Sure but that kinda illustrates my point. It isn't so much "sticking with x86" that's the issue. The environments that require that much "keep the exact image the way it is" limits migration to the latest and greatest Intel-based AWS/Azure server running 64-bit Linux just as much as it limits moving to ARM 64-bit Linux.
And as I know it, there isn't significant marketshare or money to be made from "running Windows XP on a VM". Most of the current revenue is from turnkey people who use cookie-cutter database+frontend+Java Backend templates which, as far as I know, run just fine on ARM as they do on x86.
Assuming you aren't rolling your own thread and atomics libraries, is there a perceivable difference on the API side when moving from x86 to ARM or any other architecture? Hell, if this argument were true, there are enough differences between the various x86 iterations that would make it so that devs want the specific *family* of processors they develop on to be in the servers they use...
I posit there's probably enough of a difference between AMD's x86 implementation and Intel's...
The issue is that you don't *know* whether the memory being fetched is accessible until the data comes back from DRAM. So you can assume all accesses to DRAM are not accessible -- very very poor for performance -- and play it safe. Or assume it's accessible until it comes back from DRAM.
Of course, during that time you've also launched a whole lot of other memory requests that is speculative. And it doesn't matter that you end up discarding the results from the software interface perspective -- the cache (or other non-software visible hardware states) have changed. And careful timing can reveal those changes.
You mean besides state sponsored IP theft, currency manipulation, dumping practices, and disregarding human & environmental welfare to compete on price?
I mean, it's not like the US doesn't subsidize a shitload of its own industries (which is why Canada and the EU had agricultural tariffs to begin with). Put up trade barriers (25% on pickup trucks) and mess with its currency value via huge Fed purchases of treasury bonds. But when we do it, it's "for the good of the country".
But China isn't playing entirely fair either.
The US didn't get to where it is by expecting everyone else to "play fair" or even by playing fair itself. It got to where it is by allowing its private market to do its thing while also having just enough regulatory insight and public funding to invest and protect the common good. This made whatever "unfair" practices anyone else may have done practically ineffective.
The specific issue was the active wars the US entered in the past 3 decades. They weren't necessary and simply worsened geopolitical stability that necessitated more military spending.
Having the US as the global police (or rather, having a global police) itself isn't a bad thing.
1. The CDMA patents granted are fairly broad. It was very novel at the time so one can see why it was granted but it covers a very large swath of "communicating over airwaves". 2. The actual transmission of data through public frequency bands is regulated (in the US by the FCC but other countries have their equivalents). This cuts down on the degrees of freedom wireless protocols can have.
Zoning laws, density/size restrictions and the anemic permitting process definite affects housing prices. When you have more people moving into an area, that increases demand. All of those local policies restrict supply.
What do you get when there's more demand than supply? Higher prices.
I'm not sure I buy that. The impact of the Internet may be less severe on an individual case, but its reach is far more ubiquitous. Just researching things alone has stopped being a go-to-the-library-or-rely-on-that-guy-who-studied-it task (which could take days) to minutes.
This includes going on Youtube and learning how to rewire your house electricals. Or make a lemon tart.
This may not be as impactful as, say, having an engine replace hauling rocks around individually. But ~5B people have access to the Internet within the last decade. How long did it take the ICE to proliferate?
a) What's your strict definition of "bright-eyed hacks" vs "oracle genius"? What qualifies Jonas Salks and not Dr. Jacob Crawford? b) There are very specific species of mosquitoes that are targeted here. Also, nobody knew what eliminating a Polio would do, they just did it. The world adjusted by having more people live.
Geekbench 4 runs with built-in "cool down" periods to avoid CPU throttling effects. Its meant to measure peak performance, not sustainable performance.
But realistically, most applications are bursty. They don't really peg the CPU at 100% for sustained periods of time. Even media workloads get caught waiting for memory long enough that the CPU isn't constantly crunching instructions.
The issue is that data movement is now the bottleneck, not the actual math itself.
