Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenBLAS Deciding Whether To Drop Support For Russia's Elbrus CPUs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Lecedy View Post
    Reading through it, all the political things aside. Was anyone in OpenBLAS team had access to Elbrus to even test these codes on the hardware?
    It's not their problem, if it doesn't work on ELBRUS. They basically just get patches submitted by people who do use those CPUs. It's on those folks to test & fix any bugs OpenBLAS has on their hardware.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by coder View Post
      First, they didn't. Second, if Russia isn't trying to take land from its neighbors, then it has no need to worry about NATO. You've been brainwashed into believing NATO is your enemy, but that's only true if you make an enemy of NATO.
      lol, You never know that Russia is in a sense "asked" to become the enemy of NATO. Russia's three requests to join NATO were rejected. Why? Because without the enemy, the military alliance will have no meaning.

      And, Why should I be friendly to NATO? I support the EU, the African Union and other alliances aimed at economic development. But as a military alliance, all the meaning of its existence is to seek war. I have always believed that when there is no military alliance in the world, the world will be more peaceful.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by patstew View Post
        You won't catch me defending the Iraq invasion or similar either, I opposed that from before the US lead us into that mess.
        Bro, Do you think all Russians agree with this operation? It doesn't matter what you think, but what your country does.

        again:
        Originally posted by wangling View Post
        Politics is only dirty. It's the same in any country. So I don't think OSS will get any benefits from participating in this kind of thing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by coder View Post
          I don't go that far. It seems unlikely that Putin will back down, but I think it's possible he'd accept taking only eastern Ukraine. At this point, that would be Zelenskyy's least-bad option.

          Still, it wouldn't guarantee the same thing not just happening again, but the conflict's current path seems to be one paved with unbounded death and destruction. So, even if ceding eastern Ukraine only buys a few years time, that's a few years many Ukrainians (and a some unfortunate Russian soldiers) wouldn't otherwise have.

          As for Putin, I think it's ultimately the Russians who should sort out their governance problems. I'm not just being oblique, I really mean that.
          Well the minimum Putin seems to want is Crimea plus all of the Donbas region plus likely a land bridge to Crimea. Even accepting status quo of the last 8 years is likely unacceptable to Ukraine. And yes, even if they do give away large parts of Ukraine, there is no guarantee there will suddenly be lots of Russians with brand new passports stirring up trouble... I think Ukraine will have to join NATO as part of the deal so they get at least safety after all the destruction - however Putin will never accept that. They may as well fight to the bitter end now rather than risk another war in a few years. So my feeling is that neither side will give up.

          Yes the Russians absolutely must sort out what they want for government. I hope that taking away all the toys (and yachts!) focusses the minds of some the powerful. Putin is only good for them as long as they keep making more money.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wangling View Post

            lol, You never know that Russia is in a sense "asked" to become the enemy of NATO. Russia's three requests to join NATO were rejected. Why? Because without the enemy, the military alliance will have no meaning.

            And, Why should I be friendly to NATO? I support the EU, the African Union and other alliances aimed at economic development. But as a military alliance, all the meaning of its existence is to seek war. I have always believed that when there is no military alliance in the world, the world will be more peaceful.
            About that Russia in NATO claim, this just about sums up their attitude. When you're not even willing to follow the defined process of joining, you're not at all serious about it - it requires you to upgrade all your military equipment to become compatible with NATO and so on, something that can take many years. But I guess it makes good propaganda since you believe it was a sincere request.

            And no, a military alliance is not to seek war. This may be news, but countries have an army precisely to stop other countries going to war with them. MAD is a thing even for conventional war. Imagine if Ukraine had no army at all. Or Poland. Or Latvia. They would be very peacefully invaded.

            If you want peace, lets talk about nuclear disarmament. Do Russia and US really need 6000 warheads each when even 100 is enough to ensure total destruction?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by wangling View Post
              lol, You never know that Russia is in a sense "asked" to become the enemy of NATO. Russia's three requests to join NATO were rejected. Why?
              I think its current & recent actions demonstrate the wisdom behind its rejection.

              Originally posted by wangling View Post
              Why should I be friendly to NATO? I support the EU, the African Union and other alliances aimed at economic development. But as a military alliance, all the meaning of its existence is to seek war.
              It's only as interested in war as its members. And most of them have shown very little interest, indeed.

