>Also, think of how deleterious the abolition of local time would have on communication. Right now I can say something like "I received an urgent call at 3am" and you know immediately what that means. But if I said "I received an urgent call at 17:00Z", a lot of the meaning is lost. You'd have to know where I live, i.e. what my local time zone is, and then do some quick mental math to determine what actual time of day 17:00Z means for me. With local time, that calculation is already done for you! Local time is just too damn useful of a concept. It really truly is better than global time for most uses. Global time is really only useful for scheduling global meetings and computer stuff.
[Well], think of how deleterious the abolition of [global] time would have on communication. Right now I can say something like "I received an urgent call at [17:00Z]" and you know immediately what that means [in reference to everything else happening in the world]. But if I said "I received an urgent call at [3am]", a lot of the meaning is lost. You'd have to know where I live, i.e. what my local time zone is, [where the caller is] and then do some [potentially complicated] math to determine what actual time 3am means. With [global] time, that calculation is already done for you! [Global] time is just too damn useful of a concept. It really truly is better than [local] time for most uses. [Local] time is really only useful for scheduling [local] meetings and [in-person] stuff.
It's almost like both are useful for different things, and you're not gonna have any luck forcing people into one or the other for everything.
Also, I don't understand what point you're making. The square bracket stuff you've added doesn't work. You haven't managed to correctly communicate the fact that the person was woken up in the middle of the night. Which is what local time is extremely good at and global time cannot do -- putting a specific time in context with the rhythms of the day. Which, you know, is very important for most normal communication. I can't even schedule a worldwide meeting using global time; I have to use the local time of each participant individually to figure out what the best time is that maximizes the # of people calling in during the workday and minimizes the # of people that need to be up in the middle of their local night.
> You haven't managed to correctly communicate the fact that the person was woken up in the middle of the night.
If somebody wanted to communicate that they were woken up in the middle of the night, they could use this perfectly fine sentence:
"I was woken up in the middle of the night."
Communication wouldn't break down just because everybody didn't have an identical reference point w/r/t timestamps in relation to daylight cycle. Something we don't have today anyway, by the way. When is dinner, for example? (conservative answer: 16:00 to 23:00).
Yeah, and if only there were a way to more precisely say things like "in the middle of then night" or "around solar noon", or "halfway between lunch and dinner". We might even put numbers on these things so that everyone knows exactly what we're talking about!
Local time is incredibly useful. It's never going away. It's utter fantasy to think that everyone is ever going to just give up local time and only speak in vague terms like "an hour after noon".
This is true, although I find it much easier to "avoid night" than it is to look up individual timezones of each city and +1/-1 daylight differences and timezones that use 30-minute offsets and other schengens. Did you know that Nepal is UTC+5:45 and that daylight savings in USA and Mexico start on different dates?
Is Tokyo in the some timezone as Beijing? Is London in the same timezone as Reykjavik? Did Mexico start daylight savings last week or now? I have to look up stuff to answer these things, as well as the local timezone designation (is it ET or EDT? Is it CT stand for "california time" or CT for "central time"? Is there a CT in another part of the world that could be misunderstood by another participant?), so that I can publish the meeting time correctly without people misunderstanding it. Roughly avoiding unreasonable times is much easier to do than this. The sleep times of Reykjavik and the sleep times of London don't really differ by much, so as long as the proposed time steers clear of that, it will be fine.
In fact all I need is a world map that shows me the day/night part of the Earth as I slide the (UTC) time -- there are many apps that do this already. Then schedule the meeting such that the greatest number of participants fall under the daylight. Then publish the meeting as a single UTC time. That's it.
You're making it sound harder than it is. I'm literally just looking at a list of all the local times for the meeting's participants, so not even worrying about time zones at all. The calendar app itself already knows what everyone's time zone is and does all the time zone arithmetic for you. So it sounds pretty similar to what you're describing with the global view.
Wired communication at VRAM speeds on a single low (production) cost chip?! This is going to be game changing for AI and super-computing. Wow.
At these speeds clustering and distributed computing will be a thing of the past in supercomputing.
The supercomputer of next year may functionally be an enormous symmetric multiprocessor bottle-necked only by physical space and power.
The same code could be run on a laptop or supercomputer without having to optimize it. This will make development of large scale applications way more accessible.
>A number of products based on the Odin 32 are expected to be announced by late next year.
Whenever something is too good to be true I am always skeptical. But since they are actually talking about shipment rather than R&D may be it really is that revolutionary.
I remember Intel has a concept where CPU, Memory, and Storage are all in their own separate rack and linked up via similar photonics connection and can scale up and down as needed. No more server in the traditional sense.
Photons are still a lot faster than electrons. Latency at the endpoints is still a thing, but this allows a lot of 800 Gbps channels along distances copper can't match.
I don't want to think about the NUMA model for a beast that takes this to its upper limits.
What is the class of problem that can be solved by computers of a certain size (compute density metric)? If a computer is basically instantaneous, but has to communicate over vast distances, it still couldn't solve large problems.
Couldn't we have already made 100k core single image OSs running over RDMA?
I'm sure that, as we extend the capabilities of our machines, we'll find new problems or approaches to known problems that were not practical up until then.
Like I mentioned, this can increase bandwidth and reduce latency between system components, making warehouse-sized computers look like container-sized ones. I bet we can find some use for that.
It actually doesn't make sense. A circle with a 1D point missing from its edge is the same as a sphere with a 2D hole in it. Both have material connected "around" it in another dimension. For a sphere the connection wraps around the hole and for a circle the connection wraps around the point (comprising the entirety of the circle's edge).
This fails with more than one hole (as I said in the inital comment, two or more). A circle with two 1D points missing breaks apart, a sphere can have an arbitrary number of 2d holes and still be fully connected.
DNA is not a 3D molecule. DNA is a molecule which can be represented as 3D. It can just as easily be represented with one or even two fewer dimensions without losing any information.
By the holographic principle, there may be no such thing as "3D" except as a concept for conscious minds to make sense of reality.
For #3 see 'Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?'[1] The difference between being thing-oriented and people-oriented is larger than the things we think of as obvious gender differences like physical aggressiveness or attitudes toward casual sex.
"For the people–things dimension of interests, the results in Table 1 are clear, strong, and unambiguous. Men tend to be much more thing-oriented and much less people-oriented than women (mean d = 1.18, a ‘very large’ difference, according to Hyde (2005) verbal designations"
[Well], think of how deleterious the abolition of [global] time would have on communication. Right now I can say something like "I received an urgent call at [17:00Z]" and you know immediately what that means [in reference to everything else happening in the world]. But if I said "I received an urgent call at [3am]", a lot of the meaning is lost. You'd have to know where I live, i.e. what my local time zone is, [where the caller is] and then do some [potentially complicated] math to determine what actual time 3am means. With [global] time, that calculation is already done for you! [Global] time is just too damn useful of a concept. It really truly is better than [local] time for most uses. [Local] time is really only useful for scheduling [local] meetings and [in-person] stuff.