10 wages that require a massive taxpayer subsidy to even look vaguely like a livable wage is worse than 3 livable subsidy free wages and extra money to a highly skilled person (the robot).
The 3 people with a modest disposable income will do more for the economy than the 8 subsidized workers too.
Likely a 25% increase in pay would lead to a less than 10% increase in food prices. This wouldn't really put them at a competitive disadvantage because everybody else would have to do the same.
I'm not sure how much a 10% price increase would effect sales though.
There will be less people selling more = more productive
They will be paid more (minimum wage increase).
Whether or bit it's appropriate can be debated I suppose, but they will be more productive and better paid.
If minimum wage didn't go up, Jack in the box was going to wait until the tech dropped a little in price and have the remaining employees be more productive and not paid any extra.
Corporations need to be able to deduct their expenses though, or it'd be pretty much impossible.
I work at a company that does about 1.5 million a year, we generally profit +- 50k/year (small business in a saturated and relatively efficient market).
Paying even a low tax on the full 1.5 million would pretty much make the business impossible (and I'm sure many others too).
You'd basically be destroying high investment low margin businesses.
Well, if they are producing more (increased sales) with less people, the first statement is true.
If the minimum wage bump leads to them making more, the second part of the statement is true.
I'm not going to bet on the veracity of the summary, but if it's true they'll have less people producing more and getting paid more (as claimed) then it's true.
This is a nudge towards natural progress, bringing the future a few years earlier.
The remaining employees will be more productive, and appropriately rewarded with more money. Jack in the box will have more sales, likely in high margin items (upsales tend to be).
Hopefully taxpayers won't be subsidizing Jack in the box employees as much as they are paid more too.
Yes, I assume that like Linux Distros, the official kernel is not CPU specific.
I also assume this because I am running an Intel CPU on this computer, and my ntoskernl.exe comes from the folder "amd64_microsoft-windows-os-kernel_31bf3856ad364e35_10.0.15063.850_none_013717dd1a7ed72f", I assume that if they kept different binaries, they wouldn't use AMD branding for the Intel binary, and just call it Intel x86-64 or some such.
I think that's literally what they are addressing in the summary.
WPA3 will allow password less connections to be encrypted.
I assume it will give you a key, and then as soon as you connect your computer can verify with a cert authority to verify that it's a good key (similar to https).
If it is unsigned you'll get a warning (similar to https)
And then once you connect the key can be saved and you'll be immune from future hijacking (similar to ssh).
This is a big obvious feature I could never figure out why it wasn't in WiFi standards from the start (open encrypted networks).
Because MS keeps only one current version of Windows for x86, so if computers with AMD processors are to be kept current the patch will need to be applied.
My 486 struggled with much smaller displays, hung for ages when my turn changed in civ2, took forever to load a map (both bandwidth and rendering), rendering even basic 3d shapes took forever.
AMD said they're immune (to meltdown because they keep the protection of kernel memory more strict Intel said 90% of last five years, not 90% of vulnerable.
This isn't to shit on intel, the 5ish percent slow down on COUs that support PCID isn't so bad, just a clarification of how I've understood the news.
Based in the summary, this is a fix that dramatically reduces the impact of meltdown (too lazy to read up as it doesn't directly impact me), if they found a way to keep meltdown in the lower bound, they're doing alright.
Lower bound being about 5% (initial patch on a pcid supporting processor was 7% in an artificial postgress benchmark that was more prone to slowdown than real life), if they found a way to get ok'd chips to that point, and shave a little bit off their, it dramatically reduces the problem.
It pulls them ahead of AMD for single thread at sane price at the very least.
AMD was closing performance gap, now Intel just lost about 5-10% (workload dependant estimated mitigation costs of meltdown on a CPU with PCID) performance. This puts AMD at a tie in some areas (cost equivalent single thread) where it was slightly behind, and further grows its multi thread advantage.
Both CPUS are in theory vulnerable to spectre, which will likely be mitigated in software by application and be equally damaging to all.
At least that's how I've read it. Mitigation of meltdown is Intel specific and very expensive, mitigation of Spectre is ??? Haven't really seen anything on that, it's a much narrower vulnerability though, because meltdown allows reading if all memory, and spectre is limited to an applications memory.
I had a pair of smart earbuds, they we're OK, fantastic earbuds, but the tech wasn't there yet for actual hearing help.
I compared iqbuds to the non RX product at audacous.
The iqbuds we're fantastic earbuds with good real world pass through, but the augmented hearing was meh, though they we're good for blocking machine noise and allowing voice through, even while listening to music if desired, $300
The audacous non RX hearing helper worked fantastic for voice in a noisy environment, really helping, but was $700. It made music unlistenable.
I sent both back, and will likely buy iqbudsv2, if I had more money I would have kept them.
To;dr, smart buds aren't quite there, and non RX hearing aids have other drawbacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously the second option.
10 wages that require a massive taxpayer subsidy to even look vaguely like a livable wage is worse than 3 livable subsidy free wages and extra money to a highly skilled person (the robot).
The 3 people with a modest disposable income will do more for the economy than the 8 subsidized workers too.
Doesn't the fact that wages have been going up in China invalidate your premise that China is an example of wages never going up?
Likely a 25% increase in pay would lead to a less than 10% increase in food prices. This wouldn't really put them at a competitive disadvantage because everybody else would have to do the same.
I'm not sure how much a 10% price increase would effect sales though.
