News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by jlv2 on Friday September 13, 2019 @05:08PM (#20966580)
> In a world before multi-core processors, these threads weren’t actually running simultaneously, as the underlying processor could only execute one instruction at a time.

This is not true. Before multi-core processors there were many computers with multiple CPUs.

Is the author under 30 or something?

Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by wilg on Friday September 13, 2019 @06:25PM (#20967284)
You don't think its true that before there were multi-core processors, processors could only execute one instruction at a time?

It doesn't say computers could only execute one instruction at a time. It says processors.

If you're going to do needlessly pedantic bikeshedding, at least get it right.

Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by qes on Friday September 13, 2019 @06:46PM (#20967433)
> You don't think its true that before there were multi-core processors, processors could only execute one instruction at a time?

It is not true.

Instruction-level parallelism existed before multi-core.

> If you're going to do needlessly pedantic bikeshedding, at least get it right.

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by wilg on Friday September 13, 2019 @06:56PM (#20967514)
I don't care at all about this discussion! I was just trying to ding the commenter for going off on a tangent. Also, the person I'm replying to wasn't talking about instruction-level parallelism, they were misreading the article.
Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by pathseeker on Friday September 13, 2019 @09:18PM (#20968271)
>I don't care at all about this discussion!

Then don't say shit like "at least get it right".

Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by hinkley on Friday September 13, 2019 @06:48PM (#20967444)
> In a world before multi-core processors, these threads weren’t actually running simultaneously

He's trying to describe the difference between multi-threading and multiprocessing to introduce the idea of task switching. But the bad history lesson is distracting.

There were long periods of history when most hardware vendors had at least one model with multiple processors, and there were some companies that specialized in them (Cray, Silicon Graphics, IBM, Fujitsu, Toshiba?), including ones built with x86 processors (Sequent, IBM).

Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by wilg on Friday September 13, 2019 @07:00PM (#20967539)
My point is that interpreting this statement as a "history lesson" instead of a loose metaphor is quite silly.
Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by muzani on Friday September 13, 2019 @08:27PM (#20968037)
The author has a PhD in computer science from MIT. You'd think he'd know computers.
Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by hanniabu on Friday September 13, 2019 @11:35PM (#20968777)
Having a degree or special title doesn't mean you're any smarter than others and not having one doesn't mean you aren't.
Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by anoncake on Saturday September 14, 2019 @02:51AM (#20969327)
Having a degree in computer science does mean you know more about computer science than others.
Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by ben_w on Saturday September 14, 2019 @03:04AM (#20969361)
It ought to at least correlate with more knowledge, otherwise what’s the point?
Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by antgly on Saturday September 14, 2019 @07:49PM (#20974599)
To sell the product
Re:Our Brains Are Not Multi-Threaded by ben_w on Sunday September 15, 2019 @07:36AM (#20976776)
Let me rephrase: otherwise what’s the point in getting a degree?