Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Been hearing that for half my adult life. People were 100% sure multicore in 2005 meant manufacturers were officially signalling it and it was time to invest in auto-parallelizable code.

I don't think it's wrong, but looking at it through a child's eyes, we do keep finding ways to do things we couldn't a couple years ago: an open mind on hardware and more focus on software is continuing deep innovation cycles



There are limits to growth[1]. God-like tech utopia isn't and won't be real.

1: https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/


Leaving aside that we're still far from hitting the limits to growth outlined in that book, and that we can exceed those limits to growth by expanding outside of Earth, what does a book about physical limitations on agriculture and industry have to do with limitations on computing efficiency? There is of course some fundamental limit to computing efficiency, but for all we know we could be many orders of magnitude away from hitting it.


The original study has been studied again and it has proven true so far. An analysis: https://medium.com/@CollapseSurvival/overshoot-why-its-alrea... Humanity likely won’t ever be able to permanently settle outside earth.


Do I need to repeat myself? What do limits on agriculture have to do with limits on computing?


^ equivalent of ideological salesman ringing my doorbell. Absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.


We've clearly fallen behind the exponential curve on clock speed. But the great thing is we can parallelize transformers, so it's not as big of a deal.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: