Maybe this is a bit too practical and not as "world-modeling-esque" as your question asks? But I don't strongly believe that raw intelligence is enough of a "credential" to rely on.
You might hear it as-- he/she's the smartest guy/gal I know, so you should trust them; we have insanely great talent at this company; they went to MIT so they're smart; they have a PhD so listen to them. I like to liken this to Mom-Dad bragging points. Any X number of things are really just proxies for "they're smart"
I used to personally believe this of myself-- I'm smart and can get stuff done, so why can't the PM just stop asking... (read more)
I do agree with you. What would have been a better incentive, or do you think the prior system was better?
Personally, it actually motivated me to be a bit more active and finish my post. But I have also noticed a bit of "farming" for points (which was very much a consideration I'm sure, hence "good heart token").
I think the reason it appealed to me was that the feedback mechanism was tangible and (somewhat) immediate. Contrast that with, say, pure upvotes, which feel non-impactful to me.
I think an incentive is good, but one that is less than pure dollar values and more than ego-filling-warm-fuzzy-feeling upvotes.
Why? Same reason(s) other people might. Something something passion.
Cynical reasons aside-- nothing else useful to do with the major; it's a bureaucratic checkmark; I want Tenure and coast the rest of my life-- people want to have impact in their work and contribute to the world, and a PhD is what many view as an avenue to do that.
And thus, Feibelman knocks these starry-eyed graduates down a peg-- It's Not Enough. "Enough" to do what? To Do Great Things, Peter J. Feibelman answers.
Well, I paraphrased. Here's his direct answer (emphasis mine)--
"This book is meant for those who will not be lucky enough to find a mentor
Those two links are the same. But yeah I'm referring to the latter, w.r.t fuzzing of the synthesized devices.
"Fuzzing" as a concept is used, but not very "block-level" (some some exceptions, e.g. you likely know about UVM's support for random data streams, coming from an FPGA background). The fuzzing analogue in hardware might be called "constrained random verification".
Fuzzing as I've heard it referenced is more of a jargon used in the software security world, the aforementioned AFL fuzzer being one example.
I do agree that traditional fuzzing isn't used in hardware is rather surprising to me.
Oh I guess, while I'm on the topic of "bringing software paradigms into the hardware world", let me also talk about CirctIR briefly.
I also believe LLVM was a bit of a boon for the software security world, enabling some really cool symbolic execution and/or reverse engineering tools. CirctIR is an attempt to basically bring this "intermediate representation" idea to hardware.
This "generator for intermediate language representation", by the way, is similar to what Chisel currently does w.r.t generating verilog. But CirctIR is a little more generic, and frankly Chisel's generator (called FIRRTL) is annoying in many ways.
Chris Lattner worked at SiFive for a bit, and made these same observations, so he spearheaded the... (read more)
Hi, I'm a lurker. I work on CPUs. This also motivated me to post!
This is a rather niche topic, but I want to express it, because I greatly enjoy seeing other ramble about their deep-work domain expertise, so maybe someone will find this interesting too? This is relatively similar to the concept behind the podcast [What's your problem?], in which engineers talk about ridiculously niche problems that are integral to their field.
Anyways-- here's my problem.
Fuzzing (maybe known as mutation based testing, or coverage directed verification, or 10 other different names) has, in my opinion, been revolutionary for the software security industry. [AFL] is probably the best and most successful example, and I... (read more)
Definitely not in the next 10 years. In some sense, that's what formal verification is all about. There's progress, but from my perspective, it's a very linear growth. The tools that I have seen (e.g. out of the RISC-V Summit, or DVCon) are difficult to adopt, and there's a large inertia you have to overcome since many big Semi companies already have their own custom flows built up over decades. I think it'll take a young plucky startup to adopt and push for the usage of these tools-- but even then, you need the talent to learn these tools, and frankly hardware is filled with old people.
I think we have different interpretations of "design".
I thought I wrote an answer to this. Turns out I didn't. Also, I am a horrific procrastinator.
In some sense, I'd agree with this synthesis. I say some sense, because the other bottleneck that lots of chip designs have is verification. Somebody has to test the new crazy shit a designer might create, right? To go back to our city planner analogy-- sure, perhaps you create the most optimal connections between buildings. But what if the designer but the doors on the roof, because it's the fastest way down? Yes, designs can be come up with faster, and can theoretically be fabbed out faster. But, as with anything that depends on humans, that itself
Just made this account to answer this. Source: I've worked in physical design/VLSI and CPU verification, and pretty regularly deal with RTL.
TL;DR - You're right-- it's not a big deal, but it simultaneously means more and less than you think.
The Problem
Jump to "What It Means" if you already understand the problem.
First, let me talk about about the purpose of floorplanning. The author's mention it a little bit, but it's worth repeating.
Placement optimizations of this form appear in a wide range of science and engineering applications, including hardware design, city planning, vaccine testing and distribution, and cerebral cortex layout.
Much like a city, an SoC (system-on-chip) has lots of agents that transfer data to... (read 878 more words →)
Maybe this is a bit too practical and not as "world-modeling-esque" as your question asks? But I don't strongly believe that raw intelligence is enough of a "credential" to rely on.
You might hear it as-- he/she's the smartest guy/gal I know, so you should trust them; we have insanely great talent at this company; they went to MIT so they're smart; they have a PhD so listen to them. I like to liken this to Mom-Dad bragging points. Any X number of things are really just proxies for "they're smart"
I used to personally believe this of myself-- I'm smart and can get stuff done, so why can't the PM just stop asking... (read more)