robot
Joined 16 years ago
Joined 16 years ago
It had intrigued me due to its promise of designing lock-free concurrent systems, that can (I think) also be proven to be deadlock-free.
You do this by building a simple concurrent block that is proven to work correctly, and then build bigger ones using the smaller, proven blocks, to create more complex systems.
The way it is designed is processes don't share data and don't have locks. They use synchronized IPC for passing and modifying data. It seemed to be a foundational piece for designing reliable systems that incorporate concurrency in them.
Some problems are problems but for a startup to succeed it needs to be a very important problem.
Having a unique insight is also not enough. It needs to be a highly leverageable insight or advantage. One that you can use in this startup; as you grow your leverage it will help you get users and revenue.
Neither seem true here. When that happens, the journey is a grind, you try to push hard but people don't seem interested.
how do I get motivated? well I have to believe there is a 'leverageable' insight or angle that will grow when I make progress ;) belief that it's a big problem people care about and that I am growing unfair advantage over time solving it.
Otherwise there is no knowing if the accomplishment is really significant or not.
Agree and yet none of the contenders were able to work out their software play (Intel, AMD, chip startups) for more than a year which shows how corporates move slow.
Google is not selling their TPUs AFAIK and their tooling is completely focused on internal use.
So really interesting to see no one else is properly addressing the need even though they have chips (and the chip itself is much simpler than a cpu, a systolic matrix multiplier array).