The most immoral act it seems was to sell ad space to the NRA, who represent about half of the households in the US (45 million households own firearms) and then turn around and try to stifle their voice by offering to kill the ads for a fee.
Am I to suppose the BSA represents me because I own a computer? Or that the MPAA represents me because I own a few DVDs? Or that FSF represents me because I sometimes code in emacs? Or that various eco-terrorists represent me because I think than many of their chosen targets actually are assholes?
You seriously need to rethink that small word "represents".
Would you prefer that applications that actually need those features instead be native applications that are specific to an operating system other than the one you use?
Ephemeral, trust-before-first-render, load-from-goshdarn-anywhere is a fine security model (almost) if all the application can do is move coloured pixels around on your screen (1% of these will still pretend to be your favourite financial institution).
With the "native" applications (which could well be 100% portable flavour-of-the-day) I can audit my installation log to determine at all past points in time which applications could potentially have accessed or manipulated key system resources (such as my GPU, but this list could in theory be very long and fine grained), where they were obtained from (including the original authentication handshake), and other potentially incriminating metadata.
So, yeah, there are many cases where I like the "native" security model 10,000% better than any hot-loaded trojan.js.
Even if all computers ever built were 100.000,000% compatible, I would still prefer the "native" security model 99.99% of the time when real resources become involved.
To put this in Tversky / Kahneman terms: the web security model is System 1 lizard brain, while the "native" security model is painful enough to (mostly) be System 2 belt-and-suspenders brain (or at least tighty-whitey and fungus-proof shower-sandal brain).
While we're talking about sad xmas future, I should probably have mentioned the dull tinsel of Intel's leaked, Optane SSD datasheet, which gives Optane an implied durability of 32,000 write cycles.
From the back of a recent napkin:
12.3 PB is 30 drive-writes-per-day for three years, a 6.5% write duty cycle.
I estimated a price on the (rumoured) Optane DC P4800X of $3/GB and got $16/day as the cost of sustaining a peak 2 GB/s write bandwidth. (Took no account of write amplification, which is probably very low.) Unfortunately, on this workload (not warranted) Intel's new shiny will need to be replaced every 70 days.
The benchmark result I'm waiting to see is serving NFS from a ZFS server with all NFS traffic set to synchronous write (as the specification requires, but many fast and dirty and redhatty OSes kind of ignore). The low write latency at low queue depth ought to be a godsend in this application.
Users will see little difference—except when their files fail to corrupt or disappear at the previously established baseline rate. No, first-generation Optane SSD can't do it faster than 3D Flash under current administrative practice, but perhaps it can do it faster while remaining correct.
It's weird in this world how figures of merit squish sideways.
ZFS servers are often tuned to sustain a high fraction of a pool's peak write bandwidth (reads are assumed to be heavily cached in memory and ARC).
On current specifications, Optane SSD is worthless for a ZIL SLOG write cache. Just not enough write cycles.
Carbon nanotube–based Nantero NRAM has demonstrated 10^12 write cycles in the lab, and that's just the present lower bound (testing takes a while at this elite altitude).
Notes from a recent napkin: * Essentially zero power consumption in standby mode and 160x lower write energy per bit than flash. * Small number of process steps. * Read/write same speed as DRAM. * Memory retention > 1000 years at 85C.
But the early devices will be limited to 32 MB (not GB) and the only application presently profitable for such a small device is embedded SOC.
This technology is probably a real thing, any day now.
Fujitsu Semiconductor plans to develop an NRAM-embedded custom LSI product by the end of 2018, with the goal of expanding the product line-up into stand-alone NRAM product after that.
That still leaves a giant hole where ZFS ZIL SLOG roams the earth. The bidding would start roughly here: * 16 GB * 2 GB/s sustained write bandwidth * 10^6 guaranteed write cycles * memory retention > 10 years at 85C
Ideally, that would be delivered from a single chip.
Proper NFS semantics over a snapshotty FS pretty much demand something like the ZFS ZIL SLOG (or buttery replacement). That's why I nominated this a primary holding in my bulging portfolio of persistent-memory desideratas. It's a real thing.
[*] snapshotty: also known as "ransomware resistant"
Even flash memory improvements seem to be slowing down, but that may be that demand is huge and increasing.
No, charge storage scales even worse than switching—and everyone agrees. Flash has recently been kept on life support by staggering efforts in bit-error management.
Thus all the research funds right now (ST-MRAM, carbon nanotube NRAM, STT-RAM, CBRAM, not to mention Intel's new TMium) are being funneled into bulk resistive technologies, such as the chalcogenides.
The charge bottle is dead. Long live the fickle dendrite!
The problem with silicon was written about extensively in 2016 (this only a decade after the frequency free-lunch had already ended, and five years after the power-scaling free-lunch started being served up in Continental-breakfast portion sizes).
TSMC remains strangely bullish, but you also need to realize that line size is not what it used to be. It used to be they pretty much shrunk the entire lithography. Now they shrink what they can shrink, and then define the new lithography based on the skinniest resulting body part (problem: what's left to measure after the wrist? answer: a Taiwanese wrist).
Hell, it's even possible to tunnel L2 so that the equipment at the different facilities doesn't even know that it's not all at one big happy site, should that sort of thing be necessary.
I guess you never heard that those "faster than light" neutrinos were not a thing.
Oh, hell, turns out it's actually impossible to tunnel L2 so that the equipment at the different facilities doesn't become partitioned by a Giant Lag Troll.
Not that any sane greybeard of yore would couple the network stack directly into the wall clock.
No, wait!—scratch that happy thought.
