> not really sure what would one win

Internet pointz

I have an old, slow GPU setup that has nearly 100gb of VRAM

I had been trying to fill this up with big models but it doesn’t seem like these give a good return per Gb

I’m looking at that and wondering would I be better off running multiple such models in parallel. It would probably be a better way to load balance across SLI.

My guess is the scaling will be more “mythical man month” than “no more free lunch” - the interaction of models resembling social dynamics moreso than multi-core setups.

Given that these actors are largely homogenous in culture and incentivising, and coordination overhead is drastically reduced.

Commonly we consider optimal team size to be between 3 and 7 and Brookes’ maximum team size is around 10 or so before the system fails. It should be possible to blow way past those numbers and still experience increased gains in productivity as long as you can keep all your instances stoked.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line?

A sheet of paper approximates a Cartesian plane probably more closely than most things we can fold

Therefore a fold will always be in line with the theoretical 2D plane and thus will be the shortest (straight) line.

Arguably cache concerns are distributed computing concepts moving closer to the core. Same with concurrency semantics. These were far more exotic concepts when the fallacies were first written.

Very easy to hit the 3GB limit imposed by 32-bit architecture for any non trivial data processing app but luckily 64-bit is firmly established for at least 10 years

Indeed, the Java mobile platform had power consciousness baked in 25 or so years ago.

Was big before the AMD athlon. First commodity GHz processor was also the first to make obscene power demands.

> No mention of cause and effect, or the order in which different nodes perceive things happening?

8. The network is homogeneous

Often misconstrued as a recapitulation of “there is one administrator”

A homogenous system, such as a single node Java application, for instance usually provides very clear semantics for this.

Micoserices or Monolith. It’s like being caught between the devil and the deep blue see. It’s a pity domain sockets never took off but I guess TCP/IP is the only truly cross platform IPC mechanism …

Aren't Windows's named pipes very similar?

I believe so.

I don’t think either that or domain sockets are quite as ubiquitous as TCP sockets though.

The issue I see with domain sockets is that although they may be supported for example by spring, you can’t rely on a consistent cross platform experience which is perhaps (anachronistically?) a core ethic of the Java community.

I would favour domain sockets as to make a component go from being embedded to networked would require a small but significant implementation step.

But established best practice unfortunately disagrees with me.

The more interesting thing on Windows would actually be COM, which is something like Java interfaces but for native code, that are optionally cross-process.

In my recollection COM became ActiveX which fell down the distributed objects hole along with CORBA because it embodied many of these fallacies.

This article reiterates a lot of the Wikipedia stuff, while contradicting the main extant source which is Deutsch himself (https://se-radio.net/2021/07/episode-470-l-peter-deutsch-on-...). Nobody really knows who wrote the first four fallacies. They were just floating around it is Deutsch who pinned them down and it was Gosling’s endorsement that made them into the shibboleth that they are.

Deutsch speculated it was "either Bill or Dick Lyon" (sic) (https://web.archive.org/web/20040203202935/http://www.aladdi...) but there has been speculation he meant Tom Lyon, who worked there at the time. Gosling had them hosted on his website for a long time (https://web.archive.org/web/20021206065457/http://java.sun.c...)

Yes, he didn’t really know. So the original attribution is fuzzy

Gosling still has them on his present day site https://nighthacks.com/jag/blog/401/index.html

Stock markets and commercial Telecomms beg to differ

Is every business a stock market and commercial Telecomm?

Asymptotically, every billing system is a stock market and telecom. ;-)

My biggest career horror was realizing how much the medical informatics concepts have been structured around billing and insurance rather than scientific, biomedical requirements.

> Making money and being highly available are different goals.

These are large, highly profitable vertical markets.

The above remark is demonstrably foolish and ignorant.

Can you type without committing the most basic logical fallacies?

This is what they’re teaching kids in school now. Dawww conputerz

OK, fine:

Making money and being highly available often different goals.

Not if being highly available is central to your business model which is about half the industry