> Multithreading does not make code more efficient. It still takes the same amount of work and power (slightly more).
In addition to my sibling comments I would like to point out that multithreading quite often can save power. Typically the power consumption of an all core load is within 2x the power consumption of a single core load, while being many times faster assuming your task parallelizes well. This makes sense b/c a fully loaded cpu core still needs all the L3 cache mechanisms, all the DRAM controller mechanisms, etc to run at full speed. A fully idle system on the other hand can consume very little power if it idles well(which admittedly many cpus do not idle on low power).
Edit:
I would also add that if your system is running a single threaded database, and a single threaded web server, that still leaves over a hundred of underutilized cores on many modern server class cpus.
If you use a LAMP style architecture with a scripting language handling requests and querying a database, you can never write a single line of multithreaded code and already are setup to utilize N cores.
Each web request can happen in a thread/process and their queries and spawns happen independently as well.
My sibling comment has a lot of good info, but to answer your question for ddr5, SK Hynix makes the ram capable of the highest frequencies/best timings, Samsung is second and micron is third. At least this was true when ddr5 initially came out, these things could change. Its also worth mentioning that manufactures can have different grades/product lines so there is variation within a manufacturer to. My perception is that Micron and Samsung are cheaper than SK Hynix, though idk what wholesale prices actually look like.
In addition to generation, there are also differences based on capacity. I know less about DDR5 specifics, but with DDR4 you had Micron having the best chips for 32GB dual-rank sticks, while Samsung had the best for smaller capacities.
I'm not seeing it explicitly stated in this post but there is an important detail that other comments seem to be ignoring/assuming. There's a difference between a class that requires students "to consider that the idea that relentless progress that steamrolls all other concerns might not be the right way to think about progress"(from one of my sibling comments), and a class that requires students to not believe in relentless progress. Like a class that assigns an essay with the prompt "explain why building more datacenters is bad" or a class that assigns "are more datacenters good" are two very different classes. My sibling comments seem to be assuming that the later is happening. I suspect the OP thinks the former is happening.
> you'll see legions of people who do not understand statistics and pay a heavy price for that.
At the risk of stating the obvious, and not adding to the conversation, I think we all know that people putting their life savings into slot machines aren't doing so because they don't understand expected value. They may or may not understand that they are going to lose all their money, but they are gambling because they are addicted/have some kind of mental health problem. Knowledge of statistics doesn't really affect things for problem gambling.
As for those putting modest amounts of money into gambling, most of them will tell you that card games/etc. are fun, and are therefore worth it.
Many of these people claim to have a "system" which will enable them to win. I've talked with some of them. None of them I've spoken to had money. Coincidence?
Watch people at the slots. Do they look like they're having fun? Not to me.
Personally, I've gambled a few times. Lost money. I don't like losing money, it is not entertaining to me in the slightest.
Tell me about people who play the lottery, picking their "lucky numbers". It's sad.
> Many of these people claim to have a "system" which will enable them to win. I've talked with some of them. None of them I've spoken to had money. Coincidence?
The original thread was about how statistics education will not cause people of gambling. Of course people almost always lose money gambling, except for very rare exceptions, but that doesn't really have anything to do with my point that people spending meaningful amounts of money on gambling are addicted. Addicts aren't going to just tell you that they gamble, because they are addicted(maybe some will but not in general).
> Personally, I've gambled a few times. Lost money. I don't like losing money, it is not entertaining to me in the slightest.
Some people could probably say the same thing about video games, but nobody disputes that some people enjoy video games.
I've heard some variation of this many many times, and remain very unconvinced. General education in university isn't the norm around the world. Are non-americans all hyper-specialized people who know nothing else of the world? Are people who didn't go to university the same? Did someone do a study at some point and conclude that general ed was important or do these general ed requirements exist purely because they are tradition?
> General education in university isn't the norm around the world.
And it shows.
I was recently at a training for $ELITE_HIRING_COMPANY and as part of this they asked us to discuss some liberal arts style questions. The international hires who had been answering business questions all day suddenly were extremely confused at the question itself and had nothing to add (and it wasn't a language problem).
You might argue that those skills are not substantive or valuable, and perhaps we just learned in school to parrot reasonable sounding responses, but it was a stark contrast.
In addition to my sibling comments I would like to point out that multithreading quite often can save power. Typically the power consumption of an all core load is within 2x the power consumption of a single core load, while being many times faster assuming your task parallelizes well. This makes sense b/c a fully loaded cpu core still needs all the L3 cache mechanisms, all the DRAM controller mechanisms, etc to run at full speed. A fully idle system on the other hand can consume very little power if it idles well(which admittedly many cpus do not idle on low power).
Edit:
I would also add that if your system is running a single threaded database, and a single threaded web server, that still leaves over a hundred of underutilized cores on many modern server class cpus.
reply