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 coder View Post
    A lot of countries in the region have a history with Ukraine and Russia. The US is concerned, because this is the first step towards World War III.
    All hypocrisy,
    If the US was concerned it wouldn't be destabilizing the region for the last 10 years or more..

    Comment


    • Originally posted by h0tc0d3 View Post
      You are mentally ill. Take pills. Putin ended the war in Chechnya. The war in Chechnya began long before Putin came.
      Wow, if that's evidence of the quality of Russian education, the young generation has a lot to worry about.

      Comment


      • Wow, a full-course meal!

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        during WWII, in their concentration camps etc. Nobody bombed them.

        Turks performed the worst genocide in XX century, on Armenian people. Nobody bombed them.
        You don't seem to understand that NATO action in former Yugoslavia was to try and stop genocide. As it wasn't intended as a punishment, therefore it would make no sense to launch attacks for prior offenses. If anyone is still around to answer for those, such cases would need to be litigated through something like the International Court of Justice.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        Etc. My point: history is much more complicated in Europe, and other parts of the world, than US people are typically able to understand.
        I think we understand your tit-for-tat multi-generational skirmishes just fine. However, ethnic cleansing isn't permitted by the United Nations Genocide Convention, unanimously adopted by the General Assembly in 1951.



        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        In US, that's typically more than enough to completely forget your ethnic roots.
        Apparently not, given how some people are clinging to Civil War identities from more than 1.5 centuries ago.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        That goes on and on for decades, throughout both piece and wars. And then, at some point US comes, and says these are good boys, these are bad boys, this is democracy, this is tyranny. And bombs the shit out of the side they don't like,
        First, what happened to Communist era Yugoslavia? Conveniently left out Tito, eh?

        But you're also skipping over the whole UN involvement, which is an integral part. On October 9, 1992, the Security Council passed Resolution 781, establishing a no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, it seems like it was really the Srebrenica massacre of 8000 civilians in 1995 that really ramped up NATO involvement, since that's what prompted the UN peace keepers to have the power to order NATO air strikes, directly. That later gave way to Operation Deliberate Force, which was the first mass bombing campaign. More, here:


        So, you can really trace the whole escalation to the Srebrenica massacre. If not for that, NATO likely would've stayed in a strict air-support role for the UN Peacekeepers.


        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        Same thing goes for decades, on all sides of the world. Far East, Iraq, Afganistan, Libiya, you name it. Same black-and-white view of the world, enforcing US policies without taking any regard of the people that actually have to live under these policies, without any regards to the history of conflicts.
        Huh? "Far East"?

        I'll grant you that Iraq was a bad move, though we've already discussed that.

        Another thing we've already discussed, at great length, is how Afghanistan was a direct response to the 9/11 attacks, perpetrated by Al Qaeda, which was being protected by the Taliban.

        Libya, on the other hand, was actually getting involved in a domestic uprising against Gaddafi, and done at the behest of a UN Security Council resolution and in conjunction with virtually all of Libya's neighbors. Gaddafi was a dictator who had bombed a US airliner and antagonized other countries in the region. Nobody liked him and he was about to smash the uprising.

        Involvement in Syria was not done through NATO, and was in response to ISIS. They had to go, and I think that's one of the few areas of agreement with Russia. ISIS had an explicit goal of launching attacks against the West and had the potential to engulf the region.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        Of course, such "solutions" can't work. There is no place that is better after US intervention.
        I'd probably point to Syria as the best recent success. That conflict was already raging, by the time the US got involved, and ISIS was smashed and deprived of all the land it had gained, by the time the US pulled out.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        On top of all that, there is hypocrisy that US has so much internal problems to fix before starting to patronize other. You are a society sunked in racism.
        Ah, and here's the famous whataboutism.

        So, we can't try to stop genocide somewhere else, until we completely fix racism? Or oppose Russian military conquests while blacks are still lower on the economic ladder?

        Not only is that illogical, it's also unreasonable. The world is a big, complex place. Nowhere is perfect, but we have to hold our aspirations high and catch each other when we stumble.

