+- Forums - Open Redstone Engineers (https://forum.openredstone.org)
+-- Forum: ORE General (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-39.html)
+--- Forum: Build Discussion (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-50.html)
+--- Thread: Are We Reaching Our Limits? (/thread-1712.html)
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Frontrider - 12-25-2013
if you reach binary limits, then go beyond it.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - EDevil - 12-26-2013
Yeah, were definitely reaching our limits. Not necessary because redstone cant do more (which it can) but because cycles of CPU's are waay slower than RL, its going to take at least half an hour to do 1 decent program, in which probably Mort's server will crash at least 2 times.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Iceglade - 12-26-2013
Computing and software isn't necessarily the entire future. Take, for instance, more advanced I/O. Implementing further algorithms and performing more advanced calculations. I've barely ever seen a computer running a program which you can program it on (OS kinda thing), etc, etc.
And when that's all said and done for the current ORE community (and we still have a lot left within us), we become the benevolent teachers for a future generation of computing nerds.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Guy1234567890 - 12-26-2013
Given that the minecraft universe has a fundamental unit of fixed size, there must be a limit to the computational power per unit volume. However, given that the minecraft universe is practically infinite, there is no limit to computational power. This is obvious.
It is my opinion that ORE should try to move out of the hardware stage and into the software stage. This is the next frontier.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-26-2013
Me and Himehowareu are with MCX which still is being deved on a closed private server. For now.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - xdot - 12-26-2013
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Treesin - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
"1. The units used to construct an adder should not also be used to construct
the elements within that adder.
2. An adders type should be independent of the register it uses to obtain
memory." Am I having a stroke?
"The RDF brought instant-repeaters, which harden speed of different and complex circuits." Am I having a stroke?
"There has been a recent increase in the prevalence of I/O heavy instructions which are coupled with compute heavy operations. As the industry trends towards connected and multicore programs, the importance of managing the latency and unpredictability of I/O operations becomes ever more significant." AM I HAVING A STROKE?
"One must understand our adder configuration to grasp the genesis of our results.
We instrumented a real-time deployment on the Adder Units to measure the contradiction of instant logic. We removed 2 ticks of propagation delay from our machines. We added 3 ticks of input access to discover the instruction rate of the CPU performance." Please god help me I think I'm having a stroke...
Like actually, my mind cannot parse a single sentence in this entire thing. What is this thing trying to say?
I think a big reason that I am having so much trouble understanding this is that whoever wrote this decided to use as many big, technical words as possible, deciding that a guess at the definition of a word would make a fair substitute for the actual definition.
Like actually: "One must understand our adder configuration to grasp the genesis of our results."
genesis, as in the first book of the bible, it means the origin of something. "The origin of our results"? That makes no sense. Like zero. Did you mean "How we got our results?" "How we interpreted our results?" I have no idea, because the wrong word was used, so literally any possible definition could have been the one in the author's head.
Also: "We motivate the need for JK flip-flop gates. Continuing with this rationale, to achieve this ambition, we describe a circuit for branching, confirming that cache coherence and flags can collude to fulfill this mission."
So many things wrong with this thing, some parts are decipherable, some are not.
First: "motivating the need" makes 0 sense. Like actually. I understand that it's supposed to say "We suggest that people use JK flip-flop gates", but that doesn't change the fact that the phrase is not proper English (ha ha).
Second: "Continuing with this rationale" only make sense if there is an actual rationale to continue with that is directly before this phrase. As it is, I believe that it refers to the quite confusing jumble of words in the previous paragraph, which amounted to (as far as I could tell after several readings) something about managing latency. (Fun fact: you cannot "mandate the necessity" like wtf would that even mean? Making someone need something? That's very redundant..).
Third: "confirming that cache coherence and flags can collude to fufill [sic] this mission". Wat. Yes, I guess collusion does in part mean agreement between parties, but it is not in anyway a synonym for working together, unless this working together is under some illegal or nefarious purpose. How would a concept be able to work nefariously with another concept to fulfill a mission? "Fulfilling a mission" doesn't even make sense.