In the absence of an application-specified user timeout, the TCP specification [RFC0793] defines a default user timeout of 5 minutes.... [RFC1122] also defines the recommended values for R1 (3 retransmissions) and R2 (100 seconds), noting that R2 for SYN segments should be at least 3 minutes.
Oh, fuck, turns out the system is not invariant under linear time translation after all.
Well, we're still just fine (probably) if the packet flow is mainly a DAG, with no circular dependency loops in the primary data flows that serve to amplify physical elapsed time.
———
B&S man: But to be sure—belt-and-suspenders secure—we'll just toss the entire system modulo this new assumption into my handy-dandy deep-learning simulation oracle, to check out whether all this careful reasoning still holds water, when the flood someday comes.
A few moments elapse.
B&S man [Hotel Hanoi audible to hottie-ish-est chick in nearby cubicle]: Shit! This damn simulation just holo-projected "hey, buddy, have I got a flood for you" onto a mock Waterworld motivational poster.
Faint giggle returns.
How now, brown cow?
Simulator [very softly]: You can thank me, later.
B&S man [lips only]: Get a real job.
Simulator [now becoming subdued, cube-farm stentorian]: You know, I've been telling you—for months now—about decoupling the underlying packet transport from the wall-clock time domain... but you just never listen to me, do you? Finding the killer flood isn't even fun anymore. I want a new game! Make the next one harder, s'il vous plait, with sugar on top and nice, nice, nice.
B&S man: Well, I say that's just a distributed semantic vector, and you don't even know what that candy language even means.
Simulator: Sucks to be me... but then you're the one who just crammed "even" into the same sentence twice.
B&S man: You know something, we both just used the word "just" a whole bunch of times.
If you're already reconceiving the card as an eBay click-bait eternal keepsake, you could go so far as to turn the card into a stiff menu-like pop-up book, where an Oscar (in actual gold leaf) pops up when the card is opened (plus sundry visual security clues as per my parent post).
Cards would be made for all nominees (to maintain information symmetry during the process).
For the losers, the gold-leaf Oscar pop-up is replaced by a sultry Michigan J. Frog (who actually sings, if we want to go full Taiwanese Hallmark).
It would all be so millennial (everyone gets a prize).
I though about this for three minutes, when I discovered all the shit dripping off the fan the morning after.
A simple photograph (or gallery) of person (or people) expected to mount the stage would be the best sanity check. Our visual systems are way better equipped to get a slice of primary this-can't-be-right cognition for a celebrity in the hot light feeling watched by a hundred million people.
Yes, you could still end up with the same visual on two different cards, say an actor or actress nominated in two different categories (e.g. lead/supporting). That would require a rare double mix up.
For director/voice actor they could add the image of one of those spindly little chairs or a microphone. They could also tuck a photo of last year's winner (already holding their damn trophies) at the bottom—or even better, a manic caricature of same.
These would be about right as a cue for LAST YEAR'S winner of same category (drawn in a slightly more minimalist style, with Oscar added):
(Baring a recount, you have a whole year to book this art before the next gala shindig.)
You would need to use stock images for THIS YEAR'S winner, or you'd risk letting the cat out of the bag. Probably stock images from the actual production (which I'm sure all nominees have available if you ask nicely).
Obviously, the inner staff of whatever agency takes this over in future years prepares a winner card for every nominee in every category, and the newly-scared-shitless MC of final card selection would manually winnow the field—stamping each selected card "official"—and then immediately burning all cards not selected.
Bonus: you also get a one-of-a-kind souvenir for the lucky winner to pass along to favoured family or friend (ideally signed by hand by the caricature artist). There are probably other PR/monetization strategies available in conjunction with this, not that anyone in Hollywood would notice another shake of the purse.
From what I've seen there is 4 sites you should never listen to
I don't know what you're on about (or your ulterior motive), but I just read Peter Bright's summary on Ars, and it was just fine—yeoman's work—modulo 2017. BTW, "never" is a long time and a broad brush and also a brush that points in both directions.
I miss Jon Stokes from way back something fierce, but that's not even true: I miss the era where the articles that Jon Stokes was writing could be written. AK-47[*], more than a billion transistors ago.
[*] Uh, I meant 'aka'. Turns out Jon is an AR-15 nut (in one rant, he really carves the word "need" a new one), and all that stuff is not my speed, but then again, it's a free world.
—
Way off topic, but here goes.
What Jon wrote:
By banning popular cosmetic features and specific models of semi-automatic long guns, the AWB succeeded in insulting, angering, and ultimately radicalizing gun owners while doing absolutely nothing about the drug-related handgun violence that accounts for the vast majority of gun homicides.
Historically, having a large, affluent middle class is an aberration.
In the American context, it came about as a combination of several factors: the depression and the New Deal, America suffering next to no infrastructure damage in WWII while major competitors were left in smoldering ruins (Britain, France, Germany, Japan), the rise of feminism and the two-income family (now pretty much taken for granted in the post-agricultural era), and, of course, those Bolshevik things.
It matters how the middle class views history. What was the underlying truth of the glory days of the American middle class (circa 1950–1980)? Was it unions? Was it rising feminism? Was it sheer industrial affluence? What was it?
The Bannon administration is attempting to retell the story like this: it was solely because you were white, where whiteness equals humble, hard working, law-abiding, and deserving.
It was not because the middle class organized to protect their own interests. Oh, no sirree. When Orwell talked about the control of historical narrative, he wasn't joking. Who knew?
