On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:13:47 +0200, Terje Mathisen
<terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> wrote:

>George Neuner wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:49:11 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
>> <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>
>>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> I mean, my entire house is wired for 24KW and usually runs at more
>>>> like 4KW including a heat pump that heats the house.
>>>
>>> Good thing you're not living in Germany, your electricity bill
>>> would be enormous...
>>
>> Possibly John meant to say "4Kwh", which actually would a be a bit on
>> the high side for the *average* home in the US.
>>
>> If he really meant 4Kw continuous ... wow!
>>
>Here in Norway we abuse our hydro power as our primary house heating
>source, in our previous home we used about 60K KWh per year, which
>corresponds to 60K/(24*365.24) = 6.84 KW average, day & night.
>
>This was in fact while having a heat pump to handle the main part of the
>heating needs.
>
>The new house, which is from the same era (1962 vs 1963), uses
>significantly less, but probably still 30-40K /year.
>
>Electric power used to cost just under 1 NOK (about 9 cents at current
>exchange rates), including both primary power cost and transmission
>cost, but then we started exporting too much to Denmark/Sweden/Germany
>which means that we also imported their sometimes much higher power prices.
>
>Terje

In the US, the majority of homes are heated with oil or gas (LNG or in
rural areas it might be propane). Electric heat mainly is found in
the south where overall need is low. Electric cooling is far more
widespread. The majority of ovens are electric, but ~ 2/3 of cooktops
are gas.

Where I am, the per Kwh rates *currently* are
0.17216 - generation
0.09434 - distribution
0.04052 - transmission
0.00037 - transition (from? to?)
0.00006
0.00800
0.00050
0.02334 - efficiency (of what?)
------
0.33929

It's little wonder the current administration wants to force everyone
to use only electricity ... it will bankrupt consumers trying to pay
for energy, and bankrupt utilities trying to deliver it. Estimates
are that the grid needs trillions of dollars in upgrades to handle the
anticipated load [that the administration wants to force on it within
5 years].

I'd have a nuclear reactor in my basement if I could.

YMMV.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>Adding the typical kind of vector-processing instructions to an
>instruction set inevitably leads to a combinatorial explosion in the
>number of opcodes.

Why is that a problem that needs solving?

> This kind of thing makes a mockery of the R in RISC.

So what?

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>Adding the typical kind of vector-processing instructions to an
>>instruction set inevitably leads to a combinatorial explosion in the
>>number of opcodes.

> Why is that a problem that needs solving?

When your OpCode encoding space runs out of bits in the instruction.

>> This kind of thing makes a mockery of the R in RISC.

> So what?

Design + verification cost, time to market, Size of test vector set,
and Compiler complexity.

So, pretty close to the difference between binary floating point
and decimal floating point.....

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>
>> John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> schrieb:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 05:39:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 23:10:47 -0600, John Savard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the things that those supercomputers that _do_ include
>>>>> GPUs are praised for is being energy-efficient.
>>>>
>>>> That I never heard before. I heard it in relation to ARM CPUs,
>>>> yes, GPUs, no.
>>>
>>> Here's one example of an item about this:
>>>
>>> https://www.infoworld.com/article/2627720/
>>> gpus-boost-energy-efficiency-in-supercomputers.html
>>
>> Compared the late 1950s, was the total energy consumption by
>> computers higher or lower than today? :-)
>
> Total energy consumption by computers in the 1950s was lower
> than today by at least a factor of 10.

Undoubtedly true, but I think you're missing quite a few
orders of magnitude there.

> It wouldn't surprise
> me to discover the energy consumption of just the servers in
> Amazon Web Services datacenters exceeds the 1950s total, and
> that's only AWS (reportedly more than 1.4 million servers).

https://smithsonianeducation.org/scitech/carbons/1960.html states
that, in 1954, there were 15 computers in the US. That seems low
(did they only count IBM 701 machines?), but it reportedly went up to
17000 in 1964.

Even if you put the number of computers at 100 for the mid-1950s, at
100 kW each, you only get 10 MW of power when they ran (wich they often
didn't; due to maintenance, these early computers seem to have been
day shift only).

