Jukka Larja (roskakori2006@gmail.com) on 10/4/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 10/3/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>> Actually, all you had to do is simply ask
>> whether your understanding was correct --
>> that, I think, is a civilized and the
>> shortest way to resolve misunderstandings.
>
>Apparently, it wasn't. I did try :) .

http://realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=102912&threadid=101547&roomid=2

After three paragraphs beginning with your insightful conclusion as to who didn't get any of the discussion, the only thing I see you asking is why GPUs are in order.

Does "hypocrisy" have a similar notion in Finnish culture?

>> H&P is available on books.google.com
>
>How is that supposed to work, by the way? I can only see few pages and not any particular one.

Of course, providing access to several pages is the way it works. For anyone having a copy (Jouni) there shouldn't be a problem making reference at all.

>> Just trying to tell you that clock
>> rate is by far not the only way to
>> bring down power consumption --
>> both in practice and theory. (You
>> seem to be somehow fixed in this
>> understanding).
>
>Well, I never meant to say anything like that. It seems you are inserting onlys,
>musts and bounds to my sentences although for me it is very important that they stay away.

>> Well, if you aren't allowed to have greater
>> power, and the clockspeed is the only
>> variable you can adjust, I don't see what
>> else to do.

Did you write this? Or did I just make it up?

>> But if you allow extra space for more
>> transistors, then why fix the power
>> envelope ("not a nanowatt more")? You
>> can't be serious about judging the
>> value of any design feature on the
>> grounds of zero cost, even if it's
>> just power consumption in a chip.
>> What people look at is what the
>> feature brings (perf, power savings,
>> ..) vs what it costs (die, power,
>> design complexity ..).
>
>Perhaps we have a different take on this because I've dealt for years with (first
>year) students. If one of them ask whether something in theory affects something
>else, you don't say that in practise it doesn't.

If a freshman asked me something like that, I would probably try to understand the background of the question in the first place, for it could [potentially] be only loosely related to the "well-worded" exercises you give them.

>You might say that the issue is too muddy to answer at all, if it is. You may even say that it is a stupid question, since theory doesn't matter, but you don't start rambling just about practise like it was the question asked (actually, many do and Hilarity Ensues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HilarityEnsues
>)).
>
>It seems to me that you couldn't understand my point because you kept thinking
>about how far away from practise it is and how there would be better theoretical
>examples and how primitive the one I chose was. I, on the other hand, am pretty
>used to purely theoretical corner cases and treat them very differently from the
>ones that have just a bit of practise in them.
>
>It wasn't hard at all for me to choose power, clockspeed and OoO to demonstrate
>the issue of cost and trade-off.

Why do you think it was necessary?

Power consumption obviously has limits. The details
>like whether that is the first limit you will face and whether lowering clockspeed
>is the best, or even sensible, way to avoid that, are just that: details. Very important
>in practise, but I have no problem ignoring them, if someone asks me to.

OK, since you seem to remain convinced that I keep missing your point, let me ask for clarification: if you read the thread and saw me readily admitting OoOE has die and power costs, why are these questions even relevant?

Power was *never* a point of contention in the discussion (nor was die space). You say "the power consumption has limits". I agree it does, and so does die space, and both of these issues are way more important in *practice* (it's actually theory where one can choose ti design anything w/o thinking much about them).

It just goes to show how annoyingly illogical your problem setting is, even if looked at from "theoretical" point of view as you call it. If you want everything else to be the same, including the same power budget, but allow some die space, let me ask you: how much power do you expect these extra transistors to consume everything else being equal? Exactly zero? :) I seriously doubt that such approach to judging value of a chip design feature (not just OoOE) has some theoretical value in it.

>> No. For a reference to a book it's quite
>> normal to ask for pages containing the
>> proof.
>
>It wouldn't prove what you _think_ Jouni wanted to prove with it. Probably you
>would just use that as another example of how he doesn't know what he's talking
>about. I'm not particularly surprised he has decided to stay away (I'm pretty sure
>I'm never going to post a reply to anything you write outside this subthread. The
>risk of being misunderstood or misunderstanding seems quite high).
>
>Unfortunately I don't myself own that H&P, so I can only make educated guesses
>about this particular 2 extra stages issue.

But maybe you can simply ask him?

>> So do you think analyzis and
>> interpretation is something that
>> works better?
>
>You're doing it anyway. Pretending that you are the normal one interpreting everything
>normally by default is, well, ignorant (again, I have trouble picking a word, but you should get my meaning).

Since you deleted a part from one of previous posts where I accentuated that I asked Jouni at least once, what gives you a moral right to say such things? It would be somewhat understandable if you apply it to someone who doesn't care much about clarify things (hint: Jouni and you).

