Gallium arsenide has been just about to replace silicon for 25 years, now. And Transputers were invented in the 80s. Sure, maybe it's finally time for these to hit the mass market, but one would be ill-advised to hold one's breath waiting for it.
Spend an afternoon or three skimming around the code pulling threads and following them. Jump around kind of randomly, if things start making sense in one module, go somewhere else for awhile. Take frequent breaks. Take notes about what you think things are doing, or perhaps ideas about how to improve the code - but don't start improving things now, you just want to figure out how much you're in for.
After awhile doing that, you should have a few ideas about good accomplishable problems, now pick one and go deep for a limited time (hour, afternoon, week, depends on the scope of the code and your commitment to it). Again, keep notes, and then throw all your work away (or check it in somewhere - but don't focus on shipping, that detracts from learning). Again, go somewhere else in the code, fix something, take notes, throw it away. Alternate back and forth between research and application, trying not to bias towards one or the other (which can be a form of procrastination).
Now throw away all your notes. They were written by someone who had no idea what was going on. By now you're pretty sure you know what's going on (you don't) and how to make things better (you have no idea), so circle around for another pass. Stop when you start finding that your notes seem to be recognizing actual immediately-actionable problems and solutions, rather than hypothesis and speculation. Or just stop because you're now so busy fixing things that you don't have time for exploration.
I'm sorry, but
The only way I could see it possibly being a win is if the system being simulated is itself composed of raspberry pi devices, which isn't at all clear, given that the researcher originally was apparently fine using a shares Xeon cluster in the first place.
It's not like the world needs all that many highly-educated John Smiths anyhow. Bonus: Automatic improvement to diversity scores.
The question is not whether you'll spend all of your time applying math. The question is whether there will come a time where strong math knowledge will help you solve problems which others cannot solve. There are any number of specialties which this applies to. Do you really need parsing abilities? Database abilities? Filesystem abilities? Network abilities? Image-processing? No, of course not - except that if you have them, you will find them helpful at unexpected times.
Unfortunately, it is usually not the case that someone will be weak in a subject AND they will still be able to identify that their skills are not up to the problem. Rather, what usually happens is they just keep hacking away, oblivious to what they're missing, spewing bugs in all directions.
Actually, IIRC theres good reason NOT to believe that there is a war. As I recall there are several clues point to the fact that there simply isnt any war, and that the entire thing is a hoax to keep the people under control.
I agree, that's how it feels when you read the book. But if true - why switch enemies periodically, only to cover it up later and deny it ever happened? The system would work just fine, and even save some trouble (altering records and disappearing people), if the enemy was always Eurasia.
Totally. It would also be easier to just say 2+2==4, it's more obvious than having to say it is equal to 5.
How much volume did Pixel Qi do last year? One week of iPad3 sales? One day? One *hour*?
Hell, even OLED displays have beaten these guys into volume production, and I didn't think that would ever happen.
why would anyone use a service that forced them to pay to skip ads
You mean like slashdot subscriptions?
Wait, slashdot has ads?
The fee should have an N^2 or 2^N or N! factor, where N is the number of years since expiration.
In many cases, public schools would do better if they *did* think of themselves as a daycare with an educational component. Right now it seems in vogue to imagine schools as sort of mini-universities, treating the kids as little informed consumers (at best - at worse, the kids are treated like waldos remotely operated by their parents. I never could figure out how teachers expected me to change minor quirks in my child's school-time behavior). But, well, even motivated and curious 3rd graders simply don't have the attention span to learn for more than a half hour at a time. For young kids, things like gym, art, and music are not nice-to-have once-a-week extras, they are sanity-preserving essentials that should be used to break up the day.
But, well, I don't think it's clear that the US public school system is about educating future Americans. It's about being a huge political football.
How about you just don't make ANYTHING unless it is using high quality components? A sucky 3D movie is somewhat more annoying because of the extra $3, but it's not like spending $10 to see a sucky 2D movie is a great alternative.
I'm not saying your wrong about knowledge bit-rot, but it is entirely possible that the vast experience we had developed was hindering future developments rather than helping them. It's also likely that expecting coherent development from a political program is expecting too much.
Also, speaking of ball lenses... you can use your head as a ball lens to extend the range of your car's wireless entry key fob. If you find yourself just out of range of your keys, simply put the transmitter about an inch behind your head, directly *opposite* the car. Your head is mostly transparent to the RF, but has a slightly different index of refraction from air/vaccum, thus acts as a lens. And since your head is approximately spherical, it works well enough to make a practical convergent lens.
Odd, I've always heard it as that you hold the fob under your chin.
While you're in the movie, someone else could drive your car around! You aren't using it, and the gas is already paid for!
While you're at work, we could use your house for storage!
Or while you're waiting in line to checkout, you could stock shelves!
Consciousness is weird. Quantum theory is weird. Therefore quantum theory must explain consciousness.
Or, more likely, consciousness explains quantum theory.