We're looking at two distinct problems here. One is indeed most likely also something that affects other processors, but fortunately this bug is dependent on some very specific events and situations. The other one is as far as we can tell now Intel-specific. This is also the one that can be fixed "easily" in software, but will probably result in a performance hit.
How big, well, we'll see. Since we can't do much else right now but sit, wait and look what that fallout will be like, we can just as well do just that and benchmark the processors again once the dust settles.
You're aware that we're talking about a design flaw, not something as trivial as changing a few photons in the etching process, yes? What you're looking at could well be a fundamental redesign of the complete processor. This is probably the biggest disaster Intel has faced, bigger than the much more trivial little bug they had in the FPU of the first Pentium.
We're looking at something that may well cause Intel to throw away much of the work that went into the next processor generation and starting large parts of the instruction pipelines pretty much from scratch. By the time you can buy an Intel CPU where that bug is fixed, you probably bought 2 AMD CPUs waiting for it.
Fun fact: Animals (at least more complex ones) are divided into two clades, Prostostomes and Deuterostomes, with the latter being most of the higher animals, including us. The dividing factor is based on which "end" of the digestive tract forms first. In Protostomes, the mouth is formed first, in Deuterostomes, it's the anus.
In other words, at the beginning of our life, we all are, for a time, just assholes.
Actually I can't help but challenge the claim that everyone has some kind of belief. I need not believe space is metric. I can actually question it, test it and can by simple sensory input verify that it is. Can I trust my sensory input? I have to. It's all I have. A speculation about whether the sensors that are at my disposal are actually accurate or whether they are manipulated (the whole "brain in a vat" thing) is moot since I cannot falsify it. I can test whether my sensory input agrees with the outcome of me acting upon it. So if I'm drunk and think I can keep my balance, I can easily determine by hitting the ground head first that my input is bogus and needs to be corrected. But as long as every input I get about the world is consistent not only with my expectations but also with what is established (and verified) as correct, I have to consider this to correspond with reality as I know it.
So belief does not really enter the equation. Something is or is not. You can make assumptions based on your observations but there isn't really anything you have to "believe".
I do agree that the English (and most other languages) are rather ambiguous when it comes to terms like "belief". Because the word is used to describe both "assuming as true without evidence" and "assuming as a hypothesis to be tested". Personally I prefer the word "assumption" for the latter since it better describes what it actually is: Something that you formulate as an assumption based on observation, requiring testing for verification or falsification.
Yes, it really boosts your sales, especially internationally, when the press tells everyone your CPUs are insecure crap. That's why the Intel boss sold his shares in time because he knew that it's going to be a big boon for his company when everyone learns about the problem.
People, I love a good conspiracy theory like the next guy, but try to create some that are at least plausible.
Damn right, that's not how you play/., you insist that you're right and make a complete ass out of yourself. You can't just go and say "my bad", that's not allowed here.
Just because something is easy doesn't mean that it is comfortable. It's easy to learn enough physics that a concept like "flat earth" is at best comical, yet there are people who believe it.
People are generally more inclined to believe than to know. Because it's easier. Believing just requires one thing: Believing. That's trivial to do (provided you can, I cannot... long story). Simply proclaim that "I believe" and you're in.
Knowing requires more effort. You can't simply state that "I know". Because knowing requires understanding, which in turn might require prior knowledge to base your new knowledge on. That can be daunting if you don't know jack shit to begin with.
It's easy for a human to learn how to tell information from opinion. I managed to do it, so can everyone else. And thus it's also easy for a human to see whether that AI is actually "intelligent" enough to do its job or not.
Yes, that means you actually have to audit it yourself if you want to know whether it is "honest" or whether someone wants to pass his opinion off as information. Wow, what a surprise.
As long as the rest of the "news" is still available, it's trivial for any educated person to find out whether what the AI filters out is actually news or whether it's been doctored to become a propaganda tool.
If it's the latter, throw it away and get a new one. That's the beauty of it, as long as you still have access to the base material, you can decide to start over.
Then we could actually start watching the news again. With PR, speculation, opinion pieces and other bull gone, what's left shouldn't take longer than 5 minutes to read.
