+972 52-548-6969
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
You obviously never done any multi threading work, dude!
Markdown turns plain text formatting into fancy HTML formatting.
*italic* **bold**
_italic_ __bold__
Inline:
An [example](http://url.com/ "Title")
Reference-style labels (titles are optional):
An [example][id]. Then, anywhere
else in the doc, define the link:
[id]: http://example.com/ "Title"
Inline (titles are optional):
Reference-style:
![alt text][id]
[id]: /url/to/img.jpg "Title"
Setext-style:
Header 1
========
Header 2
--------
atx-style (closing #'s are optional):
# Header 1 #
## Header 2 ##
###### Header 6
Ordered, without paragraphs:
1. Foo
2. Bar
Unordered, with paragraphs:
* A list item.
With multiple paragraphs.
* Bar
You can nest them:
* Abacus
* answer
* Bubbles
1. bunk
2. bupkis
* BELITTLER
3. burper
* Cunning
> Email-style angle brackets
> are used for blockquotes.
> > And, they can be nested.
> #### Headers in blockquotes
>
> * You can quote a list.
> * Etc.
Three or more dashes or asterisks:
---
* * *
- - - -
End a line with two or more spaces:
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Code blocks delimited by 3 or more backticks or tildas:
```
This is a preformatted
code block
```
Set the id of headings with {#<id>} at end of heading line:
## My Heading {#myheading}
Fruit |Color
---------|----------
Apples |Red
Pears |Green
Bananas |YellowTerm 1
: Definition 1
Term 2
: Definition 2Body text with a footnote [^1]
[^1]: Footnote text here
MDD <- will have title
*[MDD]: MarkdownDeep
No future posts left, oh my!
| Main feed |
|
| Comments feed | |
Comments
LLO!
And here I thought insanity was the outcome of trying to figure out why you get different results when doing the same thing over and over again.
Well, one could argue that the fun in multi-threading is proving you are doing the same thing over and over again to lead to the same results. So it feels insane but it is perfectly rational and really just insanely complex.
It is easy to forget that time is variable too. Its just one that we can't control (at least not in the absolute sense), so it is usually considered to be a dependent variable.
In many cases, you may be doing exactly the same thing, but another unidentified or difficult/impossible to control variable may be changing (such as the OS performing context switches). Getting deterministic results isn't always easy.
Sorry to be a stickler, but Einstein probably never said this. See
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_said_the_definition_of_insanity_is_to_do_the_same_thing_over_and_over_and_expect_different_results
and
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=33566
As several posters commented, this comment goes against the idea of "if first you don't succeed, try, try again", which Einstein probably would have agreed with.
If that were indeed the true definition of insanity, then all fisherman would have to be wackos. Well, perhaps some are...
:)
Not sure why that first link I posted got mangled... Here's another try. http://tinyurl.com/lx698m
From https://twitter.com/#!/nedbat/statuses/194452404794691584:
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think, "I know, I'll use threads," and then two they hav erpoblesms.
A mentor of mine always liked pointing out "Computers are deterministic" whenever we complained we couldn't reproduce a bug.
Well, this still holds true.
Doing threads, is indeed, fitting of the description of insanity. If you aren't when you start, you may be by the time you're done. :)
@Steve : It's true, but we are never fully aware of what we asked it to do. ;)
Comment preview