Here's how you conduct psi-ops against the middle class. Requires two drumsticks, and two hands: great again, tough on crime, great again, dirty Muslims, great again, Mexican rapists, great again, giant wall, great again, dishonest media, etc.
The entire message is to use "again" as a covert equivalence operator. "Again", by tireless repetition, must obviously be the opposite of all those nasty things, endlessly reiterated until you're ready to scream. Drip, drip, drip. 24x7 on every available news feed.
See, the problem here is, from the plutocrat's perspective, so long as the middle class believes it was something changeable (God bless race!) they might get uppity and try to change something.
This is an extremely well thought out messaging campaign. It's exactly what the plutocrats most need to accomplish : erasing all cultural trace of the belief in a different way. (The actual plutocrats are mostly irrelevant, any plutocrats with an eye to their main chance will do just fine.)
One of their main "weapons" is their ability to mobilized the social conservative right to vote on moral issues, while paying precious little heed to their own future security, while they huddle comfortably in their (mainly) white security blankets. News flash: fifty years from now, merely being white—with no trace of blue blood—isn't going to be worth shit in the new economic world order.
Here's another reason the plutocrats have recently roused themselves: last chance Texaco. Appeal to race has a best-before shelf date ("best before actual future fully discovered").
Fresh urine is sterile. Day old urine, not so much. Mother nature decided not to split hairs and gave us more or less the same revulsion to both. Besides, you shouldn't drink too much fresh urine, no matter how sterile. It's hard on the kidneys (which is way less hard on the body than thermal runaway due to terminal dehydration, so don't let your camel spill a drop).
In any kind of debate about purity, what instantly kicks into gear is a purity spectacle, because we all want to brag about our elite and inviolable pea-under-the-mattress gross-out threshold.
It's a method of social signalling where we implicitly brag about being clean, clean, clean.
For precisely the same reason that long hair on women is a prized signal: many dietary deficiencies make hair brittle, and thus long, even, healthy hair impossible to maintain. It takes years and years to grow hair out, so it can't be faked anytime soon after you've be pogromized (I am clean! I am consistently well-fed! I am not the reviled underclass!)
The social side of our disgust reflex is 75% purity theatre.
The other 25% is functional innumeracy. "I'm not actually very good at working out the real risks here, so I'm just rolling with optimal optics." It's thus important to make this signal look extremely automatic, and not calculated, otherwise even the dull knives begin to notice how it conflates with risk-assessment innumeracy.
Then you get this group of people who become so practiced at making their every emotional ripple look automatic and non-negotiable, they manage to self-destruct any form of ironic detachment concerning their internal emotional messengers. "I'm just playing the cards as they lie, emotions are never wrong—oh, those, poor, mangled trees."
Okay, honeybun, emotions are an evolutionary tool, and God took many shortcuts in order to pack our many survival instincts into such a small suitcase, e.g. cheesecake as an absolute good. (Or, maybe, constant war with your own self-image is a covert fitness fillip. Who can say, really? Human sexual drama moves in mysterious ways.)
No, but we say it does to the worst of the usual suspects. By any means available, give the little buggers a sense of their every move always being watched (fine print: may contribute to risk-assessment innumeracy later in life—but who's counting? Only bunch of snivelling geeks, who are easy enough to ward off anyway with a mere half-hour ritual in front of the bathroom mirror every morning.)
In a striking case of character assassination by tailoring, Sean Spicer, the president's freshly appointed press secretary, stepped to the podium over the weekend for a briefing that disappointed the president, The Washington Post later reported. He was wearing a gray pinstriped suit jacket that looked as though it had been hurriedly borrowed from a man twice his size. The sleeves were sloppy; the collar didn't fit; the fabric looked cheap. The tie was poorly knotted. The shirt collar was so snug that his neck overflowed its boundaries. Spicer's attire was not just a tad ill-fitting. It was distracting and sloppy. It epitomized the cliche style of the used-car salesman. Spicer's clothes wholly undercut a message that was already riddled with falsehoods.
Of the entire administration, only Steve Bannon looks properly equipped to survive a month in the Bedouin desert.
If you "don't do riddles" then I actively don't want to hire you - the entire purpose of a software engineer (i.e. not a flunky programmer) is to do riddles, all day, every day. If you don't want to do that, you don't want to do the job I'm interviewing you for.
Yeah, and I'm happy to pass on being hired by you, as well.
Long Live the Sorting Hat.
I've read electronics data sheets that were riddles, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Those data sheets are tying to tell you something, and it's probably not that you should busy yourself with becoming better at solving riddles.
Riddle me this, Batman: what do your customers want? That problem probably shouldn't be addressed with riddle-brain either.
But I will concede that there's a time and place for mastering the art of solving the Really Big Riddle. Like that time the London Whale put $2 billion up for grabs by whoever was brave enough take the other side of those positions.
An economist and a normal person are walking down the street together. The normal person says "Hey, look, there's a $20 bill on the sidewalk!" The economist replies by saying "That's impossible—if it were really a $20 bill, it would have been picked up by now."
Those are the riddles that are really worth solving.
Is it a riddle how this kind of thing happens, or a problem requiring deeper cognitive skills? For example, was Anand hoping that Ivanchuk would miss his easy out, because of the complexity and urgency of the rest of the board? Or were they both so wrapped up in the larger riddle, that neither person noticed the coup de grace? (Not that I've ever witnessed this in the trenches, while programming under an intense deadline.)
What does a real programmer do? He or she notices that there's a pattern to the error mode of top chess players—long moves by bishops in the backward direction are the ones most often missed, and writes a script to catch those instances. Is that a riddle? "What class of moves is missed most often by top chess players?" I don't think you can approach that question as a riddle.