The architecture they propose allows high bandwidth reads from DRAM over the data set using an FPGA tile to do the flexible data routing while being tied to the pins of a single DRAM chip rather than traditional CPU read/write centralized busses that generally have higher latencies and limited bandwidth.
It's essentially a better memory controller architecture that emphasizes embarrassingly parallel data access that needs both high bandwidth and low latency but little in the way of random access.
CPU's traditionally optimize for latency but not bandwidth. GPU's optimize for bandwidth but not latency.
This argument never makes sense. Sure, I shouldn't expect mass transit from SF to Wichita. But just within CA, the areas of SF and LA alone have the population density equal to that of Germany (between Munich and Berlin or Bohn, for example).
Ditto for NYC and Boston, which are very similar to that of Tokyo and Kyoto (both in distance between, population density within the city as well as rural areas in between).
The reason is nothing more than politics. And it would seem the ultra-liberal politicians of CA and NYC/MA aren't any better at adopting mass transit (despite the appeals to how well Europe or Japan does things as well as concern for greenhouse gas) compared to the ultra-conservative politicians of TX.
Hence why we vote in Federal elections. And if the majority of State representatives agree to such a provision, I guess we'll all just have to accept it.
It's almost like we live in a governed Federation instead of a do-anything-you-want clusterfuck of rogue nation-states.
Wage is not the actual cost of a person though. Typical overhead can be 1.5-2.5x. Not to mention something as variable as on-demand pilots probably make that overhead north of 3x.
So now we're talking 150-200$ out of 400-600$. A sizable chunk.
Also, the pilot adds extra weight. An autonomous passenger drone can be much smaller and lighter, reducing fuel and manufacturing costs. You might eventually squeeze a 1 hour ride down to ~200$ just with current technology (plus autonomous flight).
What's the norm here amongst other nations? I thought Europe taxed global companies on sales via VAT. Does SK not have a sales tax?
The US taxes foreign corporations on income they derive "regularly" from operations in the US. So that also would appear to be normal. I'm honestly shocked SK didn't do this previously.
I think there is something whimsical that in your scenario, Europeans are the aristocrats that do not produce, protect, or supply anything that couldn't be done by other nations. They get to sit on high in their ivory towers while the rest of the world protect and supply their sophisticated tastes.
You forgot the other 2 parts Europe would offer: Education and Research.
No I didn't. Ivory Tower is an apt description. Or put as "an environment of intellectual pursuit disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life". Not concerning yourself with defense, money, manufacturing, or resource supply so that you can only care about "education, research, and culture" is the summit of disconnect from practical concerns.
The fact that you see no value in Research and Education kind of speaks volumes. All "practical" concerns of modern day started as "Ivory Tower" research. Including the computer you're typing on. And no, it's not something "anyone can do". Research takes critical mass, infrastructure (of Universities, research groups, etc.) and has momentum in and of itself. To this date, China is trying to catch up to the US in terms of advanced research and can't despite its huge population and (relatively) good primary education.
But ya, keep thinking the "Ivory Tower" aren't useful or that it isn't an industry that can't be easily replicated.
That depends. I think Russia gets a bad rap in terms of their conquest ambitions. Looking at history going back to Peter the Great, all they've wanted are to capture areas of resource caches and to get some warm water ports. The West has denied them that at every turn.
I don't see them as any more conquest hungry than the West (including the US). They'll likely have more influence and controlled areas compared to today. But likely won't have (or want) as large of a global military footprint compared to say, the present day United States.
You forgot the other 2 parts Europe would offer: Education and Research. Those are very very important things and is currently dominated by the US (in no small part because those educated in the EU's primary schools often immigrate to the US and stay here).
Also, don't discount cultural hegemony. The world is US centric due to Hollywood and that's a huge boon for the US.
Those who think the EU provides the US with nothing (or less than the US provides the EU) tend to be the ones who think military spending is all that matters; they are wrong.
that's deeply disingenuous. companies that pay a higher rate of corporation tax ALSO have to pay those taxes.