        Think about it like this: a person with high ambitions will encounter some failures and short-comings, but ultimately achieve more than the person with low ambitions. If you're too concerned about ever falling short of your goals, then you won't try as hard. So, the idea is to have high standards, even if we haven't always met them.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        there is a large liberal elite, that you individually may be part of, that is condemning it. In Serbia throughout war of 90-ies, all of the intelectual elite was against Milosevic, but majority of ordinary people was for him and is in principle, through this support, indeed responsible for war crimes commited by his regime. Same for US today: majority of you are racists, otherwise this issue would be put behind long ago.
        That's a poor analogy, for the following reason. Milosevic was committing his crime while he had this popular support. On the other hand, the theory of Systemic or Structural Racism tells us there are institutions that were built by previous generations that keep blacks and certain other racial minorities at a disadvantage. It takes time to dismantle those structures, and then more time to repair the damage they've done. Whereas if a leader goes out and slaughters 8000 civilians tomorrow, the people supporting him had contributed to that specific event, even if indirectly.

        In a way, it's a bit like the difference between a sin of commission vs. a sin of omission.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        You dare to speak about Soviet regime doing this or that, while for example at the same time, 50 or so years ago, you had laws in some states forbidding marriages between white and "colored" people. That is disgusting.
        You dare to speak about racism while defending ethnic conflict? That is disgusting.

        Not to mention how absurd it is that you have to go back 50 years to find those laws and yet you criticize as if they're still in effect today.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        So this is why all of this hysteria in the West abput Ukraine is also disgusting.
        No, you're just butt-hurt about getting bombed for allying yourselves with the murderous Serbs, like 30 years ago. You even said you like to hold multi-generational grudges. So, I guess that explains it then.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        Putin is a maniac, but he's doing just what he learned from number of US presidents in the recent history. He plant lies, attacks an innocent country, bomb civilians.
        He's an ex-KGB officer. He's the master of lies and disinformation.

        Also, the US always tries to minimize civilian casualties. And it doesn't seek territorial expansion. So, those are two fundamental ways in which his conflict differs from any of the modern conflicts in which the US has been involved.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        So you will talk and talk,
        Talking is usually better than not talking. Nobody can make Putin agree to any realistic alternative, but we have to at least try.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        and push poor Ukrainians to fight to the last one of them,
        No, they're fighting because they want to. They could also surrender, if they wanted. It's entirely up to them.

        Originally posted by sanjaadzic View Post
        but you won't dare to do anything else for them except for sending them money and weapons.
        Yes, because a shooting-war with NATO, especially on Russia's doorstep, would likely escalate very fast. You don't really want WWIII, do you? You probably wouldn't like it, if it happened.

        Well, about the only takeaway I got from this long rant is that you're still nursing a grudge from 30 years ago. Good luck with that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by t.s. View Post
          Typical EU & US Citizens (not all but AFAIK, quite a bunch of them): US and EU is Just! NATO is Just! Everything they do is Just!
          Nobody said that.

          Originally posted by t.s. View Post
          Everything beside them is evil! China is Evil! Russia is evil! North Korea is evil! Ethiopia, Palestine, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.. what's that? Eww. Didn't care, and don't care.
          Nobody said that, either. We focus on Russia's actions. Are you defending its invasion of Ukraine?

          Originally posted by t.s. View Post
          You start a war? What factions are you? China? Russia? NK? Middle East? Then you're evil! But if you're US / EU / NATO, you are absolutely, ultimately just!
          I'm just trying to look at facts, here. People can have their own opinions, based on the facts, but not their own facts.

          Originally posted by t.s. View Post
          It's kind of like NAZI -> They think that they're the superior race. What they did, do, done is just. Never wrong.
          ...and, again with the Nazi's.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by leipero View Post
            EU/US, while they do matter, Russia can do well without them.
            Not if the EU stops buying Russian fuel. I don't believe that'll happen, but it'd be terrible for Russia, if it did.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by coder View Post
              Not if the EU stops buying Russian fuel. I don't believe that'll happen, but it'd be terrible for Russia, if it did.
              Ok dude, chill out. And no, they can do without it as well, just shows your ignorance.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by h0tc0d3 View Post
                Answer a couple of questions. Why is it possible to speak any language in Russia? And if a person speaks Russian in Ukraine, then they immediately belittle him and can kill him? Why in Russia no one calls to attack foreigners? But in Europe, attacks on Russians and Belarus are often heard from politicians? Why hasn't there been a single attack on foreigners in Russia and Belarus for more than a week? But there are thousands of attacks on Russians and Belarusians? Why do people in Ukraine in the media openly call for attacking Russians and justify the killing of Russians?
                That's the price that must be paid by its citizens, if a country wishes to be an imperial power. Go back a couple hundred years and you would find the same truths about all of the major colonial powers.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Wow, a full-course meal!
                  That was derogatory straight from the beginning, right?

