Jeff,
There are multiple agendas here. Yes, lots of items we have do use power
even when not in use or even when supposedly turned off. Devices like a TV
that is instant-on because some circuitry is on and listening for the remote
control and ready to just turn the screen power on are another exam
Aren't most organizations pushing to reduce power consumption at night? Energy
costs, thermal wear acceleration, and climate change all point to putting
computers to sleep at night unless you have a specific goal in mind. Sounds
like a non-problem looking for a solution to me. (I was a BOINC vol
HTCondor has been around for a long time (originally as "Condor",
started in 1988!)
https://github.com/htcondor/htcondor
https://htcondor.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTCondor
I have no idea about the scale of difficulty of setting this up. The
developers do offer contract suppor
Nice example!
However, things do not always have a purpose beyond consistency:
Since return(...) is a function call, it gets parsed like any other function
call, and can be a part of a more complicated expression.
The special semantics of terminating the caller will not take place until the
Dear Ivo Welch,
Sorry for not answering the question you asked (I don't know such a
vendor), but here are a few comments that may help:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 17:20:25 -0700
ivo welch wrote:
> These computers are mostly idle overnight. We have no interest in
> bitmining and SETI@home doesn't seem
The R antibugging practice here is to not use the return function. The
expression on the last line of the function is automatically the return value
of the function. Some people use return within conditionals in the function,
but when I have conditional execution flow I prefer to simply assign a
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 11:15:02 +0200
Ralf Goertz via R-help wrote:
> If this is not an error what is its purpose?
>From the point of view of the R syntax, everything is an expression.
One of the uses of return() being an expression is base::callCC(). The
ability to use it inside an expression mak
Since R evaluates arguments 'greedily', it will evaluate the return()
component (and return from the function) without even seeing the second
component.
This example might clarify things:
f <- function(x) { return(x)/stop("bad!") }
> f(1)
[1] 1
Also possibly useful:
lobstr::ast(return(O
`return` is a function. I am away from my computer right now so I can't
check, but I would expect you could create your own function named that.
Other languages have `return` statements instead.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025, 02:17 Ralf Goertz via R-help
wrote:
> I made a stupid error when programming a
Very interesting problem! Have you posted on Hacker News? This is the only
such system I have used --
https://research.google/pubs/large-scale-cluster-management-at-google-with-borg/
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 4:48 AM ivo welch wrote:
> We have about 50 different mac computers, all ARM, distributed
Hi Gregg,
Below I try to address
1) The sum constraint would apply for each set β¹ and β² i.e. sum(β¹)
= sum(β²) = 1.60
2) Just like 1) the lower and upper bounds will be applied for
individual set i.e. individual elements of β¹ are subject to lower =
c(1, -1, 0) and upper = c(2, 1, 1) and ind
I made a stupid error when programming a function. I used
> return(OR^2+6*OR+1)/(OR*se^2)
Being parenthesis blind it took me half an hour to find the reason for
the nonsensical results I got. I should have written
> return((OR^2+6*OR+1)/(OR*se^2))
Having said that why is the first variant (whi
We have about 50 different mac computers, all ARM, distributed across our
offices. They range from a few M1's with 8 GB all the way to M4's with 64
GB. (The M4 mini for $600 is an amazing compute engine!)
These computers are mostly idle overnight. We have no interest in
bitmining and SETI@home
13 matches
Mail list logo