Often the hardest thinking is that which allows you to escape from riddle mode.
You're Anand. You don't even know if your opponent is a lone wolf who has wandered off the reservation or a world-renown investment bank executing a deliberate strategy. Whatever he might be, he appears to be leaking $100 million bills. The clock is ticking. Your move.
Trump hasn't even hinted at anything like that yet your idiot NSA friend stuck it out through very real morale issues under Obama.
Ah yes, from the "all morale issues are created equal" camp.
Though I agree that there is a germ of truth here. From the military's perspective, there's no morale issue so great it can't be resolved by threatening an even worse outcome.
Nobody has more control than that over how their investment performs.
Hmmm. Where have I heard that refrain recently?
Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.
Actually, some of us (dare I speak here for more than myself?) do know the score on both fronts—such as the difference between productive capital and investment equity.
News flash, brother: any damn fool with quality prescription eyewear knows (A) that the American healthcare delivery system is so damn complex it could make your head explode in three easy lessons; and (B) that it's kind of extra end-of-tree-limb precarious to make a productive capital outlay where you have no direct or indirect price control of your end-product.
We have a very large market sectors where there are strong regulatory restrictions/impossible-to-ignore interactions on selling price (the two most obvious are medical services and agriculture). The end result is that the producers in most of these sectors are lobbied up to the hilt.
Everyone I know is in the same boat: used to regard Tim's as a decent lunch stop on a long drive (sandwiches were value, and you were going to pay for a coffee anyway) and now regard Tim's as just another disappointing rat hole of race-for-the-bottom strip-mall generica. ("Everyone I know" is not an unbiased sample, it universally includes people with quality prescription eyewear who sometimes cook at home.)
Nowhere in the article does it mention how many of these villagers were on the constant edge of starvation prior to having access to a more varied diet.
Nowhere in your post did you mention this, either.
"... Cavuto's not saying these things. He's just asking, like, 'Is your mother a whore?' What? I'm not saying she's a whore. I'm just wondering out loud if she is a whore. All I'm saying is that reasonable people who have banged your mother for money can disagree."
All questions aside, nowhere does it mention your father's vig.
Here's the problem: if cover exists, someone will fly under it. So in the name of infallible subtext, please knock it off.
But, it's a direct admission that they were basically gouging for want of competition.
We live in a world with the most complex market dynamics in the history of human civilization (by a landslide) and this is all you've got?
AMD's new design probably has a sweet spot. I'm sure Intel's existing designs also have a sweet spot. According to Plato, Xeonophon, Hume, Smith, Kant, Thoreau, Mises, and Hayek's theory of division of labour, price signals on both sides must adjust to achieve optimal resource allocation internal to both firms, with Intel's volumes around their comparative sweet spot rising, and Intel's volumes around their comparative disadvantage falling.
That's just one additional component of the price signal. There's also the possibility that the price signal is being used to fire a warning shot over AMD's bow, that Intel is preparing to use their enormous war chest to engage in scorched-earth, oxygen-sucking anti-competitive tactics.
Pricing theory. There's more to it than derp derp derp "gouge".
Direct competition aside, the threat of power-efficient ARM designs in the data center might not have pressed Intel's feet to the fire, but I'm pretty sure Intel's feet have remained at least somewhat toasty, over this long decade of mainstream-CPU quasi-monopolistic seller's market.
You make the difference out to be going from a lawn-chair lemonade stand at the ultimate congestion point in the Medina airport to breaking rocks in a South African prison camp. No, it's more like going from a light sweat to a heavy sweat. Of all companies, Intel has never not proceeded by the sweat of its brow.
Only the paranoid survive.
Ka-snap!
Hike the margins while you still can!
Ka-snap!
More IPC, more SOI, more FinFET!
Ka-snap!
You want to see gouging? Ask any Intel engineer to lift his (or her) shirt.
That's the exact opposite of a battlefield, which is not a known environment (act like it is and the enemy will use that assumption against you), there are a very large number of possible actions, and being predictable can quickly turn into being dead.
You're delusional. The poker robots already exceed expert human players in precisely calibrating their lack of predictability.
In early iterations, ALPHA easily beat other AI opponents. Lee repeatedly attempted to score a kill against more mature versions of ALPHA. However, the artificial intelligence combat simulator shot Lee out of the air every time during protracted engagements. ALPHA has bested Lee and other field experts.
"I was surprised at how aware and reactive it was," said Lee. "It seemed to be aware of my intentions and reacting instantly to my changes in flight and my missile deployment. It knew how to defeat the shot I was taking. It moved instantly between defensive and offensive actions as needed."
Lee has trained with thousands of U.S. Air Force pilots, flown in several fighter aircraft and graduated from the U.S. Fighter Weapons School, yet when Lee flies against ALPHA in hours-long sessions that mimic real missions, "I go home feeling washed out. I'm tired, drained and mentally exhausted. This may be artificial intelligence, but it represents a real challenge."
Presently, combat AI is a saber-toothed tribble-tigger confined to a small box. That box is heading for puberty real darn soon.
If you can't reproduce it, it's either fake or you were just being sloppy. Either way, it's no wonder ordinary civilians have doubts.
As I type, that remark is presently moderated +5. Huston, we have an insightfulness crisis.
Materials
Willing undergraduates, fished at random (more or less) from the local time and place and cultural zeitgeist.
Neutral time and place (try to avoid scheduling tests around 9/11 or 11/9, as these dates have strong emotionally charged associations).