Like there are so many things wrong with how this thing was written that it is pretty damn unreadable. I wish I could say those were the worst bits, but pretty much the entire thing was similarly impossible to parse, so I just took two random parts.
I'm not trying to be mean, but this was incredibly frustrating to read, and this frustration could have been prevented if the posts weren't flooded with meaningless stuff. I think this might have been interesting, but I literally cannot read it, despite my English and redstone fluency.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - kosnirr dragoven - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 07:09 PM)Treesin Wrote:(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
-snip-
Of course if I had in fact initially said something along the lines of your interpretation there would have been no misunderstanding. In that case, Treesin's description of my article as "Open mouth, insert foot" would make no sense, since no apology would be necessary. All this to say that perhaps, to be generous, Treesin, in saying that I "decided to use as many big, technical words as possible," meant "it may have been a good thing." If so, you presented it in the most obfuscated way possible.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Treesin - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 07:36 PM)kosnirr dragoven Wrote:(12-26-2013, 07:09 PM)Treesin Wrote:(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
-snip-
Of course if I had in fact initially said something along the lines of your interpretation there would have been no misunderstanding. In that case, Treesin's description of my article as "Open mouth, insert foot" would make no sense, since no apology would be necessary. All this to say that perhaps, to be generous, Treesin, in saying that I "decided to use as many big, technical words as possible," meant "it may have been a good thing." If so, you presented it in the most obfuscated way possible.
I disagree completely. If you would've said that the initialism of my response had been the source of the error, than I could have disproved the general conclusion that you just posited. However, you seem to be hinging on the fact that the interest is derived from the mere premise of the lack of proof. Well, to that I say that the response is entirely justified, in that if you can relate the redstone theory presented in the aforementioned text, then the text would read that the missing link between our views would be found when the views were connected by the ambition to create agreement. Now if you told me that the reason for this malice was bad, then I might decide to agree with your argument, but not abandon my own, that is, if obfuscation is presented as a complicating agent, then this is inherently unfaithful to the truth, as obfuscation is in fact a simplification in other ways.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - kosnirr dragoven - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 08:11 PM)Treesin Wrote:There is a great divide in redstone design between the engineers who stress philosophy and values and those who stress history and originalism. It is a split that cannot be bridged, much like the division between farmers and cowboys in “Oklahoma.” My purpose here is not to revisit that controversy and to argue that history and originalism reflect the superior approach, although that is my belief. In my article, I simply assume that the goal of interpretation should be to recapture original meaning because original meaning accords with the decision to ratify the Constitution. If one takes that goal seriously, obfuscating intent is not the way to go.(12-26-2013, 07:36 PM)kosnirr dragoven Wrote:(12-26-2013, 07:09 PM)Treesin Wrote:(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
-snip-
Of course if I had in fact initially said something along the lines of your interpretation there would have been no misunderstanding. In that case, Treesin's description of my article as "Open mouth, insert foot" would make no sense, since no apology would be necessary. All this to say that perhaps, to be generous, Treesin, in saying that I "decided to use as many big, technical words as possible," meant "it may have been a good thing." If so, you presented it in the most obfuscated way possible.
I disagree completely. If you would've said that the initialism of my response had been the source of the error, than I could have disproved the general conclusion that you just posited. However, you seem to be hinging on the fact that the interest is derived from the mere premise of the lack of proof. Well, to that I say that the response is entirely justified, in that if you can relate the redstone theory presented in the aforementioned text, then the text would read that the missing link between our views would be found when the views were connected by the ambition to create agreement. Now if you told me that the reason for this malice was bad, then I might decide to agree with your argument, but not abandon my own, that is, if obfuscation is presented as a complicating agent, then this is inherently unfaithful to the truth, as obfuscation is in fact a simplification in other ways.