According to Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>:
>> It wouldn't surprise
>> me to discover the energy consumption of just the servers in
>> Amazon Web Services datacenters exceeds the 1950s total, and
>> that's only AWS (reportedly more than 1.4 million servers).
>
>https://smithsonianeducation.org/scitech/carbons/1960.html states
>that, in 1954, there were 15 computers in the US. That seems low
>(did they only count IBM 701 machines?), but it reportedly went up to
>17000 in 1964.

Wikipedia lists 18 UNIVACs shipped by 1954 so that's certainly low.
With the 702, the ERA machines and the one-offs like JOHNNIAC I'd
guess the number was more like 50, but soon increased with multiple
IBM 704 and 650 machines starting in 1954.

>Even if you put the number of computers at 100 for the mid-1950s, at
>100 kW each, you only get 10 MW of power when they ran (wich they often
>didn't; due to maintenance, these early computers seem to have been
>day shift only).

The 650s at leat ran all night. Alan Perlis told me some amusing
stories of tripping in the dark over sleeping grad student wives who
were holding their husbands' place in line for the 650 in the middle
of the night. They soon made the scheduling more humane.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:38:54 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:

> The 650s at leat ran all night. Alan Perlis told me some amusing stories
> of tripping in the dark over sleeping grad student wives who were
> holding their husbands' place in line for the 650 in the middle of the
> night. They soon made the scheduling more humane.

How did they do that, though? Other than by hiring operators to work those
shifts, so the users could submit their jobs in a queue and go home?

Those early computers were expensive, hence the need for 24-hour batch
operation to keep them as busy as possible, to earn their keep.

That batch mentality is still characteristic of (what’s left of) IBM
mainframes today.

mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>>Adding the typical kind of vector-processing instructions to an
>>>instruction set inevitably leads to a combinatorial explosion in the
>>>number of opcodes.
>
>> Why is that a problem that needs solving?
>
>When your OpCode encoding space runs out of bits in the instruction.

And has that been a real problem yet? Pretty much every
instruction set can be easily extended (viz. 8086),
particularly with variable length encodings, nothing prevents
one from adding a special 32-bit encoding that extends the
instruction to 64-bits even in a fixed size encoding scheme.

>
>>> This kind of thing makes a mockery of the R in RISC.
>
>> So what?
>
>Design + verification cost, time to market, Size of test vector set,
>and Compiler complexity.

As contrasted with usability. ARM doesn't add features just
for the sake of adding features, nor does Intel.

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>>>Adding the typical kind of vector-processing instructions to an
>>>>instruction set inevitably leads to a combinatorial explosion in the
>>>>number of opcodes.
>>
>>> Why is that a problem that needs solving?
>>
>>When your OpCode encoding space runs out of bits in the instruction.

> And has that been a real problem yet? Pretty much every
> instruction set can be easily extended (viz. 8086),
> particularly with variable length encodings, nothing prevents
> one from adding a special 32-bit encoding that extends the
> instruction to 64-bits even in a fixed size encoding scheme.

I suspect as long as RISC-V maintains its 32-bit only ISA,
that REIC-V will hit that wall first.

>>
>>>> This kind of thing makes a mockery of the R in RISC.
>>
>>> So what?
>>
>>Design + verification cost, time to market, Size of test vector set,
>>and Compiler complexity.

> As contrasted with usability. ARM doesn't add features just
> for the sake of adding features, nor does Intel.

Are you sure ?? Take SSE-512 (or whatever Intel calls it) !!

When I was at AMD (99-06) every 6 months or so, we (AMD) got Intel's
latest instructions additions, and they gout ours. Most of these
additions end up at the 0.01% level of the dynamic instructions
executed (over a wide range of programs (more than 40,000 traces)),
and all cores had to have all of the instructions.

Is this a burden on Intel:: not so much since they already have
extensive (exhaustive??) tests and implementation libraries....

Is this a burden on AMD:: yes, absolutely; the smaller design staff,
they can afford based on their revenue stream, increases the burden
significantly.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:31:17 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> ARM doesn't add features just for the sake of adding features, nor does
> Intel.