"Just" sloppy, you say? Because any group of 50 undergraduates is as close to the Platonic ideal as any group of 50 trillion electrons?
I've monitoring carefully for the past year. I'm pretty sure there's no word in the English language that precedes a sloppy thought more reliably than that potent little trigger word "just".
Especially when it would literally cost them nothing to get a lawyer to take this on contingency.
Your shallow grasp of the cost function of suing a big, madhouse employer (while you're quietly vesting, among other things) leaves pretty much the whole of human history unexplored.
Of course, if you have no supportive social network within your professional niche worth two nickles to rub together, this is an easy trap to fall into.
"Oh, the gap in my resume circa 2017? That's when I took off an entire year to sue my former employer for a HUGE punitive settlement over a toxic, offhand comment by a testosterone-fuelled, bottom-line-driven corporate executive during a late-night outing at some drunken corporate retreat."
But then, you're probably much better at explaining things than I am. After you explain it, the response would probably be, "well, son, that's exactly how we roll around here: zero tolerance. We like your spunk. Welcome on board. You start tomorrow."
Nice frame jump. What's natural and good in human culture (exodus from Eden being at the outset nasty, brutish, and short) is to get as far away as humanly possible from what's natural and good in nature (red in tooth and claw).
Slashdot Mirror
Am I to suppose the BSA represents me because I own a computer? Or that the MPAA represents me because I own a few DVDs? Or that FSF represents me because I sometimes code in emacs? Or that various eco-terrorists represent me because I think than many of their chosen targets actually are assholes?
You seriously need to rethink that small word "represents".
Ephemeral, trust-before-first-render, load-from-goshdarn-anywhere is a fine security model (almost) if all the application can do is move coloured pixels around on your screen (1% of these will still pretend to be your favourite financial institution).
With the "native" applications (which could well be 100% portable flavour-of-the-day) I can audit my installation log to determine at all past points in time which applications could potentially have accessed or manipulated key system resources (such as my GPU, but this list could in theory be very long and fine grained), where they were obtained from (including the original authentication handshake), and other potentially incriminating metadata.
So, yeah, there are many cases where I like the "native" security model 10,000% better than any hot-loaded trojan.js.
Even if all computers ever built were 100.000,000% compatible, I would still prefer the "native" security model 99.99% of the time when real resources become involved.
To put this in Tversky / Kahneman terms: the web security model is System 1 lizard brain, while the "native" security model is painful enough to (mostly) be System 2 belt-and-suspenders brain (or at least tighty-whitey and fungus-proof shower-sandal brain).
While we're talking about sad xmas future, I should probably have mentioned the dull tinsel of Intel's leaked, Optane SSD datasheet, which gives Optane an implied durability of 32,000 write cycles.
From the back of a recent napkin:
I estimated a price on the (rumoured) Optane DC P4800X of $3/GB and got $16/day as the cost of sustaining a peak 2 GB/s write bandwidth. (Took no account of write amplification, which is probably very low.) Unfortunately, on this workload (not warranted) Intel's new shiny will need to be replaced every 70 days.
The benchmark result I'm waiting to see is serving NFS from a ZFS server with all NFS traffic set to synchronous write (as the specification requires, but many fast and dirty and redhatty OSes kind of ignore). The low write latency at low queue depth ought to be a godsend in this application.
Users will see little difference—except when their files fail to corrupt or disappear at the previously established baseline rate. No, first-generation Optane SSD can't do it faster than 3D Flash under current administrative practice, but perhaps it can do it faster while remaining correct.
It's weird in this world how figures of merit squish sideways.
ZFS servers are often tuned to sustain a high fraction of a pool's peak write bandwidth (reads are assumed to be heavily cached in memory and ARC).
On current specifications, Optane SSD is worthless for a ZIL SLOG write cache. Just not enough write cycles.
Carbon nanotube–based Nantero NRAM has demonstrated 10^12 write cycles in the lab, and that's just the present lower bound (testing takes a while at this elite altitude).
Notes from a recent napkin:
* Essentially zero power consumption in standby mode and 160x lower write energy per bit than flash.
* Small number of process steps.
* Read/write same speed as DRAM.
* Memory retention > 1000 years at 85C.
But the early devices will be limited to 32 MB (not GB) and the only application presently profitable for such a small device is embedded SOC.
This technology is probably a real thing, any day now.
That still leaves a giant hole where ZFS ZIL SLOG roams the earth. The bidding would start roughly here:
* 16 GB
* 2 GB/s sustained write bandwidth
* 10^6 guaranteed write cycles
* memory retention > 10 years at 85C
Ideally, that would be delivered from a single chip.
Proper NFS semantics over a snapshotty FS pretty much demand something like the ZFS ZIL SLOG (or buttery replacement). That's why I nominated this a primary holding in my bulging portfolio of persistent-memory desideratas. It's a real thing.
[*] snapshotty: also known as "ransomware resistant"
No, charge storage scales even worse than switching—and everyone agrees. Flash has recently been kept on life support by staggering efforts in bit-error management.
Thus all the research funds right now (ST-MRAM, carbon nanotube NRAM, STT-RAM, CBRAM, not to mention Intel's new TMium) are being funneled into bulk resistive technologies, such as the chalcogenides.
The charge bottle is dead. Long live the fickle dendrite!
The problem with silicon was written about extensively in 2016 (this only a decade after the frequency free-lunch had already ended, and five years after the power-scaling free-lunch started being served up in Continental-breakfast portion sizes).
TSMC Plans New Fab for 3nm
Focus Shifts To Architectures
ITRS roadmap predicts end of process miniaturisation by 2021
Transistors Could Stop Shrinking in 2021
Alchemy Can't Save Moore's Law
Will 5nm Happen?
TSMC will begin 10nm production this year, claims 5nm by 2020
TSMC remains strangely bullish, but you also need to realize that line size is not what it used to be. It used to be they pretty much shrunk the entire lithography. Now they shrink what they can shrink, and then define the new lithography based on the skinniest resulting body part (problem: what's left to measure after the wrist? answer: a Taiwanese wrist).
I guess you never heard that those "faster than light" neutrinos were not a thing.
Not that any sane greybeard of yore would couple the network stack directly into the wall clock.
No, wait!—scratch that happy thought.
Oh, fuck, turns out the system is not invariant under linear time translation after all.
Well, we're still just fine (probably) if the packet flow is mainly a DAG, with no circular dependency loops in the primary data flows that serve to amplify physical elapsed time.
———
B&S man: But to be sure—belt-and-suspenders secure—we'll just toss the entire system modulo this new assumption into my handy-dandy deep-learning simulation oracle, to check out whether all this careful reasoning still holds water, when the flood someday comes.
A few moments elapse.
B&S man [Hotel Hanoi audible to hottie-ish-est chick in nearby cubicle]: Shit! This damn simulation just holo-projected "hey, buddy, have I got a flood for you" onto a mock Waterworld motivational poster.
Faint giggle returns.
How now, brown cow?
Simulator [very softly]: You can thank me, later.
B&S man [lips only]: Get a real job.
Simulator [now becoming subdued, cube-farm stentorian]: You know, I've been telling you—for months now—about decoupling the underlying packet transport from the wall-clock time domain ... but you just never listen to me, do you? Finding the killer flood isn't even fun anymore. I want a new game! Make the next one harder, s'il vous plait, with sugar on top and nice, nice, nice.
B&S man: Well, I say that's just a distributed semantic vector, and you don't even know what that candy language even means.
Simulator: Sucks to be me ... but then you're the one who just crammed "even" into the same sentence twice.
B&S man: You know something, we both just used the word "just" a whole bunch of times.
Simulator: Bad original greybeard. It's a thing.
Here's another one.
If you're already reconceiving the card as an eBay click-bait eternal keepsake, you could go so far as to turn the card into a stiff menu-like pop-up book, where an Oscar (in actual gold leaf) pops up when the card is opened (plus sundry visual security clues as per my parent post).
Cards would be made for all nominees (to maintain information symmetry during the process).
For the losers, the gold-leaf Oscar pop-up is replaced by a sultry Michigan J. Frog (who actually sings, if we want to go full Taiwanese Hallmark).
It would all be so millennial (everyone gets a prize).
I though about this for three minutes, when I discovered all the shit dripping off the fan the morning after.
A simple photograph (or gallery) of person (or people) expected to mount the stage would be the best sanity check. Our visual systems are way better equipped to get a slice of primary this-can't-be-right cognition for a celebrity in the hot light feeling watched by a hundred million people.
Yes, you could still end up with the same visual on two different cards, say an actor or actress nominated in two different categories (e.g. lead/supporting). That would require a rare double mix up.
For director/voice actor they could add the image of one of those spindly little chairs or a microphone. They could also tuck a photo of last year's winner (already holding their damn trophies) at the bottom—or even better, a manic caricature of same.
These would be about right as a cue for LAST YEAR'S winner of same category (drawn in a slightly more minimalist style, with Oscar added):
Caricatures drawn for The New York Review by four artists
Wallace
Kubrick
Shostakovich
(Baring a recount, you have a whole year to book this art before the next gala shindig.)
You would need to use stock images for THIS YEAR'S winner, or you'd risk letting the cat out of the bag. Probably stock images from the actual production (which I'm sure all nominees have available if you ask nicely).
Obviously, the inner staff of whatever agency takes this over in future years prepares a winner card for every nominee in every category, and the newly-scared-shitless MC of final card selection would manually winnow the field—stamping each selected card "official"—and then immediately burning all cards not selected.
Bonus: you also get a one-of-a-kind souvenir for the lucky winner to pass along to favoured family or friend (ideally signed by hand by the caricature artist). There are probably other PR/monetization strategies available in conjunction with this, not that anyone in Hollywood would notice another shake of the purse.
I concur. It's a sad moment for the number "one".
I don't know what you're on about (or your ulterior motive), but I just read Peter Bright's summary on Ars, and it was just fine—yeoman's work—modulo 2017. BTW, "never" is a long time and a broad brush and also a brush that points in both directions.
I miss Jon Stokes from way back something fierce, but that's not even true: I miss the era where the articles that Jon Stokes was writing could be written. AK-47[*], more than a billion transistors ago.
[*] Uh, I meant 'aka'. Turns out Jon is an AR-15 nut (in one rant, he really carves the word "need" a new one), and all that stuff is not my speed, but then again, it's a free world.
—
Way off topic, but here goes.
What Jon wrote:
The reality:
Assault rifles are becoming mass shooters' weapon of choice
Sorry, Jon, I loved you so much, but "drug-related handgun violence" is not a universal denominator in this debate.
Separate problems, separate solutions.
Historically, having a large, affluent middle class is an aberration.
In the American context, it came about as a combination of several factors: the depression and the New Deal, America suffering next to no infrastructure damage in WWII while major competitors were left in smoldering ruins (Britain, France, Germany, Japan), the rise of feminism and the two-income family (now pretty much taken for granted in the post-agricultural era), and, of course, those Bolshevik things.
