Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Rewriting SSA. Is This A Chance For GNU/Linux?
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 12:58:03 +0100
Organization: A little, after lunch
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <vstq8b$ufsg$2@dont-email.me>
References: <pan$54963$b3f3d4e6$ae35ff46$71fe05c9@linux.rocks>
 <gXCdnTD2YLRBaHX6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <m4tf1dFmvh3U1@mid.individual.net> <vsd0ui$365s0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsds7u$2u8h$1@dont-email.me> <wwviknpb1iw.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
 <vsksb5$3df6l$1@dont-email.me>
 <ZI2dnQjwJajG9XP6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <m581c7Fd22eU2@mid.individual.net>
 <DJOdnXslWrdAbHP6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <m58mnpFguqjU2@mid.individual.net> <vso5qc$31clb$1@dont-email.me>
 <E2WdnXiNaZ9CTXL6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <pan$f2307$df5236a$923c4908$a6fb4a1f@linux.rocks>
 <6BidndvG26Vec236nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <vsr383$2421k$1@dont-email.me>
 <Tz2dnbEsYvaaHmz6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <183384946bb28052$23174$2706$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <b-GcnddpHth3Mmz6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <vsskfb$3ki2e$8@dont-email.me>
 <vZCdnSThsJs3mm_6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 13:58:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ea1c23368ed6ad290fd0077d99a401bd";
	logging-data="999312"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ar51+a1uCsMC5yRSA8FAgG9i6ns/nixc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GdA2fLVYzTAjUTFaXdldgk6LnuI=
In-Reply-To: <vZCdnSThsJs3mm_6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5293

On 06/04/2025 05:48, c186282 wrote:
> On 4/5/25 9:13 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/04/2025 23:34, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 4/5/25 4:00 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 15:22:23 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Digital ... note that clock speeds haven't really risen in
>>>>>     a LONG time. They can, to a point, make them 'work smarter'
>>>>>     but how much more ? Not all tasks/problems lend themselves
>>>>>     to parallel processing methods either.
>>>>>
>>>>>     So, yea, we're pretty much there.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The supercomputer people would disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Supercomputers, based on Linux, just keep on getting faster.
>>>>
>>>> The metric is matrix multiplication, a classic problem in cache
>>>> management.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about the architecture of supercomputers but
>>>> the limit seems to be still quite open.
>>>
>>>    Matrix mult is a kind of parallelization ... and we
>>>    still have some room there. But not every problem is
>>>    easily, or at all, suited for spreading over 1000
>>>    processors.
>>>
>>>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
>>>
>>>    Super-computers can use exotic tech, at a super price,
>>>    if they want - including superconductors and quantum
>>>    elements. NOT coming to a desktop near you anytime
>>>    soon alas ......
>>
>> Well the main use of supercomputers is running vast mathematical 
>> models to make sketchy assumptions and crude parametrisations look 
>> much more betterer than they actually are..
> 
>    Even 80s super-computers made it unnecessary to TEST
>    nuclear weapon designs - the entire physics could be
>    calculated, a 'virtual' bomb, and RELIED on. Even Iran
>    can do all that and more now.
> 
>> Real racing car and aircraft design uses wind tunnels. CFD can't do 
>> the job.
> 
>    Um, yea ... really COULD be entirely virtualized.
>    ACCESS to such calx capabilities still isn't there
>    or affordable to ALL however. Do you think that
>    AirBus/Boeing/Lockheed build a zillion wind-tunnel
>    models these days ? Likely NONE. The airflows, the
>    structural components ... all SIMS.
> 
You are completely wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PabZAx-4Yw

>    WHAT can be done with "quantum" is not entirely
>    clear. Again it's not best suited for EVERYTHING.
>    The #1 issue is still the ERROR rates. As per QM,
>    where things can randomly change Just Because,
>    these errors are gonna be HARD to get around.
>    STILL no great solutions. Got a design for a
>    "Heisenberg compensator" ??? If so, GET RICH !!!
> 
You are degenerating to word salad...

>    There MAY be some pattern in the QM errors that
>    can be matched/negated by some parallel QM
>    process/equation. We shall see.

-- 
     “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the 
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most 
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of 
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which 
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by 
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

     ― Leo Tolstoy