Companies that pay a high rate operate only in the US. The US portion of Google also pays a high rate. The "average" is moved lower because Google pays lower taxes in other areas where it operates. I see nothing unfair or disingenuous about that.
It also doesn't take away from my point: Google does pay taxes. So it's complete hyperbole to say that they don't. Now, is it at a rate we want? Well, that's a subjective point. I'd prefer a 0% corporate tax and treating dividends/stock buybacks as income taxable at income rates.
I disagree: if that happens more investment will be done through corporate vehicles and so never get taxed.
And there's nothing wrong with that. That just means it'll be spent acquiring business. Investors tend to demand higher dividends for a non-growth company and growth from a non-dividend company. So it'll have to be paid to a person (or entity) eventually. That payment to investors should be taxed at income tax rates.
Tax the investors -- they can't move overseas.
The big ones can.
Not really. Very few hedge fund managers would be willing to move to Ireland or the Caymans full time just to save on taxes.
The EU isn't protecting consumers. The EU is protecting manufacturers (with huge lobbying power) and is probably a bit miffed about how their phone makers got absolutely demolished by the US and Asia.
Their manufacturers want Google services but don't want all of Google services. They want to be able to pick and choose services that they get for free without having to install the entire "Google experience". And Google, who makes their money entirely based on everyone using their search and services and everything else together, obviously doesn't want that.
Plenty of Asian manufacturers (Xiaomi, OnePlus, etc.) don't buy into Google's services at all. They have their own suite. So Google isn't forcing their services with Android. Google's simply offering packages instead of a-la-cart services.
But EU laws seem to be geared towards "if you're big, you're bad, even if you followed all the rules and played fair and continue to do so". Stupid? Yes. But I suppose it's their choice to make.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure but that kinda illustrates my point. It isn't so much "sticking with x86" that's the issue. The environments that require that much "keep the exact image the way it is" limits migration to the latest and greatest Intel-based AWS/Azure server running 64-bit Linux just as much as it limits moving to ARM 64-bit Linux.
And as I know it, there isn't significant marketshare or money to be made from "running Windows XP on a VM". Most of the current revenue is from turnkey people who use cookie-cutter database+frontend+Java Backend templates which, as far as I know, run just fine on ARM as they do on x86.
Assuming you aren't rolling your own thread and atomics libraries, is there a perceivable difference on the API side when moving from x86 to ARM or any other architecture? Hell, if this argument were true, there are enough differences between the various x86 iterations that would make it so that devs want the specific *family* of processors they develop on to be in the servers they use...
I posit there's probably enough of a difference between AMD's x86 implementation and Intel's...
The issue is that you don't *know* whether the memory being fetched is accessible until the data comes back from DRAM. So you can assume all accesses to DRAM are not accessible -- very very poor for performance -- and play it safe. Or assume it's accessible until it comes back from DRAM.
Of course, during that time you've also launched a whole lot of other memory requests that is speculative. And it doesn't matter that you end up discarding the results from the software interface perspective -- the cache (or other non-software visible hardware states) have changed. And careful timing can reveal those changes.
You mean besides state sponsored IP theft, currency manipulation, dumping practices, and disregarding human & environmental welfare to compete on price?
I mean, it's not like the US doesn't subsidize a shitload of its own industries (which is why Canada and the EU had agricultural tariffs to begin with). Put up trade barriers (25% on pickup trucks) and mess with its currency value via huge Fed purchases of treasury bonds. But when we do it, it's "for the good of the country".
But China isn't playing entirely fair either.
The US didn't get to where it is by expecting everyone else to "play fair" or even by playing fair itself. It got to where it is by allowing its private market to do its thing while also having just enough regulatory insight and public funding to invest and protect the common good. This made whatever "unfair" practices anyone else may have done practically ineffective.
We stopped doing that about 3 decades ago.
The specific issue was the active wars the US entered in the past 3 decades. They weren't necessary and simply worsened geopolitical stability that necessitated more military spending.
Having the US as the global police (or rather, having a global police) itself isn't a bad thing.