The older ones here will remember that this scenario is not new. Remember dial-up? In the good ol' days of the internet, landlines used to have flat rates. You could make local calls without being charged by the minute. Why? Because phone companies knew that you wouldn't do that 24/7. Who in their sane mind would be on the phone all the time? Well, except for some old hags who don't have anything better to do, but old hags were few and far between. They could easily oversell 50:1 or even 100:1 (50 phones sharing 1 line) because people simply didn't use the resource as much as they technically could.
Then came the internet and suddenly, being connected 24/7 became increasingly interesting. And that model of overselling phone lines was put under severe stress. To the point where telcos either had to run more cable or see their business fail. Some tried to return to metered lines but the resistance to something like this was immense, mostly because people felt the pain themselves, it cut into their own bottom line (unlike now where the loss of net neutrality mostly hits the other side directly, the content provider).
These unmetered, flat-rate phone lines had a very beneficial effect on the internet in general, though. Unlike in Europe where metered local calls were the norm, the adoption of internet use outside of universities took off in the US almost a decade before anything close to it happened in Europe, where only in areas serviced by cable TV providers you could get affordable internet at home during the 90s. It took well into the 2000s for Europe to catch up, mostly due to the standard of metered local calls (with prices of about 5 bucks an hour, you just couldn't stay online for more than a few minutes to check mail).
The second push, the move towards DSL, came from the telcos that wanted to get people off the overused and severely strained dial-up lines. The idea was that with faster speeds they could start introducing transfer limits, and the plan actually worked (mostly), until they had time to catch up with the hardware roll-out of more cabling and routing.
If phone lines had been metered all the time, the internet would probably still be the pastime of a few university students and people rich enough to not give a shit about 50-100 bucks a day for their hobby.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he doesn't know much about Facebook.
We're looking at two distinct problems here. One is indeed most likely also something that affects other processors, but fortunately this bug is dependent on some very specific events and situations. The other one is as far as we can tell now Intel-specific. This is also the one that can be fixed "easily" in software, but will probably result in a performance hit.
How big, well, we'll see. Since we can't do much else right now but sit, wait and look what that fallout will be like, we can just as well do just that and benchmark the processors again once the dust settles.
You're aware that we're talking about a design flaw, not something as trivial as changing a few photons in the etching process, yes? What you're looking at could well be a fundamental redesign of the complete processor. This is probably the biggest disaster Intel has faced, bigger than the much more trivial little bug they had in the FPU of the first Pentium.
We're looking at something that may well cause Intel to throw away much of the work that went into the next processor generation and starting large parts of the instruction pipelines pretty much from scratch. By the time you can buy an Intel CPU where that bug is fixed, you probably bought 2 AMD CPUs waiting for it.
Fun fact: Animals (at least more complex ones) are divided into two clades, Prostostomes and Deuterostomes, with the latter being most of the higher animals, including us. The dividing factor is based on which "end" of the digestive tract forms first. In Protostomes, the mouth is formed first, in Deuterostomes, it's the anus.
In other words, at the beginning of our life, we all are, for a time, just assholes.
Actually I can't help but challenge the claim that everyone has some kind of belief. I need not believe space is metric. I can actually question it, test it and can by simple sensory input verify that it is. Can I trust my sensory input? I have to. It's all I have. A speculation about whether the sensors that are at my disposal are actually accurate or whether they are manipulated (the whole "brain in a vat" thing) is moot since I cannot falsify it. I can test whether my sensory input agrees with the outcome of me acting upon it. So if I'm drunk and think I can keep my balance, I can easily determine by hitting the ground head first that my input is bogus and needs to be corrected. But as long as every input I get about the world is consistent not only with my expectations but also with what is established (and verified) as correct, I have to consider this to correspond with reality as I know it.
So belief does not really enter the equation. Something is or is not. You can make assumptions based on your observations but there isn't really anything you have to "believe".
I do agree that the English (and most other languages) are rather ambiguous when it comes to terms like "belief". Because the word is used to describe both "assuming as true without evidence" and "assuming as a hypothesis to be tested". Personally I prefer the word "assumption" for the latter since it better describes what it actually is: Something that you formulate as an assumption based on observation, requiring testing for verification or falsification.
Really? Which one? The one from your competitor that allegedly does not have that bug?
Yes, it really boosts your sales, especially internationally, when the press tells everyone your CPUs are insecure crap. That's why the Intel boss sold his shares in time because he knew that it's going to be a big boon for his company when everyone learns about the problem.