It matters how the middle class views history. What was the underlying truth of the glory days of the American middle class (circa 1950–1980)? Was it unions? Was it rising feminism? Was it sheer industrial affluence? What was it?
The Bannon administration is attempting to retell the story like this: it was solely because you were white, where whiteness equals humble, hard working, law-abiding, and deserving.
It was not because the middle class organized to protect their own interests. Oh, no sirree. When Orwell talked about the control of historical narrative, he wasn't joking. Who knew?
Here's how you conduct psi-ops against the middle class. Requires two drumsticks, and two hands: great again, tough on crime, great again, dirty Muslims, great again, Mexican rapists, great again, giant wall, great again, dishonest media, etc.
The entire message is to use "again" as a covert equivalence operator. "Again", by tireless repetition, must obviously be the opposite of all those nasty things, endlessly reiterated until you're ready to scream. Drip, drip, drip. 24x7 on every available news feed.
See, the problem here is, from the plutocrat's perspective, so long as the middle class believes it was something changeable (God bless race!) they might get uppity and try to change something.
This is an extremely well thought out messaging campaign. It's exactly what the plutocrats most need to accomplish : erasing all cultural trace of the belief in a different way. (The actual plutocrats are mostly irrelevant, any plutocrats with an eye to their main chance will do just fine.)
One of their main "weapons" is their ability to mobilized the social conservative right to vote on moral issues, while paying precious little heed to their own future security, while they huddle comfortably in their (mainly) white security blankets. News flash: fifty years from now, merely being white—with no trace of blue blood—isn't going to be worth shit in the new economic world order.
Here's another reason the plutocrats have recently roused themselves: last chance Texaco. Appeal to race has a best-before shelf date ("best before actual future fully discovered").
And so it goes.
Fresh urine is sterile. Day old urine, not so much. Mother nature decided not to split hairs and gave us more or less the same revulsion to both. Besides, you shouldn't drink too much fresh urine, no matter how sterile. It's hard on the kidneys (which is way less hard on the body than thermal runaway due to terminal dehydration, so don't let your camel spill a drop).
In any kind of debate about purity, what instantly kicks into gear is a purity spectacle, because we all want to brag about our elite and inviolable pea-under-the-mattress gross-out threshold.
It's a method of social signalling where we implicitly brag about being clean, clean, clean.
For precisely the same reason that long hair on women is a prized signal: many dietary deficiencies make hair brittle, and thus long, even, healthy hair impossible to maintain. It takes years and years to grow hair out, so it can't be faked anytime soon after you've be pogromized (I am clean! I am consistently well-fed! I am not the reviled underclass!)
The social side of our disgust reflex is 75% purity theatre.
The other 25% is functional innumeracy. "I'm not actually very good at working out the real risks here, so I'm just rolling with optimal optics." It's thus important to make this signal look extremely automatic, and not calculated, otherwise even the dull knives begin to notice how it conflates with risk-assessment innumeracy.
Then you get this group of people who become so practiced at making their every emotional ripple look automatic and non-negotiable, they manage to self-destruct any form of ironic detachment concerning their internal emotional messengers. "I'm just playing the cards as they lie, emotions are never wrong—oh, those, poor, mangled trees."
Okay, honeybun, emotions are an evolutionary tool, and God took many shortcuts in order to pack our many survival instincts into such a small suitcase, e.g. cheesecake as an absolute good. (Or, maybe, constant war with your own self-image is a covert fitness fillip. Who can say, really? Human sexual drama moves in mysterious ways.)
Does a Urine-Revealing Pool Chemical Exist?
No, but we say it does to the worst of the usual suspects. By any means available, give the little buggers a sense of their every move always being watched (fine print: may contribute to risk-assessment innumeracy later in life—but who's counting? Only bunch of snivelling geeks, who are easy enough to ward off anyway with a mere half-hour ritual in front of the bathroom mirror every morning.)
Trump is obsessed with what his staff wears. Don't let their costumes distract you.
Of the entire administration, only Steve Bannon looks properly equipped to survive a month in the Bedouin desert.
Yeah, and I'm happy to pass on being hired by you, as well.
Long Live the Sorting Hat.
I've read electronics data sheets that were riddles, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Those data sheets are tying to tell you something, and it's probably not that you should busy yourself with becoming better at solving riddles.
Riddle me this, Batman: what do your customers want? That problem probably shouldn't be addressed with riddle-brain either.
But I will concede that there's a time and place for mastering the art of solving the Really Big Riddle. Like that time the London Whale put $2 billion up for grabs by whoever was brave enough take the other side of those positions.
Those are the riddles that are really worth solving.
Ivanchuk missed mate in one
Is it a riddle how this kind of thing happens, or a problem requiring deeper cognitive skills? For example, was Anand hoping that Ivanchuk would miss his easy out, because of the complexity and urgency of the rest of the board? Or were they both so wrapped up in the larger riddle, that neither person noticed the coup de grace? (Not that I've ever witnessed this in the trenches, while programming under an intense deadline.)
What does a real programmer do? He or she notices that there's a pattern to the error mode of top chess players—long moves by bishops in the backward direction are the ones most often missed, and writes a script to catch those instances. Is that a riddle? "What class of moves is missed most often by top chess players?" I don't think you can approach that question as a riddle.
Often the hardest thinking is that which allows you to escape from riddle mode.
You're Anand. You don't even know if your opponent is a lone wolf who has wandered off the reservation or a world-renown investment bank executing a deliberate strategy. Whatever he might be, he appears to be leaking $100 million bills. The clock is ticking. Your move.