With cellular communications in particular:
1. The CDMA patents granted are fairly broad. It was very novel at the time so one can see why it was granted but it covers a very large swath of "communicating over airwaves".
2. The actual transmission of data through public frequency bands is regulated (in the US by the FCC but other countries have their equivalents). This cuts down on the degrees of freedom wireless protocols can have.
Zoning laws, density/size restrictions and the anemic permitting process definite affects housing prices. When you have more people moving into an area, that increases demand. All of those local policies restrict supply.
What do you get when there's more demand than supply? Higher prices.
I'm not sure I buy that. The impact of the Internet may be less severe on an individual case, but its reach is far more ubiquitous. Just researching things alone has stopped being a go-to-the-library-or-rely-on-that-guy-who-studied-it task (which could take days) to minutes.
This includes going on Youtube and learning how to rewire your house electricals. Or make a lemon tart.
This may not be as impactful as, say, having an engine replace hauling rocks around individually. But ~5B people have access to the Internet within the last decade. How long did it take the ICE to proliferate?
a) What's your strict definition of "bright-eyed hacks" vs "oracle genius"? What qualifies Jonas Salks and not Dr. Jacob Crawford?
b) There are very specific species of mosquitoes that are targeted here. Also, nobody knew what eliminating a Polio would do, they just did it. The world adjusted by having more people live.
Ya but then the gorillas will just die when winter comes along...
"You wouldn't steal a car" - treating Intellectual Property as real property.
Geekbench 4 runs with built-in "cool down" periods to avoid CPU throttling effects. Its meant to measure peak performance, not sustainable performance.
But realistically, most applications are bursty. They don't really peg the CPU at 100% for sustained periods of time. Even media workloads get caught waiting for memory long enough that the CPU isn't constantly crunching instructions.
https://www.realworldtech.com/...
Geekbench 4 (used here) gets Linus's seal of approval.
The issue is that data movement is now the bottleneck, not the actual math itself.
The architecture they propose allows high bandwidth reads from DRAM over the data set using an FPGA tile to do the flexible data routing while being tied to the pins of a single DRAM chip rather than traditional CPU read/write centralized busses that generally have higher latencies and limited bandwidth.
It's essentially a better memory controller architecture that emphasizes embarrassingly parallel data access that needs both high bandwidth and low latency but little in the way of random access.
CPU's traditionally optimize for latency but not bandwidth. GPU's optimize for bandwidth but not latency.
This argument never makes sense. Sure, I shouldn't expect mass transit from SF to Wichita. But just within CA, the areas of SF and LA alone have the population density equal to that of Germany (between Munich and Berlin or Bohn, for example).
Ditto for NYC and Boston, which are very similar to that of Tokyo and Kyoto (both in distance between, population density within the city as well as rural areas in between).
The reason is nothing more than politics. And it would seem the ultra-liberal politicians of CA and NYC/MA aren't any better at adopting mass transit (despite the appeals to how well Europe or Japan does things as well as concern for greenhouse gas) compared to the ultra-conservative politicians of TX.
I'm curious why you think renewables are more susceptible to blackouts than say, a large natural gas or coal plant...
If Tesla's battery in Australia demonstrates anything, it's that batteries + solar is far more versatile and reliable compared to a burner.
Hence why we vote in Federal elections. And if the majority of State representatives agree to such a provision, I guess we'll all just have to accept it.
It's almost like we live in a governed Federation instead of a do-anything-you-want clusterfuck of rogue nation-states.
Wage is not the actual cost of a person though. Typical overhead can be 1.5-2.5x. Not to mention something as variable as on-demand pilots probably make that overhead north of 3x.
So now we're talking 150-200$ out of 400-600$. A sizable chunk.
Also, the pilot adds extra weight. An autonomous passenger drone can be much smaller and lighter, reducing fuel and manufacturing costs. You might eventually squeeze a 1 hour ride down to ~200$ just with current technology (plus autonomous flight).
I feel dirty. Good for him though; I guess they're really trying to make good on that whole expand competition thing.
