Schoolmeister

Yes I understand that, but if that is what is meant I find the wording to be somewhat strange. They mention not being able to find a "feasible mapping from software to hardware", and later on "some of the constraints may not be properly formulated into the optimization, and so the compiler may not find a feasible software mapping for the target hardware".

So the problem is that there is no software mapping, which I understand to be the mapping of compiler instructions to the underlying hardware. It looks like I'm missing something. Is this the same as saying that the hardware design is not feasible?

"However, the manifold of architecture search generally contains many points for which there is no feasible mapping from software to hardware."

I'm having some trouble understanding how this manifests itself. Can someone help me with this by e.g. providing a toy example?

The network seems exciting but it definitely needs a less confusing explanation. Or at least an explanation that does not require prior knowledge of (what seem like) niche concepts.

> "It surfaces content related to the node you're visiting using a lightweight fanout convention"

Requires knowledge of what exactly a "node" constitutes in this context. Since I don't know what such a node is, the remaining part of the sentence about the fanout convention is just meaningless (it also seems irrelevant?).

Now, it is explained on Agora what a node is, namely:

> "A node is the set of all subnodes with a given title, or otherwise mapping to a single entity or wikilink. Subnodes can come from a variety of sources; currently these are mostly notes as volunteered by users via their independent digital gardens."

This suffers from the same problems: I still don't know what a node is, since I would need to know what a subnode is. I'd expect a recursive relation where a subnode is simply a node that is a child of a node, but it seems there is a distinction between both. In any case, it's still unclear.

It seems as if it's written by someone who's so familiar with these concepts that they forgot what it's like to not have this background knowledge. I'd recommend letting someone without prior knowledge explain to you what they think it is in simple terms, and build your explanation from that.

Great stuff. Well witten notes with clear and extensive examples. I actually used this just a few months ago to pass my calculus exam. Feel like I learnt a lot more than from my overly dense and formal textbook.

From the guidelines on what to submit to HN: "If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

This does not fit that criterion.

Turns out, I really didn't think this through. Thanks for the correction.

Yes, but nowhere is it implied that it is because of something inherent to coffee. It probably could have been another delicious drink, like hot chocolate. That doesn't diminish the content of this article though.

Naively, it seems to me that as long as the profit you get out of mining scales linearly with the amount of money you put in, the richest player will eventually control all of the hash rate. Yet this doesn't seem to be the case (so far?). Is my thinking incorrect, if so, why?

Not sure if you meant it that way, but this comment comes across as very bitter.