Ugh. They seem to make essentially all of their arguments
based on their "dwarfs" (shouldn't that be "vertically
challenged algorithm"?).

And their dwarfs in turn seem entirely selected to then
support the end result they wanted. Can anybody say
"circular argument" ten times fast?

Apart from the obvious graphics thing, none of their loads
seem at all relevant to "general purpose computing", they
are all essentially about scientific computing.

And we already pretty much know the solution to scientific
computing: throw lots of cheap hardware on it (where "cheap"
is then defined by what is mass-produced for other reasons).

Designing future hardware around the needs of scientific
computing seems ass-backwards. It's putting the cart in
front of the horse.

Linus