respect. One might object that it is not I who becomes smarter when I am connected to the Web. That somehow, saying so, is cheating. But this is pure semantics. The fact is, with access to the Web, I could run circles around Sir Isaac Newton, even if he were allowed to have an entire library at his disposal. We could still conclude that as we expand knowledge, the specialists have a greater and greater edge: it becomes riskier and riskier to be anything but a specialist. But I believe the opposite is happening. Far from moving toward hyperspecialization, we are in fact moving toward hypergeneralization. Millions of freelance workers worldwide fill out their taxes electronically, bypassing the specialists (accountants). Whereas researchers absolutely needed expert librarians to avoid wasting days in libraries, Google Scholar has made reference checking accessible to all, at no cost. I learned how to prepare pineapple like a chef in minutes using a simple YouTube query. Soon augmented reality glasses will allow you to walk in any park and know instantly the characteristics of any flower you encounter. But wasn't the XXth century about specialization? Of course not! The XXth century was about people like Einstein who invented a new type of fridge and also a little something called relativity. The specialists are most often the poor people. You want to rise up in a company like Google or Facebook? Then be someone who can expand his mind as needed, not a silly Java specialist who can be replaced easily. Leaders like Henri Ford like specialization, for others, never for themselves. Your future wealth is determined by how much you can expand your mind beyond the capacity of your biological brain, not by your current skills. Take a chance and go work on a new problem, today. Further reading: Lack of steady trajectories and failure and How information technology is really built. See also Serial Mastery. Thank you, Amjine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 10:09AM -0700 Hello, Read the following from the following PhD computer scientist: https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/ The future of innovation is in software I keep reading about how the future will be shaped by new cheaper fuel or amazing new medications. I believe that we are misreading the trends. Yes, we will have better medications and cheaper fuel in the future. However, I believe we are clearly in the mist of an information revolution. The future will be shaped by software, defined broadly. Specifically, I believe that: Tele-work, tele-play, tele-learning will soon represent 80% of our lives. There is much more room for innovation in software than in hardware. There are few ways to build a house, but many more ways to build a virtual house. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: May 28 09:06AM -0700 Hello, We are only visiting the shore of mathematics I like Doron Zeilberger's 66th Opinion: "all what human mathematics does is apply implicit exponential-time algorithms, called "heuristics" to find some trivial pebbles on the shore of the (even decidable part!) of the mathematical ocean." In short, a mathematician solves trivial problems, a mathematician with a computer solves semi-trivial problems, but we are only visiting the shore of mathematics. It is very insightful. One could look at the current state of higher mathematics, observe that progress is slowing and conclude that we have pretty much covered the realm of useful mathematics. In truth, we have maybe covered the realm of mathematics we could handle with a human brain. And current computers probably can't help us too much. Read more here: https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion66.html Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment