It’s not a barrier because there is nothing qualitatively different at 999 vs 1000. It’s just a goal.
This is not condescending to the field at all. Crossing an arbitrary goal that is very difficult to get to is still impressive. Just stop using the “breaking the barrier” phrase.
I am being condescending about the effort put into the distributed systems field- very specifically, about classical supercomputers.
How close was I to faculty in AMPLab? Pretty close; I attended a retreat one year, helped steer funding their way, tried to hire Matei into Google Research, and have chatted with Patterson extensively around the time he wrote this (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/science/david-patterson-e...) then later when he worked on TPUs at Google.
(I'm not a stellar researcher or anything, really more of a functionary, but the one thing I do have is an absolutely realistic understanding of how academic and industrial HPC works)
> > It's mainly about setting goals that are 10-15 years away to stimulate spending and research.
> And that's not a barrier to you?
In what way is that a barrier? Barrier and goal aren't synonymous, it's just marketing speak that confuses them.
Running a marathon is not a barrier, it's a goal, even if many people can't reach it. A combat zone at the halfway point of the marathon is a barrier because it requires a completely different approach to solve.
We most likely crossed paths. How close were you to faculty in AMPLab?
> It's mainly about setting goals that are 10-15 years away to stimulate spending and research.
And that's not a barrier to you?
That feels very condescending about applied research or the amount of effort put into the entire Distributed Systems field.