>> No way to make an even worse mistake when
>> trying to interpret what the other says?
>
>Of course one can. On purpose (almost all political debates seem to have examples of this) or accidentally.
>
>The problem is that language needs to be interpreted. Even if one makes zero typos,
>and writes in his native language, there are situations where it takes lots of effort
>to write unambiguously, instead of just counting on other side to get the correct
>meaning. Figure in typos and cultural differences, and you sure can't just "read
>without interpreting". Heck, I have to translate both ways.

That's why I prefer examples and citations. Less chance to misinterpret something.

>> Unfortunately I don't remember what was
>> that, but let me ask: if I misunderstood
>> him, why didn't he simply correct me and
>> clarify what he meant?
>
>Judging from my experience, there's nothing simple in correcting and clarifying.
>Really, it wasn't important and you made it clear you don't think your using debating
>tactics. Clarification, or discussion in general, isn't zero cost.

Don't you think a short clarification can save much more time in total?

>> What do you find to be inappropriate(?)
>> about this style?
>
>As I stated, I don't think you are using inappropriate debating tactics. I don't
>feel comfortable speculating what exactly Jouni was talking about, but one example
>that has caught my eye is that you are constantly interpreting other people's words
>and points as you want (you may look at the other threads your participating as
>well).

Sorry, you are not being consistent again (on purpose?).

Was there just one example? Or *many* ("constantly misinterp")? Please, if you want to be understood, rather misunderstood, you should follow your own rules: avoid obscure statements, speak the language of facts.

Or are you one of those people who preach one thing but do something else?

Of course, that's debating tactics only if you are purposefully misinterpreting,
>which, after this long discussion, I think you are not.
>
>> Actually, when one starts out with
>> claims about OoOE in general, I
>> think it's perfectly OK to
>> consider best-vs-best examples.
>> E.g. there are many situations
>> when it's hard or downright
>> impossible to choose between two
>> options by means of direct matching
>> (e.g. what to use for particular
>> task -- plane or chopper), and the
>> only thing that works is best vs
>> best from available designs.
>
>It may the best approach, but muddier the issue is, more likely you never reach
>anything that could be agreed on to be the truth. Especially if part of the issue
>is figuring out exactly what was the point.

Yes, that's why I didn't even insist on specifics in the end, but offered him a best-example approach, which is much easier to do. I was simply interested in him doing some research beyond what he could find in his copy of H&P and examples he could come up with.

>> One is likely to complain about such
>> approach if he or she is unable to
>> find a good match vs the opponent's
>> best shot.
>
>And one is likely to accept and defend such approach if the outcome is favorable.

Actually, such approach made my position more vulnerable, b/c it extended the scope of design points very significantly for him.

>> And you spent so much time in
>> obscure arguments instead of
>> simply asking for clarification?
>
>Only after asking failed.

Again: I don't see you asking much, the only question you asked in the first post was OoOE in GPU. And you call that a good arguing style?

>> Usually if you want to discuss
>> something else (or change the
>> context), you don't make direct
>> connections to prior discussion
>> as if the context remains the
>> same.
>
>You also don't usually spend half a page explaining how the context changes, if
>the change is small and obvious for you. Maybe you don't even think about it at
>all. It's not like this is some exact science where you can determine the exact
>magnitude of change and needed level of explanation.

It appears you have misunderstood me. The meaning was "... one shouldn't make direct connections ...". It's equivalent form, e.g. you can often see "you don't say things like ...".

>> So, just to clarify: repeating oneself is
>> bad style, but made-up "facts" and
>> made-up "theory" are just fine?
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "made-up" imply that the one making the claim
>was intentionally making false claims? I never made such claims (can't talk for other people of course).

Covering yourself up with theory hardly deserves better attitude.

>As I said about the style, there's a difference between what's considered good
>in English and Finnish. One of those cultural differencies, you know. Explains why I find repetitions highly annoying.
>
>>> Well, I don't know him (outside this
>>> board) and don't usually agree with
>>> him, but do find his style, well,
>>> homely. So maybe that was a factor.
>>
>> Ah, the *style*.
>
>What I mean is how he composes his sentences, goes straight to the point and usually
>just says everything once. His English is often easy to translate to Finnish.
>
>It wasn't meant to be interpreted as comparison to you, although I can see that it may look like that.
>
>> OK, I think you can
>> find quite many examples of arguing
>> in this style on this board. Feel
>> free to defend anyone else from my
>> (or similar) "trolling" then. :)
>
>I just wish to point out that I haven't called you a troll or your style trollish
>(even a borderline one). That was someone else.

I know you didn't; it's just that if you really find that I tend to misunderstand/misinterpret people (on purpose?), I would highly appreciate if you could be a little more fact-based and not limiting yourself to this thread.

>-JLarja