what compels software people to write opinion pieces. like you don't see bakers, mechanics, dentists, accountants writing blog posts like this...
Edit: to everyone responding that there are trade mags - yes SWE has those too (they're called developer conferences). In both categories, someone has to invite you to speak. I'm asking what compels Joe Shmoe SWE to pontificate on things they haven't been asked by anyone to pontificate on.
What an insane statement. What compels anyone to write an opinion piece? They have an opinion and want to share it! Why in god's name should someone have to be invited to share their opinion, on their own website no less.
You're getting a lot of flak for this, but I think it is a legitim question to ask. I have many different hobbies, and have worked in different industries, but software development / programming is sort of unique in how much people discuss it online.
My takes are:
1) There are a lot of IT workers in the world, and they're all online natives. So naturally they will discuss ideas, problems, etc. online. It is simply a huge community, compared to other professions.
2) Programming specifically is for many both a hobby and a profession. So being passionate about it compels many people to discuss it, just like others will do about their own hobbies.
3) Software is a very fast-moving area, and very diverse, so you will get many different takes on the same problems.
4) Posting is cheap. The second you've learned about something, like static vs dynamic typing, you can voice your opinion. And the opinions can range from beginners to CS experts, both with legit takes on the topic.
5) It is incredibly easy to reach out to other developers, with the various platforms and aggregators. In some fields it is almost impossible to connect / interact with other professionals in your field, unless you can get past the gatekeepers.
> Yes and you have to be invited to publish in a place. Meaning at least one other person has to believe your opinion is significant........
I don't think that this is true. The vast majority of technical math publications, for example, are reviewed, but not invited. And expository, and even technical, math is widely available in fora without any refereeing process (and consequent lack of guarantee of quality).
Mathematicians certainly write volumes of opinion pieces. The article you are complaining about starts from the presumption that software could benefit from more mathematical thinking, even if that doesn't explain broader general trends.
(But I think it does apply more generally. We refer to it as Computer Science, it is often a branch of Mathematics both historically and today with some Universities still considering it a part of their Math department. Some of the industry's biggest role models/luminaries often considered themselves mathematicians first or second, such as Turing, Church, Dijkstra, Knuth, and more.)
do we really have to retread this? unless you are employed by a university to perform research (or another research organization), you are not a computer scientist or a mathematician or anything else of that sort. no more so than an accountant is an economist or a carpenter is an architect.
> The article you are complaining about starts from the presumption that software
reread my comment - at no point did i complain about the article. i'm complaining that SWEs have overinflated senses of self which compel them to write such articles.
> what compels software people to write opinion pieces. like you don't see bakers, mechanics, dentists, accountants writing blog posts like this...
>> Computer Science
> do we really have to retread this? unless you are employed by a university to perform research (or another research organization), you are not a computer scientist or a mathematician or anything else of that sort. no more so than an accountant is an economist or a carpenter is an architect.
>> The article you are complaining about starts from the presumption that software
> reread my comment - at no point did i complain about the article. i'm complaining that SWEs have overinflated senses of self which compel them to write such articles.
You're incredibly tiring commenter, to a point I already recognize your nickname. What compels YOU to be this way?
I wish there was a block button for the "overinflated senses of self".
I observe this compulsion a lot and in my opinion, it's almost always coming from resentment driving ego in an attempt to compensate for insecurity and self-loathing, which ultimately ends up misdirected towards others. It's almost always accidentally entertaining, but sadly ends up diminishing rather than elevating discourse.
To refute GP's point more broadly -- there is a lot in /applied/ computer science (which is what I think the harder aspects software engineering really is) that was and is done by individuals in software just building in a vacuum, open source holding tons of examples.
And to answer GP's somewhat rhetorical question more directly - none of those professions are paid to do open-ended knowledge work, so the analogy is extremely strained. You don't necessarily see them post on blogs (as opposed to LinkedIn/X, for example), but: investors, management consultants, lawyers, traders, and corporate executives all write a ton of this kind of long-form content that is blog post flavored all the time. And I think it comes from the same place -- they're paid to do open-ended knowledge work of some kind, and that leads people to write to reflect on what they think seems to work and what doesn't.
Some of it is interesting, some of it is pretty banal (for what it's worth, I don't really disagree that this blog post is uninteresting), but I find it odd to throw out the entire category even if a lot of it is noise.
> do we really have to retread this? unless you are employed by a university to perform research (or another research organization), you are not a computer scientist or a mathematician or anything else of that sort. no more so than an accountant is an economist or a carpenter is an architect.
Doing math or science is the criterion for being a mathematician or scientist, not who employs you how.
