I never understood why people calculate time savings like this.
Similar for a developer 1 times 5 hours yields not the same producitiy/results as 5 times 1 hours, due to "context switching overhead" for example.
Claiming you saved a couple of lifetimes when all you can gain is a couple of seconds is so misleading.
Saw this on twitter along with a snarky remark about raising the retirement age. Cant find the tweet anymore and the article doesnt say, but is retirement age affected by this reform ?
> What kind of rollercoaster ride has more than ~10-20 g forces ?
I suppose that a regular crash but with a lucky ending can do a significant damage to phone in the pocket, because while the body is losing speed slowly, the phone and other things in pocket can hit the road hardly and ricochet with insane acceleration. I am a fan of downhill but I never carry my phone during that kind of ride when I am acknowledged about high chances of my crash. And in that risky kind of event I would rather go bombing the hill with a friend who can give me a proper help than rely on some computer.
Its been a while since I've dealt with this, is this something similar to the CORDIC algorithm ? Couple of years ago I implemented it in VHDL, very fun exercise.
On the same note, I find it very annoying that my AirPods dont work with msteams.
It used to work on my iphone but now even that doesnt work, I have to take one out, otherwise the airpods are trapped in a disconnect-reconnect loop.
I feel teleported to the stone age everytime I have to switch to my wired earbuds, just to attend my daily.
And theres nothing I can do as a user other than buy another pair of earphones.
Are you sure you're not having some kind of weird hardware issue? I've been using AirPods Pro 1 & 2 for a few years and they are working fine with Teams. I don't have the regular version, only the pro, so there's a small chance that this is only limited to that.
I think you may have some issue with your hardware. I have 3 generations of airpods and they all work with Teams across my iPhone, MacBook Pro and even on my Windows 10 desktop.
This, but unironically. Their formula (11) involves basics (sums and products), the only nontrivial part would be the partial partitions, and for that the first paragraph of chapter 2 explains how to get it from ordinary partitions, which is a standard function.
It seems that AMD is losing the performance crown for consumer PCs for both single threaded and multithreaded workloads at high efficiencies. I love AMD, but it does seem that Intel is back and at worse neck and neck. It isn't clear if it can clearly pull ahead.
This isn't great for AMD's stock, the boom times may be over?
What confuses me is that AMD still has a huge lead for server CPUs. I have not seen massive adoption of AMD in the cloud yet.
Intel can reach equal or better performance than AMD only at higher power consumption.
At equal number of active cores and equal power consumption, an AMD CPU has a much higher clock frequency than an Intel CPU. At equal number of active cores and equal clock frequency, an AMD CPU has a much lower power consumption than an Intel CPU.
For desktop and laptop CPUs, Intel can win with this higher power consumption strategy, especially in single-threaded applications, where the fact that Raptor Lake has a higher IPC than Zen 4 also helps.
On the other hand, for server and workstation CPUs, Intel cannot benefit from this trick, because those CPUs are used in multi-threaded applications where they run constantly in thermally-limited conditions.
The Intel Sapphire Rapids CPUs have from many points of view a superior design in comparison with AMD Genoa, but they are severely handicapped by the inferior manufacturing process used by Intel.
Because of that, the Sapphire Rapids CPUs have low clock frequencies when all cores are active and small cache memories. This ensures that they are no match for AMD Genoa and they barely match the previous generation of AMD server CPUs.
The manufacturing process disadvantage is compounded by the stupid Intel policy of randomly disabling various features in most SKUs, with the exception of those that are ridiculously expensive.
This policy ensures that the benchmarks published for Intel are excessively optimistic, because they show the top SKUs, while the SKUs that most people have are crippled, so they may have a much lower performance.
So in servers the Intel CPUs are not competitive at all, except for various special applications where the CPU performance matters very little, e.g. when the cheapest SKUs are good enough for providing a big memory and many PCIe lanes, or when it is acceptable to pay Intel to enable the included accelerators, because the application can benefit from them.
Each brand has its strengths and weaknesses. AMD isn't dominating anymore, but they are still ahead in areas such as AVX512 (absent in Intel Core), the ability to mount more than 8 performant cores in a chip (Intel's intra-core communication architecture is difficult to scale, hence their new P+E approach, which fortunately seems to work well), and their ability to take advantage of the multi-chip process to mount absurd amounts of cache. The multi-chip approach is also a tech advantage that allows them to cut costs.