              Originally posted by wangling View Post
              I have always believed that when there is no military alliance in the world, the world will be more peaceful.
              First, that seems like an unrealistic ideal.

              Second, you don't actually know whether the potential for alliances to escalate conflicts is outweighed by their deterrent effect, do you? You're just assuming it's not.

              Finally, probably the largest driving force behind conflict is climate change. People are living in places that will no longer be able to sustain them, either through drought, floods, fires, etc. This will drive them to seek resources, both on a state-level and through destabilizing mass migration. Case-in-point: Egypt and Ethiopia's conflict over damming the Nile.

              So, I'd say if you really want a more peaceful world, the best thing you could do is work to slow climate change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PerformanceExpert View Post
                I hope that taking away all the toys (and yachts!) focusses the minds of some the powerful. Putin is only good for them as long as they keep making more money.
                What's troubling about this view is that it presumes money buys power. However, from what I've heard about where Putin got his wealth, Russia is the converse. I've heard he orchestrated a shake-down of the oligarchs and insisted they give him a share of their wealth. If accurate, that shows just how little power they have over him.

                There's a very similar story about Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), in which he essentially turned a high-end hotel into a prison for many of the country's elite, until they agreed to his demands.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by coder View Post
                  I can understand about sports teams competing under the Russian flag. They are representatives of their country. However, I think they should have the option to compete under a neutral flag, like what Formula 1 has proposed.

                  Companies fall under economic sanctions, which is unfortunate, but some of their revenues eventually ends up in State coffers.

                  As for students and other people of Russian nationality, origin, heritage, etc. I absolutely condemn any targeting or harassment of them, in any way. I hope that is a very small number of cases, and even that would be a shame.

                  What the world opposes is Putin's actions. It's not Russians or even Russia that's the issue. I wish for a new chapter in Russia's history, when it can flourish in peace and civility. Sadly, that doesn't seem to align with Putin's vision.
                  Well, you can understand, but that doesn't make it right for any of the things you've mentioned. For such actions (other governments don't like what other governments or officials do), that's why diplomacy and international relations exist.

                  It's pure Nazi ideology to do such discrimination against someone of any nationality, it changes nothing, look at North Korea if ou need any evidence for my claim = It's blocked "by the world" (not really) for decades. You can twist it and turn it as much as you like, those are basis of Hitlers Nazi ideology.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    I find it fascinating how so many Russians (or at least the ones you hear from) seem to find NATO so threatening and scary, and feel like they are being almost attacked by it.

                    Because, as someone who lives in a NATO country, I can tell you that all of us gave absolutely zero thought to Russia. I mean every now and then there'd be some slight annoyance from a ransomware group based in Russia and it would be annoying that Putin seemed to be encouraging them, but that's the extent of it. Russia wouldn't even cross people's minds except about once a year very briefly, probably in sports.

                    Perhaps it's a bit different among the eastern european countries. I could see that they might have old memories of the USSR there which the rest of NATO doesn't, but they have no real influence over anything.

                    Of course that's all changed now. I was pretty convinced NATO was just going to die off in the next 20 years as people stopped caring about it, but this war has certainly reinvigorated it. Europe actually cares now, and this probably ensures it sticks around another 50 years until the current generation starts dying out.
                    They don't find it scary, and NATO is threatening to the whole world, contrary to what you may think, US/NA+EU/Europe=/=WHOLE WORLD. The evidence of such threat is overwhelming, what is actually dangerous about NATO is the fact that it follows same Nazi ideology people were describing..., and there's no independence in it (US gives orders, rest must follow, or else...), it's so clear that you need to be either willingly blind or trully blind not to see it.

                    You seriously think that anyone in Russia (who is set to think about those things there) is thinking about some 3rd party NATO countries? I seriously doubt that is the case, because in reality, only US produces weapons, European countries are insignificant as far as they are concerned, what is the concern, is that any "defensive" weapon can be changed into "offensive" weapon in a matter of hours, carrying nukes.

                    Sometimes, it's enough to observe some things and to be unconvinced...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by coder View Post
                      It's no accident. Putin needs an enemy to distract people from how poorly their country is being run.

                      You don't worry about election meddling and their Internet Research Agency sewing disinformation and disunity among your citizens? You didn't worry about Trump?

                      Isn't that the ultimate irony? It basically proves that NATO isn't his real concern!
                      Wow, I'm astonished at your ignorance. Even tho. I promised myself not to engage, it's so hard not to when you read something like this.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X