0.999...=1 is true in the mathematical sense, period.
However as a representation of physical world, there is a caveat. What we understand is physical world appears and behaves discretely, because at planck scale (approx. 10^-35) the distances seem to behave discretely.
Although common people don't know/ understand planck scale, they do grasp this concept intuitively. What they are really saying is that in physical world there's some small interval (more precisely, about[1 - 10^-35, 1]) which can't be subdivided further, based on our current knowledge.
Same thing applies to planck time (approx. 5 * 10^-43) too.
So people are arguing two different things - the pure maths concept, or the real world interpretation.
GPUs are designed to do massive parallel computations which all branch one way and don't have much (any?) branch prediction logic.
You trade it off with increased code size which might spill the cache but for small tight loops not exceeding the cache line/ size it would still be a good win.
You would probably get some benefit on a per CUDA core basis, but the extra space required would mean less CUDA cores, overall it would probably be a net loss on problems well suited to GPU acceleration
Plus, the delay slots are typically _fixed_ 1-5 cycles depending on CPU architectures. The problem is sometimes the real delay could easily be 200+ cycles (TLB/ cache reload, bus contention etc.) and _variable_.
There's no way you could cover all variable latency scenarios with fixed delay slots, unless you have a highly specific scenario like a GPU where you control all the internals.
India has ~18% of world population, and still are way less proportionately as immigrant population.
Genetically, Indians are the most diverse ( next to entire African continent ) than any where else.
Religion wise (ALL major ones and many, many minor too), linguistically, culturally too.
By any objective measure group of Indians immigrant will be way more diverse as an immigrant population, unless you define diversity incomplete until a favored group of people is not highly included.
In a highly capitalist world, there's no free lunch; surely most of the immigrant must be bringing great value?
On paper they look great, they passed interviews because they mastered how to answer questions in interviews. It's not as black and white as you seem to believe.
I wasn't aware that US doesn't need a civil society since a part of the population has made mockery of the system have committed crimes and many are in jail.
Ok to the point: 5-6 companies have made mockery of the H1B system. Let's not fix issue for suffering people who came legally as the cream of the system, are highest paid as an immigrant group, pay taxes, understand democracy because of 'those' rotten apples?
We make laws based on the lowest denominator. You literally cannot trust people to not take advantages of the systems in place when it's a choice between living in the most free country on Earth and their home country.
If you argue American isn't free or better then why are they trying to immigrate in the first place? Everyone I've ever talked to who immigrated here said America is better.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news buddy, they're selling the ad space just as much as Google and Facebook are.
Let's also not make it easier for those companies to abuse the system even more. Why blame the US for Indians' problems when Indian companies are incentivizing us to get rid of rules they're abusing? Reign in your companies instead of telling us to fix our immigration.
I just wanted to know what "diversity" had to do with the question, and what was meant by diversity. An overwhelming presence of one type of anything is not "diverse", but that doesn't say anything about health or fairness.
I'm not commenting on my support or opposition of the bill.
It's fair the way it is because it doesn't matter what country the people are from in the first place. I don't know how a monoculture is more diverse in this case.
It's backwards to think this is better for the people who are trying to get in from places like Europe or Canada, or even parts of Africa. They're now at the back of the line behind India and China. Nothing about this bill promotes fair diversity, or even diversity itself. Unless you explicitly measure diversity in quantity of melanin in their skin which is racist itself.
Ok so what you are saying is that in a 3 country world: US, Lithuania, and Rest, you insist and define 50 Lithuanians and 50 rest is fair, and call out any changes as racist.
By your definition, both a toddler and Arnold Schwarzenegger should both get same 2 slices of bread, because it is 'equal' and 'fair'. Anything else would be ageist?
Strawman argument but I'll try to explain. If we had only 3 countries then 50% would be from Lithuania and 50% from Rest. That is equal and fair because it doesn't discriminate against anything about those two countries. Mass emigration (to anywhere) is not something we should promote as a good thing. If we take all of the top people in the country that leaves the country poorer and worse off than if we did nothing at all.
The point is just because a place like India has a huge population shouldn't prevent or make it more difficult for people to immigrate from Australia, Europe, Africa, Japan, South Korea, or any less populated countries. The same goes with China. What gives China and India other than population alone the upper hand? Are they somehow more valuable than someone from Japan? Are the more valuable than people throughout Africa?
If you want unbiased immigration you treat everything equal. From within those pools you can argue who is more worth the green card via a merit system that can be scrutinized against those peers within the same country. By your standard India and China would dominate the immigrant population and leave less well off countries with an even worse chance for economic prosperity.
However as a representation of physical world, there is a caveat. What we understand is physical world appears and behaves discretely, because at planck scale (approx. 10^-35) the distances seem to behave discretely.
Although common people don't know/ understand planck scale, they do grasp this concept intuitively. What they are really saying is that in physical world there's some small interval (more precisely, about[1 - 10^-35, 1]) which can't be subdivided further, based on our current knowledge.
Same thing applies to planck time (approx. 5 * 10^-43) too.
So people are arguing two different things - the pure maths concept, or the real world interpretation.