(Disclaimer: I work at Intel, but not on server products. Opinions are my own.)
There's a lot more that goes into a server platform than just the cores, for instance: the BIOS code, the BMC support, the maturity of the motherboard designs, etc. These are all areas where Intel seems to still have an edge -- but I'm also very excited about our upcoming server architectures on the core/compute side.
> What confuses me is that AMD still has a huge lead for server CPUs. I have not seen massive adoption of AMD in the cloud yet.
This was years ago so the tide may've shifted but: part of it could still be vendor experience and "it works"-experience?
When EPYC gen 1 & 2 came out, we were shopping for a bare metal megaserver spec at work. I got a budget and free rein (except it had to be Dell), and I really wanted to pick EPYC for the better core clocks (which were significant in our build architecture) and more cores and better cost.
With one EPYC spec and one Xeon Gold spec built (EPYC was I think $13k vs $15k?), work was a bit uneasy about AMD processors just yet. Our workload was MSVC compilation but they were concerned about architecture differences, since all of our workstations & laptops were Intels. They preferred paying more because "we already have Xeon servers and they're proven".
So, we ended up getting the Xeon Gold spec instead.
What do you want to verify exactly? Do you think Apple is lying about what lockdown mode does? Why would they do that?
Could you at least say what your opinion is based on?
But it is possible to verify what it does, the same way you would for an android phone (I.e. not just look at the source code and hope that it matches what’s running on your device).
https://youtu.be/8mQAYeozl5I
At 26:42 he talks about lockdown mode. Would be a bit weird if he lied about the impact lockdown mode has.
What if he’s wrong? Computers do things their programmers don’t expect them to literally all the time. Security bugs generally come from a mistaken assumption about how something behaves.
He doesn’t have to be a liar to be telling you untruths about how it works.
My android comment was taking yours, turning it around and taking it to the extreme to illustrate a point.
And no, I never asked why we would need to verify the security researcher’s claims (but sure, you should).
1. Dma54rhs says Apple’s (!) claims supposedly can’t be verified and that you need to take Apple’s word for it
2. I ask why not, provide a link to a talk about iOS security by a renown security researcher as both an example of how to verify Apple’s claims (reverse engineer iOS) and to lend some credence to the point that they are likely to be true
3. You talk about the researcher and/or programmers being wrong by replying with an “orthogonal” comment containing “whataboutism”.
Edit: Could we please talk about the actual topic? Do you or someone else know about instances where Apple lied about mitigations like lockdown mode before? Maybe there’s a long history of it and I just don’t know. Or is there some other flaw in my logic?
There is always the argument about hidden bugdoors, backdoored compilers or whatnot. But that’s not practical, by then you might as well stop using technology.
If Apple can’t be trusted then why can you trust google? Or Qualcomm?
You’re the one derailing from the actual topic, which was broadly can we trust our devices and specifically can we trust iOS, by muddying the water with what-about-android. The question wasn’t which we can trust more, the question was whether and how much we can trust Apple.
You can’t verify that iOS is doing what Apple says that it’s doing, because you can’t read the code. You can’t trust that Apple perfectly understands their product, because it’s extremely complicated, and therefore you can’t just take their word for it. I’ll state that the check here, although it’s painfully obvious, is that exploits happen. Researcher opinions are fine, but facts are better.
None of this is in any way contentious or new, it’s the exact debate about open-vs-closed that we’ve been having since the beginning of software.
This is honestly very convenient. If I ever accidentally delete a picture I can just ask adobe for a backup. Very consumer consious decision on adobes part.
You do realise that becoming a 10x dev will mean you're getting underpaid? It's better to become a 0.1x developer so you're sure you're getting the better end of the deal ;).
Speaking as a 10x dev, this is truth. I have felt underpaid most of my career. After 30 years, I don’t give as much at work anymore. I bought a farm and most of my energy goes there instead. I suggest wishing for a healthy balanced life. No happiness comes from being undervalued and underutilized.
Claiming you saved a couple of lifetimes when all you can gain is a couple of seconds is so misleading.