What's the norm here amongst other nations? I thought Europe taxed global companies on sales via VAT. Does SK not have a sales tax?
The US taxes foreign corporations on income they derive "regularly" from operations in the US. So that also would appear to be normal. I'm honestly shocked SK didn't do this previously.
I think there is something whimsical that in your scenario, Europeans are the aristocrats that do not produce, protect, or supply anything that couldn't be done by other nations. They get to sit on high in their ivory towers while the rest of the world protect and supply their sophisticated tastes.
You forgot the other 2 parts Europe would offer: Education and Research.
No I didn't. Ivory Tower is an apt description. Or put as "an environment of intellectual pursuit disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life". Not concerning yourself with defense, money, manufacturing, or resource supply so that you can only care about "education, research, and culture" is the summit of disconnect from practical concerns.
The fact that you see no value in Research and Education kind of speaks volumes. All "practical" concerns of modern day started as "Ivory Tower" research. Including the computer you're typing on. And no, it's not something "anyone can do". Research takes critical mass, infrastructure (of Universities, research groups, etc.) and has momentum in and of itself. To this date, China is trying to catch up to the US in terms of advanced research and can't despite its huge population and (relatively) good primary education.
But ya, keep thinking the "Ivory Tower" aren't useful or that it isn't an industry that can't be easily replicated.
That depends. I think Russia gets a bad rap in terms of their conquest ambitions. Looking at history going back to Peter the Great, all they've wanted are to capture areas of resource caches and to get some warm water ports. The West has denied them that at every turn.
I don't see them as any more conquest hungry than the West (including the US). They'll likely have more influence and controlled areas compared to today. But likely won't have (or want) as large of a global military footprint compared to say, the present day United States.
You forgot the other 2 parts Europe would offer: Education and Research. Those are very very important things and is currently dominated by the US (in no small part because those educated in the EU's primary schools often immigrate to the US and stay here).
Also, don't discount cultural hegemony. The world is US centric due to Hollywood and that's a huge boon for the US.
Those who think the EU provides the US with nothing (or less than the US provides the EU) tend to be the ones who think military spending is all that matters; they are wrong.
that's deeply disingenuous. companies that pay a higher rate of corporation tax ALSO have to pay those taxes.
Companies that pay a high rate operate only in the US. The US portion of Google also pays a high rate. The "average" is moved lower because Google pays lower taxes in other areas where it operates. I see nothing unfair or disingenuous about that.
It also doesn't take away from my point: Google does pay taxes. So it's complete hyperbole to say that they don't. Now, is it at a rate we want? Well, that's a subjective point. I'd prefer a 0% corporate tax and treating dividends/stock buybacks as income taxable at income rates.
I disagree: if that happens more investment will be done through corporate vehicles and so never get taxed.
And there's nothing wrong with that. That just means it'll be spent acquiring business. Investors tend to demand higher dividends for a non-growth company and growth from a non-dividend company. So it'll have to be paid to a person (or entity) eventually. That payment to investors should be taxed at income tax rates.
Tax the investors -- they can't move overseas.
The big ones can.
Not really. Very few hedge fund managers would be willing to move to Ireland or the Caymans full time just to save on taxes.
The EU isn't protecting consumers. The EU is protecting manufacturers (with huge lobbying power) and is probably a bit miffed about how their phone makers got absolutely demolished by the US and Asia.
Their manufacturers want Google services but don't want all of Google services. They want to be able to pick and choose services that they get for free without having to install the entire "Google experience". And Google, who makes their money entirely based on everyone using their search and services and everything else together, obviously doesn't want that.
Plenty of Asian manufacturers (Xiaomi, OnePlus, etc.) don't buy into Google's services at all. They have their own suite. So Google isn't forcing their services with Android. Google's simply offering packages instead of a-la-cart services.
But EU laws seem to be geared towards "if you're big, you're bad, even if you followed all the rules and played fair and continue to do so". Stupid? Yes. But I suppose it's their choice to make.