mathisfun123 (u/mathisfun123)

mathisfun123 commented on Implementing a GPU's programming model on a CPU litherum.blogspot.com/202... · Posted by u/luu

dang · 2 years ago

I don't remember anything you pointed out about moderation, and in any case we don't ban accounts for criticizing the mods.

This isn't a response to just one comment, let alone one word, but to the pattern of your comments in general: they stand out as nasty, abusive towards other commenters, and not in the intended spirit of the site; not just by a little, but a lot. It's not a borderline call.

mathisfun123 · 2 years ago

there's a single questionable word in the flagged comment (the word `rant`) and it's not a borderline call? yup totally makes sense. Like do you even read the flagged comment or you just go by the fact that it offended someone?

mathisfun123 commented on Implementing a GPU's programming model on a CPU litherum.blogspot.com/202... · Posted by u/luu

dang · 2 years ago

You've continued to post aggressively, attacking other users and generally posting in the flamewar style, even though we've asked you many times to stop. If this keeps up, we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to ban you, because you obviously have a lot of knowledge to share, but your aggressiveness destroys more than your knowledge contributes—a lot more, actually. Fortunately, there are plenty of other knowledgeable users here who treat their fellow users respectfully. Please be like them instead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mathisfun123 · 2 years ago

It pointless trying to abide by your rules of decorum - I call a thing a rant - as if it isn't and that makes me aggressive? In reality you're just mad I pointed out your kafka-esque moderation policies.

> Please be like them instead.

Be an arrogant martinet? No thanks. But I'll stop posting so congrats on keeping your community homogeneously obnoxious (and ignorant).

mathisfun123 commented on Implementing a GPU's programming model on a CPU litherum.blogspot.com/202... · Posted by u/luu

tovej · 2 years ago

OP did not conflate them, SPMD and SIMT are the same model, they're just used in different contexts.

mathisfun123 · 2 years ago

well i guess it's just your word against ... basically any other resource on the matter (in addition to just a common sense understanding) :shrug:

mathisfun123 commented on Implementing a GPU's programming model on a CPU litherum.blogspot.com/202... · Posted by u/luu

tovej · 2 years ago

Are you even reading the text you cite? That compares SIMD to SIMT. SIMD, not SPMD. SIMD is a more restrictive hardware paradigm, SPMD is just a mutiple copies of a single program running on multiple processes/threads, i.e., exactly what CUDA does.

Most MPI-programs are SPMD, and really, the only conceptual difference between MPI and CUDA is that a thread's id is a point in a grid space that's relevant for scheduling and memory locality. Oh wait, that's true for MPI as well, only the scheduling and memory locality relates to CPU cores and nodes, instead of CUDAs SMPs and blocks.

The only real justification for a different programming model is that SIMT creates opportunities for implicit SIMD on a thread scheduling level if you've written your program in a way that the warps don't diverge.

mathisfun123 · 2 years ago

> Are you even reading the text you cite?

Yes I have read it enough times that I knew exactly where it was in the book.

> That compares SIMD to SIMT.

Yes and so does the op I responded to.

> SIMD, not SPMD. SIMD is a more restrictive hardware paradigm,

Thanks but I was already aware. The op was the one that conflated SPMD and SIMD, not me.

> SPMD is just a mutiple copies of a single program running on multiple processes/threads, i.e., exactly what CUDA does.

CUDA is a C language extension that enables you to write host and device code in the same source. That's it. SIMT is the model of compute on NVIDIA SMs.

> The only real justification for a different programming model is that SIMT creates opportunities for implicit SIMD on a thread scheduling level if you've written your program in a way that the warps don't diverge.

No that's incorrect. SIMT is implemented using predicated execution and instruction replay exactly so that warps can diverge.

Again, it's amazing you guys are so sure that NVIDIA pulled a fast one on just the whole community/industry and didn't actually innovate but it turns out you're actually missing some pieces of the puzzle.

mathisfun123 commented on ACT test scores for U.S. students drop to a 30-year low npr.org/2023/10/12/120540... · Posted by u/hbarka

dfadsadsf · 2 years ago

Universities are just gaming ranking. If you are DEI candidate and have low SAT/ACT, you are steered to not provide the score. That way if you are accepted average SAT score for university is not affected and university still rank high.

If you are white or Asian and do not submit SAT/ACT, your application goes to trash right away - there are enough candidates with stellar SAT/ACT to pick from. So SAT/ACT is still very relevant but only for part of population.

mathisfun123 · 2 years ago

> If you are DEI candidate and have low SAT/ACT, you are steered to not provide the score

Do you have literally any proof of this?

mathisfun123 commented on Common Lisp: An Interactive Approach (1992) cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/... · Posted by u/nanna

dang · 2 years ago

Whoa, please don't take HN threads into programming language flamewars, "slap fights", or attacks on other users. We're trying to avoid all that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mathisfun123 · 2 years ago

I didn't say this should be a slap fight - I said the last one was. I'm always at a loss with how reading comprehension should lead people to conclude X here but instead they conclude Y. Like it literally says the previous one ie I don't know how I could've made it any clearer.

Also you're perpetual quoting of the rule book under the guise of "here's our credo" doesn't accomplish anything because it doesn't clarify what rule was broken (and just serves to obscure the censure under "we don't like your kind around here"). At minimum you should cite exactly what rule was broken.