C and C++ are different
C started as a "systems language" I guess, but that's a less than meaningful term if you want to discuss (dis)advantages of a language.
C++ is designed to design languages AND is a good choice for "system programming" also.
139 posts • joined 10 Mar 2015
I think you're sort of trivializing the discussion.
I understood RISC to be about hardware efficiency - what is it optimized for, how much chip real-estate is devoted to rarely used instructions.
As a hardware goal, RISC was about optimized chip features, and more regular timings, to get higher frequencies. From that pov you could say "RISC won", but really it's "x86 evolved along the demands raised by RISC"
In terms of ISA, CISC has survived and been extended, aided by innovation like micro-ops and better memory controller designs.
This sounds like hyperbole
"For example, AMD’s 5300U and Ryzen 5500U were saddled with a Zen 2 core ... "
Because the chip market is competititve, there is a truism : retail cost reflects performance, regardless of underlying tech. AMD is competing with Intel and themselves on Performance/$. When they intro new tech, it is priced to fit on that curve.
The technical details are interesting, even cool, and if you are bleeding edge, they may matter. But if you are just interested in running apps, price is a good proxy for *relative* ranking. Maybe performance / watt matters, but again, that's pretty competitive these days.
Seems like they are simply looking to avoid false positives, so that devs don't need to chase those down.
This is a sound approach :
"Govulncheck analyzes your codebase and only surfaces vulnerabilities that actually affect you, based on which functions in your code are transitively calling vulnerable functions ... "
Speeding is just a proxy for actually dangerous driving practices.
It's a cheap way out because the police do not have to exercise or prove judgement, they can just point to the radar numbe to claim they are managing driving safety.
If police want to make traffic safer, the have to enforce things like legal turns, lane discipline, paying attention, aggressive driving.
Thaler has filed complaints against the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the UK's Intellectual Property Office, the European Patent Office, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, and Australia's Commissioner of Patents, seeking to have his AI system's patents granted.
Cake walk !
Thaler's arguments don't make sense.
One, I don't think that corporations can be inventors, however their employees can be contractually required to assign patent rights.
Two, Any economic benefit is to the patent holder, not society in general (unless the patent device is able to be comoditized ).
Three, I don't understand why Thaler can't patent his AI's "invention" for himself.
Four, Is it possible that his AI was trained with Copyright or Patented inputs, and that in reality, his AI's invention is owned by those rights holders
You are inventing a story that doesn't exist. Your scenarios are wildly speculative, and in fact wrong - you're basically arguing that because the cow enjoys the "benefits" of being on the cow farm, it shouldn't complain about the consequences.
If you accept that cyberspace allows widespread governement hacking, might that put a practical limit on the applications people will accept as using the internet ?
For example, these Medical devices would be a hard sell for me :
Not that corprations won't participate in malicous corporate hacking, but it's easier to cast governments as villans in this case.
Because, then they'd sort of be competing with themselves, based on cost.
More likely AMD would come out with an AM4-7000 CPU after AM5 is established. And then I'm not sure how compelling the upgrade would be.
The current Ryzen 7000 might offer 10-15% performance increase at the same TDP. Maybe a later version would offer more capability.
And an AM4 would have to share fab capacity with the AM5.
More likey AM4 will continue on in lower-power lower-cost segments.
But I'm only guessing, AMD could see the business justifications differently. the 3D V-cache was a surprise release.
First, it assumes that humanity NEEDS to continue consuming current levels of power, as a justification for Nuclear.
However, that's not a mitigation for the dangers. Whatever level of energy that we can produce, sustainably, that's what we should be limited to.
More concretely, about that danger, in the form of waste ...
This article and several of the comments below and even general sentiment doesn't seem to give this problem enough weight..
Below is a link to a technical discussion of the problem, and the amount of effort that needs to be put into a solution. But I'll quote from it's synopsis here:
" More than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in storage near nuclear power plants and weapons production facilities worldwide ... Emitting radiation that can pose serious risks to human health and the environment, the waste, much of it decades old, awaits permanent disposal in geological repositories, but none are operational".
"All these wastes can remain dangerously radioactive for many thousands of years."
On a related point, the WIPP plans are pretty cool. This is a good, thought-provoking presentation of them.
are you referring to. Keep in mind this is a leak, and there is nothing about timeline
Are you talking about oveclocking ? Maybe there's a practical reason that has nothing to do with sku-binning. That's the case dor the 5800x3d.
On a side issue, what performance increase is typically available through overclocking ?
It's the news org's policy and business plan that dictates if they hire real news reporters, or twitter screen scrapers. And I hate screen captures masquerading as news stories.
The huge irony is that this case will feature Elon's twitter feed as court evidence. Delightful.
The delaware court is a purpose-built commercial law factory. The judges and lawyers specialize in contract law, etc. so that they can resolve these disputes within the time line of the agreement.
That's one of the reasons they are the jurisdiction of incorporation for large numbers of businesses.
Except that, the statement is an emotional observation. It is not a edict; it is a direct statement of auser problem. The idea "You want me to work in a box that I don't fit in" is a fine starting point. GO back at them and ask for details and specific examples.
It is not, in my vierw toxic. not even offensive. Annoying, a little immature.
There are many answers.
First, HR is not a profession in the sense that there are standards or accreditation, so the "talent" pool is wiiiide open. Ethics are not a key job point
Second, virtually every HR dept's job is to protect upper management from themselves. Full stop. Everything else they do is a front.
As a result, the key personal attribute of any one working in HR is to figure out what any given exec wants, and make sure that it happens. As safely as possible.
This is a "culture" item and probably anyone that can't buy into that self selects themselves out into another career path.
" the IBM legal team will be able to argue successfully that each of the programs listed include commercially sensitive client data and any redundancies that took place were done so as part of the quite legal TUPE legislation in place in each territory."
There are a lot of assumptions there.
IBM couldn't design a TUPE action that's also ageist ?
IBM couldn't use the action as cover for ageist firing of current employees as "redundant".
Commercially sensitive will give cover for something ?
IBM will be successfull ?
If that list leads to this, or more disclosure I am pretty sure it's not a gift that IBM wants to keep.
I started wondering when I read the report "summary" statement
"We should all trust unknown developers why, exactly?"
But, a good thoughtful article in any case. And shouldn't the question really be:
"We should trust an unknown individual / entitiy weilding a blockchain token as an identity shield why, exactly ?"
Seems more like people waving their arms shouting 'look at me I have evolutionary opinions'
"C isn't close to the metal " ??? let's ask the GCC manual what it thinks
6.47 How to Use Inline Assembly Language in C Code
Someone in commments provided a link the the article "your computer is not a PDP-11". It's more reasoned, BUT it's attribution of the problems to "C programmers" is flat out wrong. Specualtive execution is a hack on the part of the industry to wedge in parallelism without disrupting the skills required to keep on working.
For years as a C programmer I looked for something that made parallelism better than threads and processes and semaphors. I found some decent academic proposals, but nobody wanted to create a break in the language/libs/build env.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022