There will be less people selling more = more productive
They will be paid more (minimum wage increase).
Whether or bit it's appropriate can be debated I suppose, but they will be more productive and better paid.
If minimum wage didn't go up, Jack in the box was going to wait until the tech dropped a little in price and have the remaining employees be more productive and not paid any extra.
Corporations need to be able to deduct their expenses though, or it'd be pretty much impossible.
I work at a company that does about 1.5 million a year, we generally profit +- 50k/year (small business in a saturated and relatively efficient market).
Paying even a low tax on the full 1.5 million would pretty much make the business impossible (and I'm sure many others too).
You'd basically be destroying high investment low margin businesses.
Well, if they are producing more (increased sales) with less people, the first statement is true.
If the minimum wage bump leads to them making more, the second part of the statement is true.
I'm not going to bet on the veracity of the summary, but if it's true they'll have less people producing more and getting paid more (as claimed) then it's true.
But this is exactly what we want.
Increased productivity through automation.
This is a nudge towards natural progress, bringing the future a few years earlier.
The remaining employees will be more productive, and appropriately rewarded with more money. Jack in the box will have more sales, likely in high margin items (upsales tend to be).
Hopefully taxpayers won't be subsidizing Jack in the box employees as much as they are paid more too.
I'm not sure "declaring war" was the intent, but to allow competition.
I'm not sure how exactly this favors Google over anyone else either.
Isn't their a replay attack disclosed now, I would hope WPA3 has something to mitigate that.
My understanding is that only non standard behavior on clients can protect against the replay attack.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10...
Yes, I assume that like Linux Distros, the official kernel is not CPU specific.
I also assume this because I am running an Intel CPU on this computer, and my ntoskernl.exe comes from the folder "amd64_microsoft-windows-os-kernel_31bf3856ad364e35_10.0.15063.850_none_013717dd1a7ed72f", I assume that if they kept different binaries, they wouldn't use AMD branding for the Intel binary, and just call it Intel x86-64 or some such.
Do you have any reason to think otherwise?
I think that's literally what they are addressing in the summary.
WPA3 will allow password less connections to be encrypted.
I assume it will give you a key, and then as soon as you connect your computer can verify with a cert authority to verify that it's a good key (similar to https).
If it is unsigned you'll get a warning (similar to https)
And then once you connect the key can be saved and you'll be immune from future hijacking (similar to ssh).
This is a big obvious feature I could never figure out why it wasn't in WiFi standards from the start (open encrypted networks).
Because MS keeps only one current version of Windows for x86, so if computers with AMD processors are to be kept current the patch will need to be applied.
Would they really fly displaying a few million pixels at 24 bit color?
The last Amiga I used was before then (286 era I think), but could only display 64 colors at a time out of a pallette of 1024.
Not sure the resolution.
Did it?
My 486 struggled with much smaller displays, hung for ages when my turn changed in civ2, took forever to load a map (both bandwidth and rendering), rendering even basic 3d shapes took forever.
A bike at the other side of public transit can be worth more than a bike I personally own.
The specific case of du -s with a non PCID processor is close to a 79% reduction.
Based on what I read.
AMD said they're immune (to meltdown because they keep the protection of kernel memory more strict
Intel said 90% of last five years, not 90% of vulnerable.
This isn't to shit on intel, the 5ish percent slow down on COUs that support PCID isn't so bad, just a clarification of how I've understood the news.
I don't think many ARM CPUs use out of order.
Posting primarily to be corrected if I'm wrong.
Based in the summary, this is a fix that dramatically reduces the impact of meltdown (too lazy to read up as it doesn't directly impact me), if they found a way to keep meltdown in the lower bound, they're doing alright.
Lower bound being about 5% (initial patch on a pcid supporting processor was 7% in an artificial postgress benchmark that was more prone to slowdown than real life), if they found a way to get ok'd chips to that point, and shave a little bit off their, it dramatically reduces the problem.
It pulls them ahead of AMD for single thread at sane price at the very least.
I don't think they do predictive branching.
But they may be able to handle and extra 10-15% of cash for the same volume. That'd be real good on the books.
AMD seems way better off.
AMD was closing performance gap, now Intel just lost about 5-10% (workload dependant estimated mitigation costs of meltdown on a CPU with PCID) performance. This puts AMD at a tie in some areas (cost equivalent single thread) where it was slightly behind, and further grows its multi thread advantage.
Both CPUS are in theory vulnerable to spectre, which will likely be mitigated in software by application and be equally damaging to all.
At least that's how I've read it. Mitigation of meltdown is Intel specific and very expensive, mitigation of Spectre is ??? Haven't really seen anything on that, it's a much narrower vulnerability though, because meltdown allows reading if all memory, and spectre is limited to an applications memory.
Isn't it bad for calcium levels too?
I had a pair of smart earbuds, they we're OK, fantastic earbuds, but the tech wasn't there yet for actual hearing help.
I compared iqbuds to the non RX product at audacous.
The iqbuds we're fantastic earbuds with good real world pass through, but the augmented hearing was meh, though they we're good for blocking machine noise and allowing voice through, even while listening to music if desired, $300
The audacous non RX hearing helper worked fantastic for voice in a noisy environment, really helping, but was $700. It made music unlistenable.
I sent both back, and will likely buy iqbudsv2, if I had more money I would have kept them.
To;dr, smart buds aren't quite there, and non RX hearing aids have other drawbacks.
I think I saw even more than 30% for du -s without pcid.