There is such a thing as painting yourself into a corner, where every new
feature added to the SIMD instruction set involves adding combinations of
instructions, not just for the new types, but also for every single old
type as well.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:31:17 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>> ARM doesn't add features just for the sake of adding features, nor does
>> Intel.

> There is such a thing as painting yourself into a corner, where every new
> feature added to the SIMD instruction set involves adding combinations of
> instructions, not just for the new types, but also for every single old
> type as well.

That is the combinational explosion mentioned above.
{Although I would term it the Cartesian Product of types and OPs}

Then contemplate for an instant that one would want SIMD instructions for
Complex numbers and Hamiltonian Quaterions......

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 23:56:03 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

> Then contemplate for an instant that one would want SIMD instructions
> for Complex numbers and Hamiltonian Quater[n]ions......

Quaternions yeah! Interesting that they actually predated vector algebra
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M12CJIuX8D4> (from the wonderful “Kathy
Loves Physics & History” channel), and then the mathematicians realized
that it was a bit simpler to separate out the components and deal with
them separately, rather than carry them around all the time. Some of the
“old guard” resisted this move ...

And now they’ve made a comeback in computer graphics, for representing
rotations, particularly of armature “bones” used in posing and animating
characters.

I’m not sure you really need SIMD instructions for quaternions, though.
Consider that the typical use of such instructions is to process millions
or even billions of data items (e.g. pixels, maybe even geometry
coordinates for complex models), whereas the number of bones in an
armature is maybe a few thousand at most.

It appears that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> said:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:38:54 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>
>> The 650s at least ran all night. Alan Perlis told me some amusing stories
>> of tripping in the dark over sleeping grad student wives who were
>> holding their husbands' place in line for the 650 in the middle of the
>> night. They soon made the scheduling more humane.
>
>How did they do that, though? Other than by hiring operators to work those
>shifts, so the users could submit their jobs in a queue and go home?

Rather than just queueing up, they arranged it so the student could
sign up ahead of time, and then show up whenever to do his work, and
the wives could get some sleep.

I also think he tried to round up some money to get another computer.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

John Levine wrote:

> It appears that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> said:
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:38:54 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> The 650s at least ran all night. Alan Perlis told me some amusing stories
>>> of tripping in the dark over sleeping grad student wives who were
>>> holding their husbands' place in line for the 650 in the middle of the
>>> night. They soon made the scheduling more humane.
>>
>>How did they do that, though? Other than by hiring operators to work those
>>shifts, so the users could submit their jobs in a queue and go home?

> Rather than just queueing up, they arranged it so the student could
> sign up ahead of time, and then show up whenever to do his work, and
> the wives could get some sleep.

> I also think he tried to round up some money to get another computer.

I remember getting up at 3:00 AM to get exclusive access to the IBM 360/67
to run various student programs with much better response time than when
30 other people were trying to do the same. {Every body else, except the
system operator had left by then::at least statistically.}

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
>
>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>
>>> John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 05:39:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 23:10:47 -0600, John Savard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the things that those supercomputers that _do_ include
>>>>>> GPUs are praised for is being energy-efficient.
>>>>>
>>>>> That I never heard before. I heard it in relation to ARM CPUs,
>>>>> yes, GPUs, no.
>>>>
>>>> Here's one example of an item about this:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.infoworld.com/article/2627720/
>>>> gpus-boost-energy-efficiency-in-supercomputers.html
>>>
>>> Compared the late 1950s, was the total energy consumption by
>>> computers higher or lower than today? :-)
>>
>> Total energy consumption by computers in the 1950s was lower
>> than today by at least a factor of 10.
>
> Undoubtedly true, but I think you're missing quite a few
> orders of magnitude there.