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  You don't seem to understand that NATO action in former Yugoslavia was to try and stop genocide. As it wasn't intended as a punishment, therefore it would make no sense to launch attacks for prior offenses. If anyone is still around to answer for those, such cases would need to be litigated through something like the International Court of Justice.
                  No, it was not to stop genocide. The genocide happened in Srebrenica 1995, and nobody stopped it. UN forces guaranteed security to Muslim people in Srebrenica, but when Serbs came, they just withdrew. What happened 1998/1999 was that better part of Albanian population left Kosovo, since Serb forces overcame their forces and started with atrocities, and they feared for their life. NATO intervened to make it possible for them to return. Pretty much alike thing happened to Serbs in Croatia 1995: they wanted independence from Croatia, fought for it for some time, lost, and then the population left in fear. Nobody intervened to have Serb civilians back in Croatia, though, so they never returned.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  I think we understand your tit-for-tat multi-generational skirmishes just fine. However, ethnic cleansing isn't permitted by the United Nations Genocide Convention, unanimously adopted by the General Assembly in 1951.
                  See prevoius: why then Croatia is allowed to do ethnic cleansing of local Serbs in 1995?

                  My question is rethorical, of course. The point is that UN and all its declarations have no weight, it still happens what powers want. And what to expect from an organization where from the beginning there are five countries that are above others? So all your arguments where you say there is UN decision for that and there is NATO countries agreement to do this are moot. Bush lied the whole world, and US completely destroyed Iraq, end of story, does it matters that he had some formal approval of UN based on his lies?

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Apparently not, given how some people are clinging to Civil War identities from more than 1.5 centuries ago.
                  That are more broader identities, maybe comparable with religions clashes that we have in Europe. For example, I've already mentioned that I'm a Montenegrin. There is about 650k of us, but we have our own country, our own history that we consider very rich, our own complex relationships with other etnicities on Balkans. To an American, I can imagine it's mind boggling.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  First, what happened to Communist era Yugoslavia? Conveniently left out Tito, eh?
                  Tito was a great statesman, and Yugoslavia was a beautiful idea, IMO the only possible way to provide for a progress in this region. Unfortunately, apparently we weren't worth it, we weren't able to overcame the hatred. Serbia was the main culprit, but each other nation, except for Macedonians, had its share of guilt. Our punishment is that we all, except maybe for Slovenia, live today in banana countries, with deeply corrupt governments tied with mafia, with which EU seems perfectly happy with, as long as they provide no external trouble to them. So - not exactly a triumph of an interventionism approach either, if you ask me.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  But you're also skipping over the whole UN involvement, which is an integral part. On October 9, 1992, the Security Council passed Resolution 781, establishing a no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, it seems like it was really the Srebrenica massacre of 8000 civilians in 1995 that really ramped up NATO involvement, since that's what prompted the UN peace keepers to have the power to order NATO air strikes, directly. That later gave way to Operation Deliberate Force, which was the first mass bombing campaign.
                  Yes, I skipped the whole UN involvment that was complete debacle, showing the whole impotence of UN. Just as you said, the genocide happened 1995, NATO bombing of Serbia 1999. What have you've been doing in the meantime? What does that should say to Ukrainians today?

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Huh? "Far East"?

                  I'll grant you that Iraq was a bad move, though we've already discussed that.
                  (I hope it was understood I intended to say "Near East".)

                  Well, that's convenient isn't it: You completely destroy a whole country, and then you say - oops, that was bad move, I grant you that. So when Putin retreat, and it will, Russian will say "oops, bad move", and all the world should be fine with what they did to Ukraine, and Putin can go back to his datcha and raise horses or chickens or whatever, and we should be all fine with it? Or only US presidents are amnested on any sort of responsibility?

                  Same for Afganistan, Syria, Libya etc. You point to Syria as success. I invite you to come and explain this success to all of these poor Syrian people that live in refugess camps or even in parks everywhere on Balkans, because they fled and Western Europe doesn't want to accept them now, and they have nowhere to return. This is also something that Ukraine people should have on their mind.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  So, we can't try to stop genocide somewhere else, until we completely fix racism? Or oppose Russian military conquests while blacks are still lower on the economic ladder?

