[HN Gopher] Process Intensity (1987)
___________________________________________________________________
Process Intensity (1987)
Author : Kinrany
Score : 31 points
Date : 2021-09-19 12:03 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.erasmatazz.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.erasmatazz.com)
| reidjs wrote:
| These sorts of hidden gems are why I like to read HN. This makes
| a lot of sense to me:
|
| "The difference between process and data is profound. Process is
| abstract where data is tangible. Data is direct, where process is
| indirect. The difference between data and process is the
| difference between numbers and equations, between facts and
| principles, between events and forces, between knowledge and
| ideas."
| MarkLowenstein wrote:
| I like to say that, just like _matter_ can be regarded as
| frozen energy, _data_ can be regarded as frozen actions. I
| would not be surprised if physicists eventually regarded both
| phenomena as isomorphic.
| Phileosopher wrote:
| This is a profound concept. I've known this in computers for some
| time, but was only able to parse the concept by understanding the
| philosophical difference between utility (closely resonant with
| "purpose") and metaphysical reality (simply what "is").
|
| It's interesting as well because the only time I've grokked
| efficiency is when it refers to algorithmic efficiency, where the
| data efficiency often gets overlooked because it's abstracted
| onto the hardware encoding level and completely misses the OS.
|
| Though, that lends me some more thinking to do on this, since my
| new life's purpose is to create improved information[1]. I'm
| getting the feeling that better data could make better processes,
| though I'm not sure how that would implement beyond the broad
| concept of "data cleaning" (which is nothing more than uniformity
| in a set).
|
| [1]https://stucky.tech/purpose/
| lliamander wrote:
| "Process intensity" is a good way to describe the kind of
| programming work I find most interesting. The standard CRUD
| application being an example of a low-process intensity software
| in contemporary context.
|
| Often we can become mesmerized by systems of great scale that
| deal with large amounts of data. But what's really interesting
| and valuable is not the amount of data _per se_ , but the things
| done with that data.
|
| Furthermore, data intensity and process intensity are orthogonal.
| That means you don't have to work at a company like Google with
| massive amounts of data to find interesting work. There's
| process-intensive work to be found at all scales of data
| intensity. I've even done interesting side-projects processing
| less than a kilobyte of data.
| dragontamer wrote:
| "Balance of Power"
|
| I've heard of this 80s game time and time again. Often times, its
| called the first computer strategy game. A cold-war era video
| game about cold-war era politics, it was immediately relevant
| back then and taken as a historical lesson today... and also one
| of the major inspirations for 90s-era strategy games.
|
| Maybe one day, I'll put forth the effort to find it and play it.
| For now, I'm satisfied with an old version of Hearts of Iron 3.
|
| Given how many times this game pops up in 1980s-era computer
| discussion threads, I feel like I'm missing something each time
| its brought up.
|
| -------
|
| In the realm of "process intensity", the crunch-to-bit ratio of
| Factorio, OpenTTD, and now my current game (Hearts of Iron 3) is
| pretty high. In Factorio: all mistakes are correctable: just
| order your bots to deconstruct everything, and place everything
| down again. Once you have your defense system automated, you can
| continuously update your designs to more-and-more optimized
| results.
|
| Hearts of Iron 3 is similar though punishing instead. You spend
| an inordinate amount of time looking through your commanders's
| skills, experience, and organizing brigades / divisions / corps /
| armies / groups / theaters, and the commanders of each stage of
| the hierarchy. You consider production, and which groups the
| weapons will go towards.
|
| Then you unpause the game, and hope for the best. Hopefully your
| organization was good and your commanders / troops can do their
| thing. If not, you restart the game, or accept the results as you
| get strategically bombed or whatever.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-20 23:02 UTC)