Probably not as many as you think. :)

>> It wouldn't surprise
>> me to discover the energy consumption of just the servers in
>> Amazon Web Services datacenters exceeds the 1950s total, and
>> that's only AWS (reportedly more than 1.4 million servers).
>
> https://smithsonianeducation.org/scitech/carbons/1960.html states
> that, in 1954, there were 15 computers in the US. That seems low
> (did they only count IBM 701 machines?), but it reportedly went up to
> 17000 in 1964.
>
> Even if you put the number of computers at 100 for the mid-1950s, at
> 100 kW each, you only get 10 MW of power when they ran (wich they often
> didn't; due to maintenance, these early computers seem to have been
> day shift only).

Oh boy, numbers.

First your question asked about the late 1950s, not the mid 1950s.

I estimated between 10,000 and 20,000 computers by the end of
the 1950s, and chose 5 KW as an average consumption. In those
days computers were big. Probably the estimate for number of
machines is a bit on the high side, and the average consumption
is a bit on the low side. I'm only estimating.

The most popular computer in the 1950s was the IBM 650. 2,000
units sold (or in some cases given away).

In contrast, the LGP-30 turned out only 500 units, at a mere
1500 W each.

Towards the end of the 1950s both the IBM 1620 and the IBM 1401
came out. Of course none of either of these were delivered
until the 1960s, but the IBM 1401 delivered 10,000 units all
on its own.

I looked up a few other IBM models, didn't get any unit numbers on
any of them. I didn't even try to look up models or numbers of
units from other manufacturers (not counting the LGP-30, since I
happened to have a wikipedia page open already for that). But
based on just the number of different IBM models, and knowing that
the 650 produced 2,000 units, and keeping in mind the number of
different computer manufacturers at that time, suggests that 10,000
systems overall is a plausible guess.

Also there is a noteworthy computer system developed in the 1950s
that is often overlooked. Only 24 units were installed. Each
installation occupied 22,000 square feet, weighed 250 tons, had
60,000 tubes, and used 3 MW. So that's 72 MW all by itself (to be
fair some parts were turned off at times for maintenance, but at
least half of each installation was up at all times).

I did a very different kind of calculation to estimate how much
power is used in today's computers. The result was more than
ten times as much, but less than 100 times as much. Remember,
I'm just estimating. But I had enough confidence in the estimates
to say at least a factor of 10, which seems more than adequate to
answer the question asked (and that's all I was doing).

What's the largest computer ever built? The AN/FSQ-7. Only 24
installed, for an aggregate weight of 6,000 tons.

MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:

> Then contemplate for an instant that one would want SIMD instructions for
> Complex numbers and Hamiltonian Quaterions......

Quaternions would be a bit over the top, I tink. Complex
multiplication... implementing (e,f) = (a*c-b*d,a*d+b*c) is

fmul Rt1,Rc,Rb
fmac Re,Rd,Ra,Rt1

fmul Rt2,Rd,Rb
fmac Rf,Rc,Ra,-Rt2

So, you'd need both operands on both lanes. Not very SIMD-friendly,
I would assume, but (probably) not impossible, either.

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 05:39:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 23:10:47 -0600, John Savard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the things that those supercomputers that _do_ include
>>>>>>> GPUs are praised for is being energy-efficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That I never heard before. I heard it in relation to ARM CPUs,
>>>>>> yes, GPUs, no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's one example of an item about this:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.infoworld.com/article/2627720/
>>>>> gpus-boost-energy-efficiency-in-supercomputers.html
>>>>
>>>> Compared the late 1950s, was the total energy consumption by
>>>> computers higher or lower than today? :-)
>>>
>>> Total energy consumption by computers in the 1950s was lower
>>> than today by at least a factor of 10.
>>
>> Undoubtedly true, but I think you're missing quite a few
>> orders of magnitude there.
>
> Probably not as many as you think. :)
>
>>> It wouldn't surprise
>>> me to discover the energy consumption of just the servers in
>>> Amazon Web Services datacenters exceeds the 1950s total, and
>>> that's only AWS (reportedly more than 1.4 million servers).
>>
>> https://smithsonianeducation.org/scitech/carbons/1960.html states
>> that, in 1954, there were 15 computers in the US. That seems low
>> (did they only count IBM 701 machines?), but it reportedly went up to
>> 17000 in 1964.
>>
>> Even if you put the number of computers at 100 for the mid-1950s, at
>> 100 kW each, you only get 10 MW of power when they ran (wich they often
>> didn't; due to maintenance, these early computers seem to have been
>> day shift only).
>
> Oh boy, numbers.
>
> First your question asked about the late 1950s, not the mid 1950s.
>
> I estimated between 10,000 and 20,000 computers by the end of
> the 1950s, and chose 5 KW as an average consumption. In those
> days computers were big. Probably the estimate for number of
> machines is a bit on the high side, and the average consumption
> is a bit on the low side. I'm only estimating.

