undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTheRealPomax7y ago0 comments

Not sure I understand the "Plus [...]" part: this is new research, so obviously no one is going to implement this at scale until there's been some time for people to go over the approach and either confirm the maths is solid, or find problems with it. But that is universally true for any new low level design, I assume we all understand that "it's still in peer review" implies "so now it needs to be put to the test", not "and now we all use it without question" =)

0 comments

grandmczeb7y ago

Suppose you have three proposed optimizations, all of which save the same amount of power. Change A requires no modeling changes, change B requires modeling changes with well understood impacts, and change C requires modeling changes where the impact is unknown. If you could only implement one, your priority would probably be A > B > C.

Since it's not clear to me what the consequences are on the modeling here, I'd put this in category C. If lots of people start using it, it could move to B. The ideal would still be A though.

TheRealPomaxOP7y ago

False analogy: this is not in the set {A,B,C} yet. Instead, suppose we have one established way A of doing things, and two research papers B and C with alternatives that come with benefits but may require changing either software or hardware standards. You stick with A until B, C, or both have been proven to hold up, and someone has done the actual migration cost/benefit analysis before you even include them in any thoughts or opinions regarding optimization cycles, because until that work has been done by someone else they are not part of any real world solution.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

grandmczeb7y ago

Since it's not clear to me what the consequences are on the modeling here, I'd put this in category C. If lots of people start using it, it could move to B. The ideal would still be A though.

TheRealPomaxOP7y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse