AndrasKrigare

joined 2 years ago
[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it isn't possible to synthesize neutronium at that amount or handle that much safely.

To be clear, the neutronium you're talking about here is the one that is theorized to exist at the core of neutron stars? Could you elaborate on how much has been synthesized and could be handled safely?

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago

I'm super curious about that hole in Texas for "dude."

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago

I haven't heard of that being what threading is, but that threading is about shared resourcing and memory space and not any special relationship with the scheduler.

Per the wiki:

On a multiprocessor or multi-core system, multiple threads can execute in parallel, with every processor or core executing a separate thread simultaneously; on a processor or core with hardware threads, separate software threads can also be executed concurrently by separate hardware threads.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)

I also think you might be misunderstanding the relationship between concurrency and parallelism; they are not mutually exclusive. Something can be concurrent through parallelism, as the wiki page has (emphasis mine):

Concurrency refers to the ability of a system to execute multiple tasks through simultaneous execution or time-sharing (context switching), sharing resources and managing interactions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Correct, which is why before I had said

I think OP is making a joke about python's GIL, which makes it so even if you are explicitly multi threading, only one thread is ever running at a time, which can defeat the point in some circumstances.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

If what you said were true, wouldn't it make a lot more sense for OP to be making a joke about how even if the source includes multi threading, all his extra cores are wasted? And make your original comment suggesting a coding issue instead of a language issue pretty misleading?

But what you said is not correct. I just did a dumb little test

import threading 
import time

def task(name):
  time.sleep(600)

t1 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("1",))
t2 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("2",))
t3 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("3",))

t1.start()
t2.start()
t3.start()

And then ps -efT | grep python and sure enough that python process has 4 threads. If you want to be even more certain of it you can strace -e clone,clone3 python ./threadtest.py and see that it is making clone3 syscalls.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 14 points 3 months ago (8 children)

I think OP is making a joke about python's GIL, which makes it so even if you are explicitly multi threading, only one thread is ever running at a time, which can defeat the point in some circumstances.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 7 points 3 months ago

When I was over there, everyone assumed I was Canadian. I asked a tour guide about it at one point, and he said that it's just a safer assumption: if they guess American and are wrong, Canadians can get a little offended. But if you guess Canadian and are wrong, Americans tend to just be amused.