The number of computers is probably high, the power maybe somewhat
low, but let us take it as a basis - 2*10^4 computers with 5*10^3
Watt, total power if they are all on at the same time 10^8 Watt.
Let's assume an operating time of 4000 hours, so total energy
consumption would be around 1.44*10^15 J or 4*10^8 kWh, or
0.4 Terawatt-hours.

For today, we don't need to make an estimate
ourselves, we can use other people's. Looking at
https://frontiergroup.org/resources/fact-file-computing-is-using-more-energy-than-ever/
one finds that data centers alone use around 240-340 Terawatt-hours,
so we have a factor of a bit less than 1000 alredy. The total
sector, according to the same source, and also according to
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0677/POST-PN-0677.pdf
is around three times that.

Thomas Koenig wrote:
> MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
>
>> Then contemplate for an instant that one would want SIMD instructions for
>> Complex numbers and Hamiltonian Quaterions......
>
> Quaternions would be a bit over the top, I tink. Complex
> multiplication... implementing (e,f) = (a*c-b*d,a*d+b*c) is
>
> fmul Rt1,Rc,Rb
> fmac Re,Rd,Ra,Rt1
>
> fmul Rt2,Rd,Rb
> fmac Rf,Rc,Ra,-Rt2
>
> So, you'd need both operands on both lanes. Not very SIMD-friendly,
> I would assume, but (probably) not impossible, either.
>
If you have the four operands spread across two SIMD registers, so
(Re,Im) in each, then you need an initial pair of permutes to make
flipped copies before you can start the fmul/fmac ops, right?

This is exactly the kind of code where Mitch's transparent vector
processing would be very nice to have.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> Then contemplate for an instant that one would want SIMD instructions for
>>> Complex numbers and Hamiltonian Quaterions......
>>
>> Quaternions would be a bit over the top, I tink. Complex
>> multiplication... implementing (e,f) = (a*c-b*d,a*d+b*c) is
>>
>> fmul Rt1,Rc,Rb
>> fmac Re,Rd,Ra,Rt1
>>
>> fmul Rt2,Rd,Rb
>> fmac Rf,Rc,Ra,-Rt2
>>
>> So, you'd need both operands on both lanes. Not very SIMD-friendly,
>> I would assume, but (probably) not impossible, either.
>>
> If you have the four operands spread across two SIMD registers, so
> (Re,Im) in each, then you need an initial pair of permutes to make
> flipped copies before you can start the fmul/fmac ops, right?
>
> This is exactly the kind of code where Mitch's transparent vector
> processing would be very nice to have.

I'm actually not sure how that would help. Could you elaborate?

On 4/30/2024 8:22 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> said:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:38:54 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> The 650s at least ran all night. Alan Perlis told me some amusing stories
>>> of tripping in the dark over sleeping grad student wives who were
>>> holding their husbands' place in line for the 650 in the middle of the
>>> night. They soon made the scheduling more humane.
>>
>> How did they do that, though? Other than by hiring operators to work those
>> shifts, so the users could submit their jobs in a queue and go home?
>
> Rather than just queueing up, they arranged it so the student could
> sign up ahead of time, and then show up whenever to do his work, and
> the wives could get some sleep.
>
> I also think he tried to round up some money to get another computer.
>

Sometimes seems odd in a way that people can manage to find wives, with
as many difficulties and prerequisites there seem to be in being seen as
"worthy of attention", etc...

Then again, it seems that there is a split:
Many people seem to marry off between their early to mid 20s;
Like, somehow, they find someone where there is mutual interest.
Others, not so quickly, if at all.
On the female side, it seems there are several subgroups:
Those who are waiting for "the perfect romance".
Those who want someone with at least a "6 figure income", etc.
Then there are the asexual females.
And also lesbians.

Though, of these, in my case aiming for aroace females makes the most
sense, though in this case it turns into an issue of whether one can
make a case that (for them) being in a relationship would leave them
better off than just remaining alone, and many would rather just remain
alone (and generally tend to have rejected the societal expectation for
people to find someone to be in a relationship with).
In most cases, the cost/benefit tradeoff would not seem to be mutually
beneficial.

Well, and then there is another split between people who are
socially/emotionally oriented in terms of their thinking, and those who
evaluate things in terms of cost/benefit and utility. The former tend to
dislike the latter, though at the same time, many of those in the latter
camp tend to be selfish and self serving (only working for their own
self interest, rather than the self interest of others).

Similarly, not really found anyone in the same geographic area that also
has similar interests, ...

Also, interacting with the "perfect romance" types is kinda pointless:
They expect someone to woo them and make some sort of unrealistic
fantasy experience, which wont really work out;
Tend to often be weird and irrational, meaningful communication is not
usually possible;
They tend to strongly be repelled by the notion of applying cost/benefit
considerations to relationships (as seemingly "romance" exists in a
world devoid of practicality or cost/benefit), but also they tend to be
of the social/emotional type as well.

Then again, not exactly like I am the epitome of "practicality" either,
more trying to act in terms of things I find interesting or which could
potentially benefit the world, rather than trying to work towards money
and societal influence (IOW: the more standard goals).

But, still, it seems like it would still be preferable to not be alone.

....

Thomas Koenig wrote:

> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> schrieb:
>> Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Then contemplate for an instant that one would want SIMD instructions
for
>>>> Complex numbers and Hamiltonian Quaterions......
>>>
>>> Quaternions would be a bit over the top, I tink. Complex
>>> multiplication... implementing (e,f) = (a*c-b*d,a*d+b*c) is
>>>
>>> fmul Rt1,Rc,Rb
>>> fmac Re,Rd,Ra,Rt1
>>>
>>> fmul Rt2,Rd,Rb
>>> fmac Rf,Rc,Ra,-Rt2
>>>
>>> So, you'd need both operands on both lanes. Not very SIMD-friendly,
>>> I would assume, but (probably) not impossible, either.
>>>
>> If you have the four operands spread across two SIMD registers, so
>> (Re,Im) in each, then you need an initial pair of permutes to make
>> flipped copies before you can start the fmul/fmac ops, right?
>>
>> This is exactly the kind of code where Mitch's transparent vector
>> processing would be very nice to have.

> I'm actually not sure how that would help. Could you elaborate?

VVM synthesizes SIMD (lanes) and strip-mining (Cray-like vectors) while
processing SCALAR code. So, as long as the compiler knows which operands
are participating, almost any amount of <strange> Complexity drops out
for free -- including things like Quaternions.

Physicists like quaternions because it means they don't have to worry
about
whether to add or subtract, the {i,j,k} does it for them. Complex is OK
for
flat spaces but when one is dealing with non Cartesian coordinates (like
within the radius of the proton) other effects makes quaternions a better
path.

BGB wrote:

> On 4/30/2024 8:22 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>

> Sometimes seems odd in a way that people can manage to find wives, with
> as many difficulties and prerequisites there seem to be in being seen as

> "worthy of attention", etc...

> Then again, it seems that there is a split:
> Many people seem to marry off between their early to mid 20s;
> Like, somehow, they find someone where there is mutual interest.

More than ½ of whom end up divorced within 7 years.

> Others, not so quickly, if at all.

You mean the lucky ones ?!?

> On the female side, it seems there are several subgroups:
> Those who are waiting for "the perfect romance".
> Those who want someone with at least a "6 figure income", etc.
> Then there are the asexual females.
> And also lesbians.

If you don't know what you are looking for, how do you know when
you find it ?!!!

On 5/2/2024 3:14 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> BGB wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2024 8:22 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>
>
>> Sometimes seems odd in a way that people can manage to find wives,
>> with as many difficulties and prerequisites there seem to be in being
>> seen as
>
>> "worthy of attention", etc...
>
>
>> Then again, it seems that there is a split:
>>    Many people seem to marry off between their early to mid 20s;
>>      Like, somehow, they find someone where there is mutual interest.
>
> More than ½ of whom end up divorced within 7 years.
>

This does seem to be a pattern.

Divorcees seem to be fairly common in the 30+ age range, but don't seem
to be a good bet... Many seemingly have few interesting or redeeming
qualities, and often seem to be the bitter / judgy ones (the ones who
are not bitter and judgemental, tend to be the ones who don't get divorces).

>>    Others, not so quickly, if at all.
>
> You mean the lucky ones ?!?
>

Possibly.

One can debate the merits of waiting until later, vs remaining single
indefinitely.

Arguably, remaining single is probably the easier option, but if one
wants a family, well, this is the only real option (well, at least
excluding a future where people can clone themselves).

>>    On the female side, it seems there are several subgroups:
>>      Those who are waiting for "the perfect romance".
>>      Those who want someone with at least a "6 figure income", etc.
>>      Then there are the asexual females.
>>      And also lesbians.
>
> If you don't know what you are looking for, how do you know when you
> find it ?!!!

In my case, I more know what ones I am *not* looking for.
Sadly, they tend to be the most common ones...

So, the romance-seeking ones apparently fail to find any guys that live
up to their fantasy expectations, or if they do find someone, apparently
it is often someone who feeds them a line of crap to get them into bed,
and then leaves again. This type seemingly often falling into a pattern
of occasional short-lived flings (though many also seem to remain alone).

This type most often has interests in things like "classic literature",
like if (unprovoked) they start talking about "Jane Austen" or "Pride
and Prejudice" or other things of this sort, one has likely encountered
one of them...

The next group is a bit different, their interactions usually start with
information gathering, usually the kind who will ask indirect questions
aimed mostly at trying to figure out someones job title, relative
income, etc, often phrased in a way similar to stereotypical interview
questions.

Usual strategy with them is to be semi-reluctant, and then imply like I
am totally broke and don't have crap (which, granted, isn't too far from
the truth), and if they immediately lose interest, one has their answer.

A lot of the "aroace" group are more often the ones where their
interaction style is to go into a monologue about whatever they are
interested in (often math or physics, sometimes astronomy or mineralogy
or other similar topics; though entomology is a bit pushing it, ...).

Seemingly, programming is a less common interest for females (though, a
lot of the math and physics nerd types also have at least some
programming abilities).

Though, sometimes they may not go into monologues, but will often have
other indicators (in the form of vocal indicators and "stims"), and
seems to have a non-zero overlap with autism (though, it is not a direct
equivalence, as many in the "romance seeking" category may also identify
as autistic).

Though, between the groups, there does seem to be a division in vocal
patterns:
The romance-seeking subtype more often speaks in a shrill or
excessively-inflected way, whereas the latter will more often tend
towards reduced or flat inflections, with inflections (when used)
tending to be more abrupt.

Though, I have seen exceptions, and also intermediate patterns between
these groups.

Though, often, they are not so much interested in relationships so much
as wanting someone who will listen to whatever their topic of interest
is. Many are openly disinterested in things like physical intimacy, and
if interested in a relationship at all, more in the context of someone
providing things like transportation and a place to live and similar
(granted, these seem like reasonable goals).

Granted, I can sort of relate, more or less falling into the same
general category (seems like a relationship might be more stable if
neither party is particularly interested in physical intimacy, vs a
scenario where this is unbalanced between the parties; mostly depending
on things like whether the relationship is mutually beneficial, etc).

I guess, contrast being, however it works for "normal" people.

They are, however, less common; and tend to often have similar
functional difficulties to myself. Say, if neither person in a
relationship can drive a car effectively, this is not ideal (presumably,
at least one of them needs to be able to drive, etc).

