Title, basically. I finally got my hands on my a 3090, and I have an i9 CPU. If I use the "optimal settings" suggested by GeForce experience, I'm hovering between 20-30 fps. That's no bueno.
So my question is, just out of curiosity, what kind of rig is capable of running the EE at the highest settings if a 3090 isn't? Who do you recommend I sell my soul to obtain such a thing?
At the start of this F1 season, Williams mistakenly released a model of their current car, the FW43B, to the public via a mobile app of theirs. While this model had some issues, with a bit of work it can be used for CFD, and that's exactly what I've been working on for the last half a year.
This is the first of 3 planned articles as I work toward "accurate" results, and is entirely on the CFD methodology I'm using on this car. CFD is hard, and I'm not qualified to know if my results look good or not, so I've consulted with a number of ex-F1 aerodynamicists to critique my methods, and to identify areas with questionable accuracy.
I have it on LinkedIn for the sake of career stuff, but you won't need an account to view it.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simulating-williams-fw43bar-part-1-all-simulations-wrong-david-penner/
Enjoy!
Cast: Me= Me, K= Kevin
On mobile, so sorry for formatting.
So, I have been debating telling this story about my Kevin Neighbor from when I was a young teen. This is just a small story. I met this Kevin when I was about 13 and this particular even happened when I was 15. Kevin is about two years younger than me. This boy was the kind of kid who believed anything you told him and no, I didn't take advantage of his Kevin-ness. We were talking and I was just trying to be nice since he had no friends on the street. This was when he dropped this bombshell and his convoluted conspiracy theory about Goldfish. The animals, not the snack.Thatsmilesback.
K: "Did you know that Goldfish are smarter than a Supercomputer?!
Me: "Uh, K... They are NOT smarter than Supercomputers. Trust me."
K: "No, they ARE smarter than Supercomputers! I know they are!"
Me: "No, K. They forget what they did three seconds after doing so. It's how come they are so easy to overfeed."
K: "No! They do that on purpose to hide the fact they are so smart! They don't want to reveal their secrets!"
I resist trying to facepalm and figured this was why he had no friends. Then what he said next made me worried, not for him to hurt himself, but because of what it implied.
K: "I will prove it! I will get my parents to get me a Goldfish and I will teach it to speak so that it can reveal it's secrets!"
K then stormed off and headed home, determined to get a goldfish and teach it to speak. He never spoke about his project again, and avoided speaking of it if asked. To this day, I still have no idea how this project panned out, but I feel he never managed to teach a Goldfish to speak to him. I hope y'all enjoyed this small story about my Kevin! If anyone wants to use this anywhere else, I don't mind. Even though I doubt anyone will even find it interesting.
Edited to fix some mistakes.
In a quora post Pearce lays out his basic philosophical assumptions regarding consciousness:
>My working assumption is non-materialist physicalism. Formally, the world is completely described by the equation(s) of physics, presumably a relativistic analogue of the universal Schrödinger equation. Tentatively, I'm a wavefunction monist who believes we are patterns of qualia in a high-dimensional complex Hilbert space. Experience discloses the intrinsic nature of the physical: the “fire” in the equations. The solutions to the equations of QFT or its generalisation yield the values of qualia. What makes biological minds distinctive, in my view, isn’t subjective experience per se, but rather non-psychotic binding. Phenomenal binding is what consciousness is evolutionarily “for”. Without the superposition principle of QM, our minds wouldn't be able to simulate fitness-relevant patterns in the local environment. When awake, we are quantum minds running subjectively classical world-simulations. ...
That background should set up the online paper where he lays out the ideas in more technical philosophical (dense) language. But here's the abstract:
>Mankind's most successful story of the world, natural science, leaves the existence of consciousness wholly unexplained. The phenomenal binding problem deepens the mystery. Neither classical nor quantum physics seem to allow the binding of distributively processed neuronal micro-experiences into unitary experiential objects apprehended by a unitary phenomenal self. This paper argues that if physicalism and the ontological unity of science are to be saved, then we will need to revise our notions of both 1) the intrinsic nature of the physical and 2) the quasi-classicality of neurons. In conjunction, these two hypotheses yield a novel, bizarre but experimentally testable prediction of quantum superpositions ("Schrödinger's cat states") of neuronal feature-processors in the CNS at sub-femtosecond timescales. An experimental protocol using in vitro neuronal networks is described to confirm or empirically falsify this conjecture via molecular matter-wave interferometry.
)