Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lalwanivikas 2763 days ago
Woah! 112 points and no comments. Has anybody actually read it? Or is everyone upvoting in hopes that someone knowledgeable will comment about the quality of the content?
3 comments

For what it's worth, the feedback I've had so far elsewhere suggests that there aren't particular inaccuracies. A somewhat contentious part is defining concurrency in terms of order independence, but the main source for that is Peter Van Roy (https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/VanRoyChapter.pdf section 4.3), so it's of good provenance.
It's mostly unstructured set of unrelated concepts. I have no idea why people would upvote that.
I know most of these concepts and the valuable part was to fill the gaps what I've missed. I would also like to read about work-stealing threadpools in a similar manner.

I liked the explanations.

The relations could definitely be made more clear, but if you could point out what specific terms you find unrelated, I could explain how they fit together. The basic organization is working up the ladder of abstraction; for example, scheduling is a fundamental concept, so it comes before other concepts that rely on it (which is all of them).
The author admitted to vote-brigading on IRC. Some 50 or so of the votes are from the author's group of upvoting friends and alternate accounts.
That's some fevered imagination.
Don't lie; it makes you look foolish.

    07:48 <xkapastel> HAX
    07:48 <xkapastel> `slikts: a self post made it to #1
    07:48 <xkapastel> what kind of witchcraft is this
    07:48 <`slikts> xkapastel: just need to get initial traction
    07:48 <xkapastel> must be nice having a botnet
    07:49 <xkapastel> tbh :)
    ...
    07:52 <simpson> `slikts: So *did* you stuff the ballot box with upvotes?
    07:52 <xkapastel> there's some voting ring
    07:52 <xkapastel> the first post was a smiley from one of his friends, but afaik people do this sort of thing a lot so it's not really a big deal
    07:52 <`slikts> simpson: very slightly
    07:53 <`slikts> I don't have anything that could be called a botnet
    07:53 <`slikts> but from past experiences it takes just a few votes to get past the initial bump
    07:53 <xkapastel> too bad, a botnet is a good application of concurrent programming
    07:54 <`slikts> also strategic timing counts
    07:54 <`slikts> around now is the prime time to share content
    07:54 <`slikts> middle of the week when US is getting up
That "first post was a smiley" indeed. [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18502760

"Very slightly" means that I shared that I'd submitted it here; realistically a couple of upvotes could have come from that, but I don't know. The talk about botnets and whatnot is just hyperbole. You inferring alternative accounts and pulling numbers out of thin air is ridiculous.