I haven't, because I'm not an SWE. I'm sure some SWE has, but I can't point to them as an example. But, even in the extremely unlikely case that that's never happened, the reason such a person isn't a mathematician or scientist is because they didn't do math or science, not directly because of their job.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it (poorly). Same for anyone doing software that entirely ignores Computer Science. You are missing core skills and reinventing well known wheels when you could be busy building smarter things.
> no more so than an accountant is an economist or a carpenter is an architect
I know many accountants who would claim you can't be an a good accountant without being an economist. Arguably that's most of the course load of an MBA in a nutshell. I don't know a carpenter who would claim to be an architect, usually when carpentry happens is after architecture has been done, but I know plenty of carpenters that claim to be artists and/or artisans (depending on how you see the difference), that take pride in their craft and understand the aesthetic underpinnings.
> reread my comment - at no point did i complain about the article. i'm complaining that SWEs have overinflated senses of self which compel them to write such articles.
You chose which article to post your complaint to. The context of your comment is most directly complaining about this specific article. That's how HN works. If you didn't read the article and feel like just generically complaining about the "over-inflated senses of self" in the software industry, perhaps you should be reading some forum that isn't HN?
>I'm asking what compels Joe Shmoe SWE to pontificate on things they haven't been asked by anyone to pontificate on.
The Internet is absolutely full of this. This is purely your own bias here, for any of the trades you mentioned try looking. You will find Videos, podcast and blogs within minutes.
People love talking about their work, no matter their trade. They love giving their opinions.
Bakers certainly write books and magazines[0] on baking, as well as interminable stories about their childhood. Mechanics: [1]. I could only find one obvious one for dentists: [2]. Somebody else did accountants in the thread. I think it's a human thing, to want to share our opinions, whether or not they are well supported by evidence. I suspect software people write blogs because the tech is easier for them given their day job.
Calling it nonlinear paints some horrible exponential picture. It's just squared (all to all communication). We deal with squared problems all the time (that's literally what distributed consensus is all about.....)
Practically it’s not squared because people randomly just ignore you (or even worse, maliciously comply), and tracking down all the people doing those things makes it more like exponential.
Eventually, the effort required to actually manage doing the thing is at least as large/larger than just doing it - ex: every large organization.
> Wut - SVE and SME are literally Apple designs (AMX) which have been "back ported".
Literally no Apple CPUs meaningfully support SVE or SVE2. Apple adds what I would say is a relatively "conventional" matrix instructions (AMX) of their own, and now implements SME and SME2, but those are not equivalent to SVE (I call AMX "conventional" in the sense that a fixed-size grid of matrix compute elements is not a particularly new idea, versus variable-sized SIMD which is still quite rare. Really, the only arm64 design with "full fat" SVE support is Fujitsu's a64fx (512-bit vector size); everything else on the very short list of hardware supporting SVE is still stuck with 128-bit vectors.
I've said it before but no one takes it seriously: LLMs are only useful if you're building something that's already in the training set ie already commodity. In which case why are you building it???
The obvious point that you're missing is that there are literally infinite ways to assemble software systems from the pieces that an LLM is able to manipulate due to its training. With minor guidance, LLMs can put together an unlimited number of novel combinations. The idea that the entire end product has to be in the training set is trivially false.
It's not that the product you're building is a commodity. It's that the tools you're using to built it are. Why not build a landing page using HTML and CSS and tailwind? Why not use swift to make an app? Why not write an AWS lambda using JavaScript?
Historically big AI skeptic here: what you say is very not true now. LLMs aren't just regurgitating their training data per se. I've used LLMs on languages the LLM has not seen, and it performed well. I've used LLMs on code that is about as far from a React todo app as it's possible to get.
There are multiple TPU vendors.
I listed multiple AI accelerator TPU products in the comment you are replying to.
> How reconfigurable are TPUs?
TIL Google's TPUs are reconfigurable with OCS Optical Circuit Switches that can be switched between for example 3D torus or twisted torus configurations.
(FWIW also, quantum libraries mostly have Line qubits and Lattice qubits. There is a recent "Layer Coding" paper; to surpass Surface Coding.)
But classical TPUs;
I had already started preparing a response to myself to improve that criteria; And then paraphrasing from 2.5pro:
> Don't rank by TOPS/wHr alone; rank by TOPS/wHr @ [Specific Precision]. Don't rank by Memory Bandwidth alone; rank by Effective Bandwidth @ [Specific Precision].
> Her accomplishments are impressive and well deserved
what exactly are those even? that she went to MIT? from her linkedin she's at some blockchain startup (for only 4 months) doing "compiler work" - i put it in quotes because these jobs actually happen to be a dime-a-dozen and the only thing you have to do to get them is pass standard filters (LC, pedigree, etc.).
reply