The feature is actually working! I had totally forgotten Bing existed!
Meta-discussions have to happen somewhere... where do you suggest?
For extra nerdiness, 0x853204FA81 is prime.
Uh oh, somebody got his contradictions/hypocrisies rubbed the wrong way.
Thanks. Btw, did you try to factor it?
Yes, let's just starve everybody to death! That's what Jesus would do! [I hope I don't need to explain why I'm conflating things.]
Because you said that thousands of years ago specific genes were transplanted
No, I didn't say that. The example I gave was only to elucidate that a single gene (or even a bunch of them) doesn't define a population. I read my post again and the message still seems clear. But ok, I'll make it fucking transparent: suppose I write a book and copy an entire paragraph of Shakespeare's Hamlet, then proceed to burn every single copy of the aforementioned play. It doesn't matter that a paragraph continues to exist in another book, Hamlet went extinct.
I haven't said Denisovans were a different species... you are aware that the word "extinction" is not limited to species right? If all Caucasians | Africans | Mongolians died, their population would be extinct. Their genes would still survive in other humans, and that doesn't make any difference to the fact they would be extinct.
And how the fuck did you read religious connotations in my post? I'm an atheist.
The explanation of the evolution is terrible. If the gene was inherited from a "Denisovans" then that Denisovan didn't go extinct. His descendents are still among us. The gene did not spread through the population; the people who had the gene survived and people without the gene disappeared leaving more space for those survivors.
Yes, the "people with the gene" were called Denisovans, they "disappeared", therefore they did go extinct. It seems you don't follow the logic of your own statements.
And just to make it even more clear: suppose I make dog with the tomato gene for photosynthesis (a solar powered dog, how cool is that), then kill every single tomato plant in the world with some Monsanto shit. It doesn't matter that my glorious green power efficient dog would carry the tomato gene... tomatos would still have gone extinct.
[...] code [...] in sigs and comments. [...] Now it's, apparently, the worst thing [...]
They tried understanding their own sigs after some time.
It's not that specialized. It's just plenty of DSPs strapped together on a torus.
Actually Anton uses ASICS, their cores are specially geared at MD codes. This goes way beyond just "strapping together DSPs". They have IIRC ~70 hardware engineers on site. (Source: I've been to DE Shaw Research last year).
Unlike what wikipedia claims, you could probably achieve comparable performance using a more classical and general-purpose supercomputer setup with GPU or Xeon Phi accelerators, provided the network topology is well tuned to address this sort of communication scheme
No, you can't, and here is why: Anton is built for strong scaling of smallish, long running simulations. If you ran the same simulations on a "x86 + accelerator" system (think ORNL's Titan) then you'd observe two effects:
- The GPU itself might idle a lot as each timestep only involves few computations, leaving many shaders idle or waiting for the DRAM.
- Anton's network is insanely efficient for this use case. IIRC it's got a mechanism equivalent to Active Messages, so when data arrives, the CPU can immediately forward it to the computation which is waiting for it. That leads to a very low latency compared to a mainstream "InfiniBand + GPU" setup.
(most recent supercomputers don't use tori)
Let's take a look at the current Top 500:
- #1 Tianhe-2: Fat Tree
- #2 Titan: 3D Torus
- #3 Sequoia: 5D Torus
- #4 K Computer: 6D Torus
- #5 Mira: 5D Torus
- #6 Piz Daint: 3D Torus
- #7 Stampede: Fat Tree
- #8 JUQUEEN: 5D Torus
- #9 Vulcan: 5D Torus
- #10 nn: 3D Torus
So, torus networks are the predominant topology for current supercomputers.
Computational drug design and bitcoin miners have in common that both run best on custom hardware. The crux is, that both require very different types of hardware. As an example, please refer to Anton, designed by DE Shaw Research exactly for molecular dynamics (MD) codes.
Bitcoin mining is classified as a so called embarrassingly parallel algorithm, while MD is a tightly coupled problem. Hence an efficient parallelization for MD codes is much harder to speed up: communication gets in the way, and communication is essentially always bound by the speed of light.
ps: fun fact: bitcoin mining and MD can be carried out (at least somewhat) efficiently on GPUs.
I would assume the FPGA part of the CPU would be programmed in VHDL.
Yes, that's the obvious reasoning. And that's certainly interesting enough on its own. But the summary said
[...]for critical functions without translating the majority of their code[...]
Somebody has to do the translation, agree?