                  Not only is that illogical, it's also unreasonable. The world is a big, complex place. Nowhere is perfect, but we have to hold our aspirations high and catch each other when we stumble.

                  Think about it like this: a person with high ambitions will encounter some failures and short-comings, but ultimately achieve more than the person with low ambitions. If you're too concerned about ever falling short of your goals, then you won't try as hard. So, the idea is to have high standards, even if we haven't always met them.
                  What makes you think that you're entitled to try to stop what you think is genocide? Putin is also claiming all he's doing is trying to stop genocide. You were not able to solve slavery, that is something that most of the rest of world left behin in Roman times, up to XIX century, and even then you haven't solved it properly but have traces of this problem up to this day. And you think the rest of the world should believe you're capable of understanding intricate ethnic clashes that drag for centuries?

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  That's a poor analogy, for the following reason. Milosevic was committing his crime while he had this popular support. On the other hand, the theory of Systemic or Structural Racism tells us there are institutions that were built by previous generations that keep blacks and certain other racial minorities at a disadvantage. It takes time to dismantle those structures, and then more time to repair the damage they've done. Whereas if a leader goes out and slaughters 8000 civilians tomorrow, the people supporting him had contributed to that specific event, even if indirectly.
                  Milosevic had popular support because there is ages old problem with majority of Serbian people that they believe they always got the short side of the stick. Majority of WASPs in US have ages old problem that they think that they are above black people (and above the rest of the people in the world, for that matters). How about trying to solve racism problem by bombing white suburbs in few selected US towns?

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  You dare to speak about racism while defending ethnic conflict? That is disgusting.

                  Not to mention how absurd it is that you have to go back 50 years to find those laws and yet you criticize as if they're still in effect today.

                  No, you're just butt-hurt about getting bombed for allying yourselves with the murderous Serbs, like 30 years ago. You even said you like to hold multi-generational grudges. So, I guess that explains it then.
                  What makes you think I'm defending ethnic conflict? I'm just trying to point to all the double standards of a side that is IMO the guiltiest that this conflict will go on and on. When USSR intended to install nuclear missiles on Cuba 1963, US threatened it will start nuclear war, and USSR backed off. JFK is your hero for standing his ground at that moment. Now, Russia has alike concerns about Ukraine. You won't back off, but push Ukraine into the confrontation. You talk about right of Ukrainian people to protect themselves, that the sovereign country shall be able to decide for itself what it's going to do. Why Cuba was not allowed to decide for itself that, if it feels warm and fuzzy under the umbrella of Eastern Block nuclear missiles, that it's fine for them?

                  It's interesting how the answer to everything that is inconvenient for you is that all this happened in the past. 50 or so years ago in some parts of US it was forbidden by law to merry a person of different color, that was absolutely disgusting - oh, well that was some time ago. 20 years ago your government planted lies and tricked the whole world to allow them to destroy a country that the only sin was that it had an idiot of a president that your idiot of president had personal itch with because he thought he ridiculed his daddy - oh well, it happened. You stole whole your country from indigenious people, and genocided all of them - oh well, that was long in the past, and besides whoever left from them we allow them to run casinos today. Your wealth is built on work of black slaves, and you're treating their descendants as shit up to this day - oh well, we're working on it, you need to understand it's process. And so on...

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Also, the US always tries to minimize civilian casualties. And it doesn't seek territorial expansion. So, those are two fundamental ways in which his conflict differs from any of the modern conflicts in which the US has been involved.
                  Back in 1999, Montenegro already distanced themselves, to the extent possible considering there is strong presence of Serbian military, from Serbian politics. This didn't stopped NATO from bombing Montenegro along with Serbia, even significant number of refugees from Kosovo looked for safe place in Montenegro. In a small city Murnio near border with Kosovo, NATO bombed a ridiculously small bridge and killed 6 people, 3 of which were children.

                  The most well known victim of NATO bombing in 1999 was 3-year old baby-girl, killed by casette bomb at her home. Her sin: her family was so poor that they could afford to live only in the poorest suburb that happened to be 1km away from a military airport that was the target.

                  Another case of civilian casualties was when a passenger train was bombed, without any particular reason - 20 casualties.

                  Also, Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Etc. That's how NATO tries to minimize civilian casualties. None of these cases was investigated, not even for the purpose of detecting the circumstances, to prevent something alike to happens before. I guess most of the pilots got medals for their involvment, and now live proudly.

