weebull

It's no different to desktops IMHO. The used market on parts is quite healthy.

There's a class of code where you never need to read it because it's effect is well understood and it does it without problems. It has the right level of abstraction to be useful in multiple places and not specific to a singular case. It's not going to be top level code, but it's a building block you know you can rely on.

This is something I think functional styles of programming lead more naturally towards than OO or procedural. It's far easier to separate concerns when you can pass around like bundles of functionality (i e. first order functions). Also it really helps when you are used to writing code with no dependency except what is passed in, and not effect except what is returned. Then thhen you're sure that the code is not leaky in it's abstraction.

You can do it in other paradigms, but it's it's not where the language naturally leads you. OO has retained state as a key foundation of it's philosophy. Procedural code tends to mix up the how something is done and the what is being done. (e.g. the iteration through a data structure, with the definition of what is being searched for).

> Dead is dead, though. I do not think the final moments matter as much as all the years before them.

Well indeed. How many people give up what they love because of the fear that it will kill them? This man kept his love for aviation alive until the end.

Composability.

This does not mean "it's a small component in a dedicated pipeline". It means "this is a component that's useful in many pipelines".

This sounds superb. We need more coverage than just North America though.

*swell

I always heard it as "if the database index fits in the RAM of a single machine, it's not big data". The reason being that this makes random access fast. You always know where a piece of data is.

Once the index is too big to have in one place, thing get more complicated.

Red flag - walk away. Interview did it's job.

And in audio, that meets the definition of really bad latency.

> With its perpetually upturned pectoral fins, and blunt nose, the Dream Chaser looks more like a killer whale than a spacecraft.

Hard disagree. It definitely looks like a space craft.

I was going to ask "What's an Ana and why are we cutting it?"

Not containers, but cgroups, and that is how HPC clusters work today. You still need multiple users though.

Not a GPU for sure. Not really a DSP either.

I would call it an array processor.

...because it knows that the next token in the sequence "the 5th letter in the word _illusion_ is" happens to be "s". Not because it decomposed the word into letters.

> I honestly think the very readable specification has been a boon for RISC-V and possibly part of the reason why people continue to find it easy to pick up.

Totally agree

> If you are unsure about something in the spec, there's also a multitude of RISC-V emulators out there, probably several in your favorite language already.

...but this is a problem. This means that it's not the specification saying what the standard is, but an implementation. People copying different implementations get different behaviours.

...because those are normally proprietary documents.

ARM, for example, put a tonne of effort into decoupling their ISA specification from their implementations, and guard this document.

You're seeing how the sausage is made.

I recommend Emacs + verilog-mode.

> The loss of Taiwan and with it TSMC — the thinking goes — would result in a global tech meltdown.

The irony is that for most of the tech industry TSMC is unavailable. Nvidia, Apple and AMD have booked all the manufacturing slots for the foreseeable future. It's been this way since 2020.

Yes, their loss would have a huge effect, but many are having to cope with that situation today.

You can't really take out the censorship. You can strengthen pathways which work around the damage, but the damage is still there.

It's a great book, and one my father recommended to me to get me through the concepts when I was having trouble with the standardised teaching of the day.

It comes down to Leibnitz Vs Newton, and the world has standardised on the notation of one (I forget which). However the notation is a destination when learning it all, and the foundational ideas behind calculus were best explained taking ideas from both of them.

That's what this book does. It takes you through with every simple jumps in logic allowing you to discover calculus yourself and you therefore have the foundations to reason about it yourself. You don't just have to learn the final answers by rote.

> The Quake engine was iirc the first "real" 3D engine.

There were many 3D engines before Quake. You had a bunch of Micropose combat flight sims, a ton of 3d driving games, even Elite on the BBC micro.

Hell, I'd written some 3D graphics on the Atari ST before Quake.

Quake was the first 3D texture mapped, dynamically lit, first person shooter...maybe...depending on your definition. It was certainly one of the first to have that ran at frame rates around 30fps.

As others have said, Descent was also around the same time too.

Threads on Mastodon, but...

> 1. Threads users can't reply to Mastodon comments or see them in Threads. > 2. Threads users can be followed by Mastodon accounts but they will not be notified nor can they follow back. > 3. Likes from Mastodon are not counted toward your Threads like count

...it's not Masterdon on Threads.

LLMs don't know anything except the most frequent observed response to a context made up of a sequence of tokens.

How often do the words "I don't know" get uttered in books, papers, articles, stack overflow, or any other resource of knowledge?

> > “There was no ‘zero-error’ policy. Mistakes were treated statistically,” said a source who used Lavender. > > What is the "zero-error" alternative approach for dropping bombs in a war, or firing rockets for that matter? I don't understand the implicit comparison between this approach to targeting and a hypothetical approach that allows war to be waged without any innocents dying or buildings being destroyed. This system should be compared to whatever the real alternative is when it comes to target selection.

I think you've misunderstood the "zero-error" statement. It's not saying "there must be zero errors", rather that "errors don't exist - only some level of collateral damage". Hence the follow up about things being viewed statistically.

They view it in the same way that you suggest they should - that there will always be deaths and the questions is whether the system leads to more or less of them.

Personally I view that as a very utilitarian argument when applied to a machine of war. It embeds the concept that some loss of innocent life is acceptable.

It doesn't need to make anybody rich, but it should support its development in a fashion where the authors aren't worse off.

It's a problem they planned for.

> Why do we need cars? Horses work fine already > > Why do we need smartphones? Blackberry works fine already

...but there's a difference. Op isn't saying "why AI?"

- why do we need supercars, cars are just fine? - why do we need megaphones, phones are just fine?

Just as a general comment on this topic...

The fact that people complain about the performance of the mechanism that enables the system to be profiled, and so performance problems be identified, is beyond ironic. Surely the epitome of premature optimisation.

> The advantage of storing them elsewhere is not quite clear (unless you have hardware support for things like shadow stacks).

The classic buffer overflow issue should spring immediately to mind. By having a separate return address stack it's far less vulnerable to corruption through overflowing your data structures. This stops a bunch of attacks which purposely put crafted return addresses into position that will jump the program to malicious code.

It's not a panacea, but generally keeping code pointers away from data structures is a good idea.

Those pathological cases are really what inlining is for, with the exception of any tiny recursive functions that can't be tail call optimised.