The grapes of wrath aren’t usually so literal.

In fact it shows up from u/@ on c/@.

This reply has been pinned at the top of my inbox for a month.

Does he have a watch up his ass?

Yeah it’s only a creeping error that’s making English harder and search engines worse. Fuck me sideways for politely highlighting the difference in a thread about language.

“Why are words” is a question.

“Why words are” is an explanation.

Scansion, people.

Practicing the forbidden art of nex-mex.

Do this for Proust and you’ll obstruct traffic.

I don’t care. Any outcome where he’s walking free is a failure. I want to stop hearing about this miserable idiot.

Conservatives don’t have beliefs - they have slogans.

Rational argument is not what they’re doing.

Trying to “make it make sense” makes no goddamn sense. Please stop. It won’t work.

They called the fucking Pinkertons.

Doesn’t need to be hot, if you swing hard enough.

That’s why you do your friend’s. Teamwork makes the dream work.

And you gotta get that mid-sack seam ironed out. It’s unbecoming.

The Idiot stiffed the lawyers who defended him for stiffing his previous lawyers.

With emotional distance this will be endlessly hilarious. But living through it, in real time, I am pulling my hair out.

Athenian democracy didn’t even exist in Athens. Representation has always been part of democracy. They’re not mutually exclusive or even distinct. Democratic governance requires government. Stop fucking this particular chicken.

Jesus Christ, the usability nightmare of this website is worse than the goofy animated GIF they think is an exaggeration.

www.wired.com##.sticky-box to get rid of the autoplaying video go fuck yourselves, www.wired.com##.journey-unit__container to get rid of the assorted gigantic flyover bullshit.

“Here’s all the ways we tell people not to use parallelism.”

I’m sorry, that’s not fair. It’s only a fraction of the ways we tell people not to use parallelism.

Multi-threading is difficult, which is why I said it’s a fucking obstacle. It’s the wrong model. The fact you’d try to “slap it on” is WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. You CANNOT just apply more cores to existing linear code. You MUST actively train people to write parallel-friendly code, even if it won’t necessarily run in parallel.

Javascript is a terrible language I work with regularly, and most of the things that should be parallel aren’t - and yet - it has abundant features that should be parallel. It has absorbed elements of functional programming that are excellent practice, even if for some goddamn reason they’re actually executed in-order.

Fetches are single-threaded, in Javascript. I don’t even know how they did that. Grabbing a webpage and then responding to an event using an inline function is somehow more rigidly linear than pre-emptive multitasking in Windows 95. But you should still write the damn things as though they’re going to happen in parallel. You have no control over the order they happen in. That and some caching get you halfway around most locks.

Javascript, loathesome relic, also has vector processing. The kind insisted upon by that pedant in the other subthread, who thinks the 512-bit vector units in a modern Intel chip don’t qualify, but the DSP on a Super Nintendo does. Array.forEach and Array.map really fucking ought to be parallelisable. Google could use its digital imperialism to force millions of devs to adopt better standards, just by following the spec and not processing keys in a rigid order. Bad code treating it like a simplified for-loop would break. Good code… wouldn’t.

We want people to write that kind of code.

Not necessarily code that will run in parallel. Just code that could.

Workload-centric thinking is the only thing that’s going to stop “let’s add a little parallelism, as a treat” from producing months of needless agony. Anything else has to be dissected, warped beyond recognition, and stitched back together, with each step taking more effort than starting over from scratch, and the end result still being slow and unreadable and fragile.

“The way we teach this relationship causes harm.”

“Well you don’t understand this relationship.”

“I do, and I’m saying: people plainly aren’t getting it, because of how we teach it.”

“Well lemme explain the relationship again–”

Nobody has to tell people not to use parallelism. They just… won’t. In part because of how people tend to think, by default, and in part because of how we teach them to think.

We would have to tell students to use parallelism, if we expect graduates to choose it freely. It’s hard and it’s weird and you can’t just slap it on at the end. It should become what they do first.

I am telling you in some detail how focusing on linear performance, using the language of the nineteen goddamn seventies, doesn’t need to say multi-threading isn’t worth it, to leave people thinking multi-threading isn’t worth it.

Jesus, even calling it “multi-threading” is an obstacle. It makes parallelism sound like some fancy added feature. It’s the version of parallelism that shows up in late-version changelogs, when for some reason performance has become an obstacle.