But, say, finding a single nerdy female who can also drive a car, is
seemingly its own case of hunting for a unicorn (seemingly the ones who
can drive are also much less likely to be single).

Granted, it is possible that, if/when self-driving cars become commonly
available, it could change this social dynamic somewhat (though, not
sure whether it would make relationships more or less common).

....

Can note though that dating sites are borderline useless here...
General site design seems to prioritize appearance and categorization
based on physical features and similar (IOW: mostly the stuff I don't
care all that much about).

Most profiles tending to have very little beyond maybe 1 or 2 sentences
of self-description (if anything). So, no real information as to "why"
it might be worth my time to bother trying to write anything to them,
and almost invariably, it is not.

....

On Thu, 2 May 2024 20:14:09 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

> If you don't know what you are looking for, how do you know when you
> find it ?!!!

Maybe the procedure for determining that you’ve found it is recursively
enumerable, but that for doing the search is not? ;)

Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> schrieb:
>> Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Then contemplate for an instant that one would want SIMD instructions for
>>>> Complex numbers and Hamiltonian Quaterions......
>>>
>>> Quaternions would be a bit over the top, I tink. Complex
>>> multiplication... implementing (e,f) = (a*c-b*d,a*d+b*c) is
>>>
>>> fmul Rt1,Rc,Rb
>>> fmac Re,Rd,Ra,Rt1
>>>
>>> fmul Rt2,Rd,Rb
>>> fmac Rf,Rc,Ra,-Rt2
>>>
>>> So, you'd need both operands on both lanes. Not very SIMD-friendly,
>>> I would assume, but (probably) not impossible, either.
>>>
>> If you have the four operands spread across two SIMD registers, so
>> (Re,Im) in each, then you need an initial pair of permutes to make
>> flipped copies before you can start the fmul/fmac ops, right?
>>
>> This is exactly the kind of code where Mitch's transparent vector
>> processing would be very nice to have.
>
> I'm actually not sure how that would help. Could you elaborate?

Just that all his code is scalar, but when you have a bunch of these
complex mul/mac operations in a loop, his hw will figure out the
recurrences and run them as fast as possible, with all the (Re,Im) SIMD
flips becoming NOPs.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> schrieb:
>>> Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>> MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> Then contemplate for an instant that one would want SIMD instructions for
>>>>> Complex numbers and Hamiltonian Quaterions......
>>>>
>>>> Quaternions would be a bit over the top, I tink. Complex
>>>> multiplication... implementing (e,f) = (a*c-b*d,a*d+b*c) is
>>>>
>>>> fmul Rt1,Rc,Rb
>>>> fmac Re,Rd,Ra,Rt1
>>>>
>>>> fmul Rt2,Rd,Rb
>>>> fmac Rf,Rc,Ra,-Rt2
>>>>
>>>> So, you'd need both operands on both lanes. Not very SIMD-friendly,
>>>> I would assume, but (probably) not impossible, either.
>>>>
>>> If you have the four operands spread across two SIMD registers, so
>>> (Re,Im) in each, then you need an initial pair of permutes to make
>>> flipped copies before you can start the fmul/fmac ops, right?
>>>
>>> This is exactly the kind of code where Mitch's transparent vector
>>> processing would be very nice to have.
>>
>> I'm actually not sure how that would help. Could you elaborate?
>
> Just that all his code is scalar, but when you have a bunch of these
> complex mul/mac operations in a loop, his hw will figure out the
> recurrences and run them as fast as possible, with all the (Re,Im) SIMD
> flips becoming NOPs.

Sure.

This would then be something like (in the loop)

vec r6,{}
ldd r7,[r1,r5,0]
ldd r8,[r1,r5,8]
ldd r9,[r2,r5,0]
ldd r10,[r2,r5,8]
fmul r11,r9,r8
fmac r11,r10,r7,r11
fmul r8,r10,r8
fmac r7,r9,r7,-r8
std r7,[r3,r5,0]
std r11,[r3,r5,8]
loop1 lt,r5,r4,#16

but it would not help in a case where previous results were already
in registers.