> The major point on price is that it doesn't include the cost of an Azure Desktop in the cloud
Yep, the cost of the box is the cheap part.
The Cloud costs will likely exceed the cost of this HW within 6 months.
21 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Oct 2016
> This personal information flows from web and native apps on people's devices to app makers and their marketing partners, and then to data brokers who sell it on to others, and it can be had by Uncle Sam's agents without a warrant.
If the data is available to anyone offering money, then the users have already lost.
The fact that (US) national agencies pay for it, too, is only mildly annoying at this point.
FTC should make sure such data cannot be put for sale in the first place!
For mobile devices, low power is sorta obvious.
But even for desktops and datacenter, we are getting to a point where the power starts to be a real issue.
Apart from the electricity costs, all the noise created by the cooling solutions is just obnoxious.
The alternative is direct liquid cooling, with its own set of problems (and costs).
Here is where Qualcomm has a real chance.
NVIDIA has gone too much into the "high power" business lately, so they are likely vulnerable, too.
"The NVLink mesh is also only good for GPU-to-GPU communications"
I don't see why NVIDIA could not just add NVLink support to their NICs.
They own the whole stack, so it is within the realm of possibilities.
The larger problem I see is the partnership with other vendors, like Cray, that would have a hard time doing the same.
If INTEL was serious about providing alternatives to NVIDIA, it would partner with the rest of not-NVIDIA GPU ecosystem.
In particular AMD, who has a very credible GPU solution on the market already!
And they have indeed invested a lot in software to support it, too.
But, no, INTEL has to go its own path and try to make its own walled garden.
(Only INTEL really supports SYCL right now!)
I get they want to make their own lock-in, but you cannot get that when you are a niche player.
They just can't get over the idea that they are not the dominant ones anymore/in this field.
All CPUs are CISC these days.
Yes, RISC-V is technically a RISC processor, but that's just the core. Most implementations will have extension that are very "complex".
In the end, RISC-V vs ARM vs x86 performance really boils down who has the best extensions (supported in compilers and libraries), as that's where most of the compute speedup comes from.
"The base RISC-V CPU ISA is relatively light and simple, with fewer than 50 instructions, and can be extended as needed by implementers to suit their applications.... extensions include support for floating point math, atomic instructions, vector math, and so on."
Intel was clear that it was just postponing the ceremony, not the actual construction. If the so called journalists cannot parse the details, it is their problem, not Intel's.
As for sticking to the plan, and not actually delaying the construction start date:
That's how you distinguish a serious business from an exploitative one.
Intel would sure love the subsidies, but they seem to understand that they need the facility no matter what.
And this is good news for the government, as it is much more likely the (eventual) subsidies will actually be used for the stated purpose, and not just squandered in a minimal showcase.
> > The need for integrity indeed very valuable, but that could be easily achieved in a cache-friendly manner.
> The worry isn't just that content might be read, but that it might be rewritten in transit.
Which part of the above "integrity" sentence did you not understand?
integrity == "cannot be rewritten"
And can be easily solved with e.g. "server side signing", whioch is indeed cache-friendly.
No encryption needed.
Looks like they are trying to fix what they have broken themselves!
Before the hard push for HTTPS, most Web content could be cached, for example by Squid.
No need for complicated schemes to get great performance... all you needed was a HTTP cache somewhere close.
Then HTTPS-everywhere mania kicked in, and now every single load has to go back to the origin!
Most Web pages we consume have zero privacy needs; they come from public Web pages.
There is really no need for encryption in most of them!
The need for integrity indeed very valuable, but that could be easily achieved in a cache-friendly manner.
Why is/was that not done?
Just usual business interests of big players, or is there something else I cannot see?
Why should a regular user care?
Especially for something like a networked light bulb?
As long as it does what it is advertised for, that's all the final user cares about.
The real problem is the abuse of IoT for actions that are not user visible.
Like starting DDOS attacks.
We need to make manufacturers responsible for any actions of their devices that were not explicitly advertised to the users. Then the manufacturers will start paying attention!
It is really not fair to blame the final users.