This is a good point. I think we get a couple of emails a week for exactly this kind of bottom feeder 'consulting firm' 'offering' to tell us all about some massive security issue they found, as long as we sign up for a 'consulting engagement'[1]. On the other hand, we generally ignore them, not threaten to sue them.
[1] We get about as many 'pay us a bounty or we'll tell the world about this horrid vulnerability we found'. I have suggested to legal we treat those like extortion attempts to make them go away and stop wasting our time but legal doesn't want to spend time on it.
Back in the day, Alpha and HPPA were commonly used as examples of 'with all this extra stuff is it still RISC?'. These days, I think the CISC/RISC divide is largely an historical artifact.
I think the idea of simplicity is still relevant, but the problem is not as simple as (no pun) having a certain look to your ISA anymore. ISA transformed to something unrecognisable 2-3 steps into the pipeline, the rest of the CPU doesn't see much of the ISA.
Maybey we should abandon "reduced instruction set" and instead evaluate how ISA is suitable for out of order execution or speculative execution or backtracking and so on
Fair. Personally, I think the idea of simplicity is still relevant for pedagogy (as it always is), but one you rope in 'suitable for out of order execution or speculative execution or backtracking and so on' as criteria, 'simple' is harder to achieve (at least for practical commercial designs). YMMV.
Ya...IBM and CDC both had/have architectures that heavily distributed tasks to subprocessors of various sorts. Pretty much dates to the invention of large-scale computers.
You also have things like the IBM Cell processor from PS3 days: a PowerPC 'main' processor with 7 "Synergistic Processing Elements" that could be offloaded to. The SPEs were kinda like the current idea of 'big/small processors' a la ARM, except SPEs are way dumber and much harder to program.
Of course, specialized math, cryptographic and compression processors have been around forever. And you can even look at something like SCSI, where virtually all of the intelligence for working the drive was offloaded to the drive ccontroller.
The OP is using 'modern art' as a derogatory term; I doubt very much they care about accuracy. I doubt a trip to MoMA would be enlightening. It's just a hand wave across 'all those things about art I don't understand are bad'.
This is a very confused comment chain. Anyway, my use of "modern" was not relative to art history periods, but in the naive, common-sense form: it's happening currently and in the very recent past.
And I've seen plenty of contemporary art, read my share of ARTNews articles, and read plenty of artist's statements. I'm enlightened enough - there's great and terrible art being made now, just like there was in 1750. But the frisson of "art talk" happening currently is what I was referring to, and I'd separate that from the merits of the art itself.
That said, I will now channel the curmudgeon you describe and observe that some contemporary artists seem to put a great deal of effort into the art talk side of presenting their work, as though the art talk is in fact part of the piece. And I get it, it kind of is, and nothing exists outside of a context. But as a viewer I just don't want someone talking in my ear telling me what to think.
> The sole person running this site doesn't find the same things interesting than you do.
That misses the point. I know the site is run by a single maintainer and they are free to accept or decline whatever they choose. I have no qualms about it.
> The sense of entitlement displayed is really breathtaking.
Calling something "entitlement" is an easy way to shut down discussion without engaging with the argument. Labeling a concern instead of addressing it feels like a weak response. Good thing is that the maintainer did address my concern in a separate reply instead of just shrugging it off as "entitlement" and for that I'm thankful to him.
I respect the maintainer's authority over their own site. The only thing I am asking for is a bit of courtesy in return for the effort spent curating and submitting material. I do not expect submissions to be accepted, only that rejected ones receive a brief acknowledgement. If expecting that minimal level of courtesy counts as entitlement, then so be it. We all operate within a shared community, and I am only asking for the kind of consideration I try to extend to others myself.
If you missed it, I've also apologized to the maintainer for being a pain in these threads. My comments come off as overly negative and I'm aware of that. For that I apologize. But I also want to say that my frustration comes from putting effort into collecting good blogs (retrocomputing and gaming kind), submitting them, and then seeing no response or action. The maintainer has since explained that there's a large backlog which makes the situation understandable.
So in the end, all I can do is apologize. But suggesting that I'm somehow challenging the maintainer's right to make decisions about their own project is both inaccurate and disingenuous.
Calling something "entitlement" is an easy way to shut down discussion without engaging with the argument.
I have evaluated your discussion. I have read as many of your 'explanations' of your argument until I got a headache from rolling my eyes so hard. I find it petulant and entitled, and I called it out as such. Obviously, no discussion was shut down because here you are.
The only thing I am asking for is a bit of courtesy in return for the effort spent curating and submitting material.
And everyone else on the thread has made clear you are not owed this. No, the maintainer is not obligated to respond to every random submission to validate the time you took.
But suggesting that I'm somehow challenging the maintainer's right to make decisions about their own project is both inaccurate and disingenuous.
You clearly said a couple of lines up "The only thing I am asking for is a bit of courtesy in return for the effort spent curating and submitting material." You have done nothing but argue for your entitlement to tell the maintainer they are obligated to stroke your ego for submitting something. "Inaccurate and disingenuous" indeed.
These guys made one of the most amazing tables for someone I know: https://rustictradesfurniture.com/. If you said "you're not a carpenter because you aren't slapping 2x4s together", you'd get a wry chuckle that means 'who is this idiot'.
I think people forget this. I know a lot of folks that looked at D back when it needed to win mindshare to compete with the currently en vogue alternatives, and every one of them nope'd out on the licensing. By the time they FOSS'ed it, they'd all made decisions for the alternative, and here we are.
Thank you very much for the lordly recognition with ‘they’. You know, "sync" in the context of electronic music hardware is understood as "midi sync" or "pulsed sync signal". How should I should sync the arp of this Atari cartdrige to the tempo and pulse of a song that also includes other instruments? If I can't, it is only usable as a stand-alone instrument, which is of course totally legitimate.
Who, exactly, is holding them back now?
reply