Ah yes, from the "all morale issues are created equal" camp.
Though I agree that there is a germ of truth here. From the military's perspective, there's no morale issue so great it can't be resolved by threatening an even worse outcome.
Joyeux Noel to you too, and many Paths of Glory.
Condolences about your grandpa. He was an ass, but the twelve crapper salute was worse than he deserved.
All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Jerry Maguire.
What can I say? At least Jerry Maguire beats kindergarten.
But it's still three pay grades above being a troll and an asshole.
Back in the day (2014), this was mandatory geek reading:
David Auerbach: Chat Wars
Hmmm. Where have I heard that refrain recently?
Actually, some of us (dare I speak here for more than myself?) do know the score on both fronts—such as the difference between productive capital and investment equity.
News flash, brother: any damn fool with quality prescription eyewear knows (A) that the American healthcare delivery system is so damn complex it could make your head explode in three easy lessons; and (B) that it's kind of extra end-of-tree-limb precarious to make a productive capital outlay where you have no direct or indirect price control of your end-product.
We have a very large market sectors where there are strong regulatory restrictions/impossible-to-ignore interactions on selling price (the two most obvious are medical services and agriculture). The end result is that the producers in most of these sectors are lobbied up to the hilt.
Just watch the fat fly when the lever is wrested:
Tim Hortons' extra-large trouble trouble — 2010
Everyone I know is in the same boat: used to regard Tim's as a decent lunch stop on a long drive (sandwiches were value, and you were going to pay for a coffee anyway) and now regard Tim's as just another disappointing rat hole of race-for-the-bottom strip-mall generica. ("Everyone I know" is not an unbiased sample, it universally includes people with quality prescription eyewear who sometimes cook at home.)
Nowhere in your post did you mention this, either.
Jon Stewart Explains the 'Cavuto Mark'
All questions aside, nowhere does it mention your father's vig.
Here's the problem: if cover exists, someone will fly under it. So in the name of infallible subtext, please knock it off.
We live in a world with the most complex market dynamics in the history of human civilization (by a landslide) and this is all you've got?
AMD's new design probably has a sweet spot. I'm sure Intel's existing designs also have a sweet spot. According to Plato, Xeonophon, Hume, Smith, Kant, Thoreau, Mises, and Hayek's theory of division of labour, price signals on both sides must adjust to achieve optimal resource allocation internal to both firms, with Intel's volumes around their comparative sweet spot rising, and Intel's volumes around their comparative disadvantage falling.
That's just one additional component of the price signal. There's also the possibility that the price signal is being used to fire a warning shot over AMD's bow, that Intel is preparing to use their enormous war chest to engage in scorched-earth, oxygen-sucking anti-competitive tactics.
Pricing theory. There's more to it than derp derp derp "gouge".
Direct competition aside, the threat of power-efficient ARM designs in the data center might not have pressed Intel's feet to the fire, but I'm pretty sure Intel's feet have remained at least somewhat toasty, over this long decade of mainstream-CPU quasi-monopolistic seller's market.
You make the difference out to be going from a lawn-chair lemonade stand at the ultimate congestion point in the Medina airport to breaking rocks in a South African prison camp. No, it's more like going from a light sweat to a heavy sweat. Of all companies, Intel has never not proceeded by the sweat of its brow.
Only the paranoid survive.
Ka-snap!
Hike the margins while you still can!
Ka-snap!
More IPC, more SOI, more FinFET!
Ka-snap!
You want to see gouging? Ask any Intel engineer to lift his (or her) shirt.
That's about all we need to know concerning the narrative spinneret powering Space Odyssey #10,017.
If the bar is the IQ of someone who presently thinks this is the way IQ works, he's probably right.
You're delusional. The poker robots already exceed expert human players in precisely calibrating their lack of predictability.
Beyond video games: New artificial intelligence beats tactical experts in combat simulation
Fighter jet AI consistently beats "Top Gun" tactical experts
The AI 'Top Gun' that can beat the military's best: Pilots hail 'aggresive and dynamic' software after losing to it repeatedly
Presently, combat AI is a saber-toothed tribble-tigger confined to a small box. That box is heading for puberty real darn soon.
As I type, that remark is presently moderated +5. Huston, we have an insightfulness crisis.
Materials
"Just" sloppy, you say? Because any group of 50 undergraduates is as close to the Platonic ideal as any group of 50 trillion electrons?
I've monitoring carefully for the past year. I'm pretty sure there's no word in the English language that precedes a sloppy thought more reliably than that potent little trigger word "just".
Good night, sleep tight, loony dimsight.
Your shallow grasp of the cost function of suing a big, madhouse employer (while you're quietly vesting, among other things) leaves pretty much the whole of human history unexplored.
Of course, if you have no supportive social network within your professional niche worth two nickles to rub together, this is an easy trap to fall into.
"Oh, the gap in my resume circa 2017? That's when I took off an entire year to sue my former employer for a HUGE punitive settlement over a toxic, offhand comment by a testosterone-fuelled, bottom-line-driven corporate executive during a late-night outing at some drunken corporate retreat."
But then, you're probably much better at explaining things than I am. After you explain it, the response would probably be, "well, son, that's exactly how we roll around here: zero tolerance. We like your spunk. Welcome on board. You start tomorrow."
Just guessing, there. IANALC, I could be wrong.
[*] I Am Not A Life Coach
Nice frame jump. What's natural and good in human culture (exodus from Eden being at the outset nasty, brutish, and short) is to get as far away as humanly possible from what's natural and good in nature (red in tooth and claw).
So I call SB.
[*] strange bedfellows