6 ms·

Yes! About 40 minutes into the first posted lecture [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9iqF5uTFk&t=2400s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9iqF5uTFk&t=2

Yes! About 40 minutes into the first posted lecture [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9iqF5uTFk&t=2400s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9iqF5uTFk&t=2400s

samstave 2y ago
>"I'm beginning to push the velocity of light" Wow. 11.8" is a nanosecond. So much wisdon and understanding: "Get a molocule set, red balls can be computers, blue balls can be databases..." "Get out of the domain of the paper, you cant draw in paper any more, they've got to be in three diminsions."
- kranke155 2y ago
  Was she right about three dimensional databases ? I’m not in IT
  - samstave 2y ago
    Yup - thats what an AI vector DB is all about - matrices. -- EDIT: @-probably_wrong You have to think that she also has to put things into the minds of others who dont have here prescient forethought of systems. Listen to all she says about "systems of computers" where "you need a computer to run all these other computers" and that you have ~160KB over head to run a 32KB program... andn how she breaks down all the constituents in a cluster, down to security auth... And she tells you to buy a Scientific Molocule Model set to be able to design computer systems in 3d. She is fn the foundation of cloud.
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      Increíble.- I wholeheartedly wish certain folks - us all, undoubtedly, but particularly certain people, such as Hopper - were inmortal.-
    - probably_wrong 2y ago
      I agree that she's right regarding how distributed systems will eventually work. My disagreement is not with the "what" nor the "why", but rather with the "how". If a "better Molecule Kit" were the solution then I think we would have built one today in VR. IMO the fundamental problem is that visualizing complex systems fails because the result is either too cumbersome to be useful or too simplified. UML tried to solve that issue (in 2D) by allowing you to go into more/less detail as you need it, and yet its adoption in modern software development is uneven at best. And there's a reason why we use flowcharts mostly for beginner's problems. The actual solution, I believe, was getting away from visualizations by making robust software (well...) with clear interfaces to abstract the complexity away. Reaching this conclusion took a lot of work by plenty of brilliant minds, so I'm not faulting her for not being that accurate in that particular prediction.
      - samstave 2y ago
        NVIDIA named one of their chip platforms after her. I mean, at the time that she was saying this, you couldnt fill a Trump Rally with as many people on the planet at the time knew the future of compute the way she did.
  - probably_wrong 2y ago
    I'm going to say "no". In her example she mentions that the problem she's trying to solve is that flowcharts [1] need to be 3D to model multiple systems and components operating in parallel, but that's just trying to push a single-system tool beyond it's usefulness. Trying to model multiple systems like that would lead to an explosion in the number of transitions very quickly. The closest we have nowadays to her "3D flowcharts" idea would be UML in general [2] and Orthogonal State Machines [3] in particular, but I think that what her problem really needed was better encapsulation and interfaces between systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UML_state_machine#Orthogonal_regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UML_state_machine#Orthogonal_r...

Yes! About 40 minutes into the first posted lecture [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9iqF5uTFk&t=2400s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9iqF5uTFk&t=2400s

samstave 2y ago

>"I'm beginning to push the velocity of light" Wow. 11.8" is a nanosecond. So much wisdon and understanding: "Get a molocule set, red balls can be computers, blue balls can be databases..." "Get out of the domain of the paper, you cant draw in paper any more, they've got to be in three diminsions."

kranke155 2y ago
Was she right about three dimensional databases ? I’m not in IT
- samstave 2y ago
  Yup - thats what an AI vector DB is all about - matrices. -- EDIT: @-probably_wrong You have to think that she also has to put things into the minds of others who dont have here prescient forethought of systems. Listen to all she says about "systems of computers" where "you need a computer to run all these other computers" and that you have ~160KB over head to run a 32KB program... andn how she breaks down all the constituents in a cluster, down to security auth... And she tells you to buy a Scientific Molocule Model set to be able to design computer systems in 3d. She is fn the foundation of cloud.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    Increíble.- I wholeheartedly wish certain folks - us all, undoubtedly, but particularly certain people, such as Hopper - were inmortal.-
  - probably_wrong 2y ago
    I agree that she's right regarding how distributed systems will eventually work. My disagreement is not with the "what" nor the "why", but rather with the "how". If a "better Molecule Kit" were the solution then I think we would have built one today in VR. IMO the fundamental problem is that visualizing complex systems fails because the result is either too cumbersome to be useful or too simplified. UML tried to solve that issue (in 2D) by allowing you to go into more/less detail as you need it, and yet its adoption in modern software development is uneven at best. And there's a reason why we use flowcharts mostly for beginner's problems. The actual solution, I believe, was getting away from visualizations by making robust software (well...) with clear interfaces to abstract the complexity away. Reaching this conclusion took a lot of work by plenty of brilliant minds, so I'm not faulting her for not being that accurate in that particular prediction.
    - samstave 2y ago
      NVIDIA named one of their chip platforms after her. I mean, at the time that she was saying this, you couldnt fill a Trump Rally with as many people on the planet at the time knew the future of compute the way she did.
- probably_wrong 2y ago
  I'm going to say "no". In her example she mentions that the problem she's trying to solve is that flowcharts [1] need to be 3D to model multiple systems and components operating in parallel, but that's just trying to push a single-system tool beyond it's usefulness. Trying to model multiple systems like that would lead to an explosion in the number of transitions very quickly. The closest we have nowadays to her "3D flowcharts" idea would be UML in general [2] and Orthogonal State Machines [3] in particular, but I think that what her problem really needed was better encapsulation and interfaces between systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UML_state_machine#Orthogonal_regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UML_state_machine#Orthogonal_r...