                  So yes, you could bet I have my grudge from that bombing. This is also why I can undestand what people in Kiyv are going through at the moment, and that mainstream black-and-white Western approach is only going to extend their suffering (Serbia refused to withdraw and got bombed for almost 3 months because Russia was telling them they should stand, and West is doing the same as Ukraine at the moment, until they get tired of it and tell them to make the deal, just like Russia then told Serbia to give Kosovo away). And I bet that the vast majority of people in Kiyv and Ukraine just want this to end, even at the cost of Donbas and Crimea and whatever. It was just alike in Serbia at that time, it's far from the picture that the people unite against the agressor. But that majority of people is silent, moreover in Ukraine we have that government gave weapons to random people, not registered at military personel at all, and is considering arming convicts from prisons. And all this people is wandering through the streets of Kiyv right now. Milosevic at least didn't do anything like that, we that wanted the peace were fearing or army (that, btw, destroyed large part of land of my grandpa's property on the country side, because they choose to hide howitzers's there, and nobody gave a damn about it afterwards), but at least they were uniformed and weren't messing much with civilians, while any punk in Kiyv has arms at the moment and can shoot you and loot you claiming that you're Russian agent. But you conveniently choose to ignore this, and believe instead that every single Ukrainian is a freedom fighter that will engage with Russians as soon as he posts his latest pic in uniform on Instagram.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Yes, because a shooting-war with NATO, especially on Russia's doorstep, would likely escalate very fast. You don't really want WWIII, do you? You probably wouldn't like it, if it happened.
                  Of course I don't want WW3, that's why I'm writing all of this. But that way you written above, it summarizes your attitude to all of this: it's threatening and patronizing: either it will be as US said, or there will be WW3. So the only way to reply is: you wouldn't like it either, and that's not probably, that's for sure.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Well, about the only takeaway I got from this long rant is that you're still nursing a grudge from 30 years ago. Good luck with that.
                  I readily admitted about that grudge. The problem that US people may face in the future is that they don't understand how much grudge the large part of the world has against them. You have all of the above written by a person not in its young age any more, that for all of his career worked with US high-tech companies (I'm here because fast sparse linear solvers are my thing, and I care about OpenBLAS a lot), and actually spent considerable time in cumulative in various parts of US. So I deeply appreciate many aspects of US society, in particular education and tech. However, I'm equally deeply disgusted by US politics, that I find equally corrupt as everywhere else, and in this particular case I find it on the long term equally harmful as Russian aggression.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by patstew View Post
                    Russia is literally invading a neighboring state, which is worse than anything China has done recently.
                    Oh, so nothing like a massive genocide or anything? Explicit threats and movements toward annexing Taiwan? Also, nothing like arbitrarily imprisoning tourists and visitors to use as hostages to try forcing countries to release CCP-affiliated international criminals? Oh nothing like that eh.

                    Originally posted by patstew View Post
                    Saudi Arabia is more of a fair comparison, but equally I can't remember seeing a Saudi open source contribution whereas Russians are fairly common, so maybe it just hasn't come up. Also, this specifically relates to support for a processor that probably isn't used outside of Russian defense contracts that specify local components, because there's literally no other reason to use it. I don't think anyone will look to remove contributions from Russian citizens to linux or KDE or whatever.
                    As for how widely used the chips are, that is not an object in most open source projects. How many people actually run Linux on System/z? The answer is: it doesn't matter, as long as there are maintainers. Discussions other than "do we ordinarily allow this sort of target in upstream?" are pure politics, and are a cancer on communities. I'm gonna say flat out that if Saudi Arabia had a state subsidized domestic SoC project, and it had upstream support in projects, I would not support this; not even if 90% of orders for the SoCs were for weapons used in disagreeable wars.

                    Comment


                    • I was 99% sure that Elbrus didn't have any real non-military use, but now an email that I received from Michael Shigorin has bumped that up to 100%.

                      a few highlights:

                      it's originated for solely military reasons back then.
                      I think Elbrus systems are still non-exportable,
                      PS: next time you choose to speak of Russian military,
                      watch this first: [link removed to not give neonazis YouTube views]
                      -- it is exactly lies, aggressiveness and ignorance that
                      have moved the world on the edge of extermination again.
                      I did find it hilarious that he linked to actual neonazi shit and then threatened to exterminate the entire world if people don't stop hurting the sensitive Russian military's feelings. that's some real cartoon villain shit.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X