[Katydid]

This is why I wish this thread hadn't gone more mainstream.

It's nuanced and specific to how things work for researchers at labs.

I do not expect non-HPC folks to get why it is a big deal and why the strong language was needed. Intel failed the science community in the U.S. that relies on the limited systems large enough to handle the very few applications that consume massive numbers of cores/parallelism. That's not the whole of science, but this system was central to some of the grandest-scale problem solving that exists (think planet-scale climate simulations in high resolution).

I respect your opinion but my opinion wasn't for you. It was for the HPC comm.

[dekhn]

You know that many of us here are HPC folks who know the nuances... and simply disagree? I mean, sure, I don't think Intel should have taken the contract or gotten any positive PR for this, but at the fundamental level, many people on this site did supercomputing and HPC at national labs or universities, and now work on machine learning HPC on the cloud. My experience spanning both makes me think that chasing time on the fastest supercomputers is not the best way for scientists to be productive.