People, I love a good conspiracy theory like the next guy, but try to create some that are at least plausible.
Should've bought some in my country, too.
Damn right, that's not how you play /., you insist that you're right and make a complete ass out of yourself. You can't just go and say "my bad", that's not allowed here.
I so unsubbed to your channel!
Just because something is easy doesn't mean that it is comfortable. It's easy to learn enough physics that a concept like "flat earth" is at best comical, yet there are people who believe it.
People are generally more inclined to believe than to know. Because it's easier. Believing just requires one thing: Believing. That's trivial to do (provided you can, I cannot... long story). Simply proclaim that "I believe" and you're in.
Knowing requires more effort. You can't simply state that "I know". Because knowing requires understanding, which in turn might require prior knowledge to base your new knowledge on. That can be daunting if you don't know jack shit to begin with.
The AI does not assess truth but information. There is a difference, ya know?
It's easy for a human to learn how to tell information from opinion. I managed to do it, so can everyone else. And thus it's also easy for a human to see whether that AI is actually "intelligent" enough to do its job or not.
Yes, that means you actually have to audit it yourself if you want to know whether it is "honest" or whether someone wants to pass his opinion off as information. Wow, what a surprise.
As long as the rest of the "news" is still available, it's trivial for any educated person to find out whether what the AI filters out is actually news or whether it's been doctored to become a propaganda tool.
If it's the latter, throw it away and get a new one. That's the beauty of it, as long as you still have access to the base material, you can decide to start over.
Then we could actually start watching the news again. With PR, speculation, opinion pieces and other bull gone, what's left shouldn't take longer than 5 minutes to read.
And yet I didn't give a shit about the crusade either. I am old. I have to pick my wars, and I tend to pick the ones that make sense.
So we now have the first darker skinned person hated by BOTH sides of the political spectrum? Right for skin, left for content?
He does. But he hopes you don't.
Their skull are impenetrable for facts. Or at least they routinely refuse to let them affect them.
Burning an effigy just ain't the same as the real deal.
Mind if I bookmark this for later use?
He's one of those people that are still alive for the sole reason that he's just not worth a second of jail time.
There's an easy fix for that: Don't be an asshole. You'll notice that a lot less people want you dead that way.
You're right. If I had them both in a room and only one bullet in a gun...
I'd start looking for rope.
Again, nobody gives a shit about his skin color. I honestly have no idea where that idiot comes from and I don't care.
I have a problem with his attitude and his position, not his skin. Skin color is only skin deep, being an asshole is what goes deeper.
The older ones here will remember that this scenario is not new. Remember dial-up? In the good ol' days of the internet, landlines used to have flat rates. You could make local calls without being charged by the minute. Why? Because phone companies knew that you wouldn't do that 24/7. Who in their sane mind would be on the phone all the time? Well, except for some old hags who don't have anything better to do, but old hags were few and far between. They could easily oversell 50:1 or even 100:1 (50 phones sharing 1 line) because people simply didn't use the resource as much as they technically could.
Then came the internet and suddenly, being connected 24/7 became increasingly interesting. And that model of overselling phone lines was put under severe stress. To the point where telcos either had to run more cable or see their business fail. Some tried to return to metered lines but the resistance to something like this was immense, mostly because people felt the pain themselves, it cut into their own bottom line (unlike now where the loss of net neutrality mostly hits the other side directly, the content provider).
These unmetered, flat-rate phone lines had a very beneficial effect on the internet in general, though. Unlike in Europe where metered local calls were the norm, the adoption of internet use outside of universities took off in the US almost a decade before anything close to it happened in Europe, where only in areas serviced by cable TV providers you could get affordable internet at home during the 90s. It took well into the 2000s for Europe to catch up, mostly due to the standard of metered local calls (with prices of about 5 bucks an hour, you just couldn't stay online for more than a few minutes to check mail).
The second push, the move towards DSL, came from the telcos that wanted to get people off the overused and severely strained dial-up lines. The idea was that with faster speeds they could start introducing transfer limits, and the plan actually worked (mostly), until they had time to catch up with the hardware roll-out of more cabling and routing.
If phone lines had been metered all the time, the internet would probably still be the pastime of a few university students and people rich enough to not give a shit about 50-100 bucks a day for their hobby.