Good summary. Now, "receptionist" is a job that will not go away, but it will not provide many jobs. The market is just exceptionally small and it has pretty steep requirements: Helpful, educated, pleasant manner and to look at, punctual and dependable. Most people cannot actually be receptionists.
Actually, everybody is at risk. I agree that the "paper pushers" will suffer horribly and that is the first time this happens. Many jobs in the "paper pusher" class can already be automatized to a large degree and it keeps getting cheaper to do so. But keep in mind that an empty (or not built in the first place) office building does not need cleaners either.
Zero argument and an unsophisticated insult. Do you actually have something to contribute? If you have no clue about the topic at hand, at least try to be funny...
While said "toilet cleaner" has a pretty secure job, you are mostly right. I have some insight into the area of engineering and there the higher-to-highly qualified jobs will not go away. Same for some of the technicians. The thing is that machines have a snowflakes chance in hell understanding what a capable engineer does or having the flexibility of a technician that does custom installation jobs. There is nothing in true AI coming out way, absolutely nothing. But automation (weak AI) do a lot of jobs to a large degree. It does not need to fully replace people to kill the majority of jobs. An example are 10 Amazon workers replaced by one Amazon worker and 5 robots. The one worker supervises the robots and does the part of the job where the robots fail. And 9 workers are out of a job as a result. There are tons of situations where something similar will happen.
The ones threatened are, for example, coders that are not very good (the vast majority), engineers that are tied to a single product or that have not kept up with things, technicians that only do generic mass-jobs, etc. True, that will be something like 70-90% of all tech workers, but the rest does not only have secure jobs, they become _more_ valuable.
I do agree that for most people "jobs" will be over and that there is urgent need to find a way to both keep them fed and provide meaning in their lives or things will get ugly. The few that will continue to be needed will not be the model the majority can to follow. Up-skilling is not going to work this time, despite propaganda telling people otherwise.
ARM does not have to fix anything for the issue under discussion and neither has AMD. Meltdown is Intel only. They did it to get more performance while everybody else was careful and did not do it. Intel was warned by numerous research papers that this could go badly. Now they are lying about it and are trying to a) confuse the issue and b) have the fix (which exposes their real performance when running securely) not active at startup. a) is dishonorable and b) is insane. Linus is just calling them out here.
Spectre is something else, and hits almost everybody. While fortunately, it is much, much harder to exploit (Meltdown is easy), Spectre will also be much harder to fix. It is possible that we will see an arms-race for a while with Spectre and that, in the end, it will need to be a compiler-level fix that finally fixes things. Not good, but apparently, the performance penalties for an actual hardware fix at this time would be a performance loss of 5x...20x.
But to re-iterate: The only reason why Intel tries to lump Meltdown and Spectre together is so that they do not look as grossly incompetent and dismissive of their customers's security as they are with Meltdown.
My reading also. Intel did some shady things they likely did know were shady in order to have the best performance. Now that they have been caught and the shady things actually turn out to be really bad, they still do not want to fix them, because they do not want to admit how much they padded the performance of their chips and they still do not want to compete with an actually good design because everybody will see how they have been screwed over by Intel.
Linux is just calling that out. I mean, a functionality that fixes a very critical security bug and it is _off_ by default? That is insane!
Indeed. It is time this US-based nonsense stops and patents are only granted for things that have more merit than standard straight-forward engineering work.
I agree. It also depends on what you need. If, for example, you must be able to compare for ordering accurately and must know when you need extra effort, interval arithmetic is the way to go. If, on the other hand, you just need a small error, more precision in everything is the way to go. It is always good to have different tools with different strength and weaknesses available and float calculations are no exception.
Hahhaha, indeed. But since SJWs are aggressive all the time (one could even argue that SJWs are people that never mastered their aggressions) , this could tragically backfire.
And the problem starts with establishing ground-truth: Those that are into deception will not give you a sample or will taint the data-set intentionally. From the press, I gather that the average human adult lies once every 10 minutes. Sounds too high to me, but still, almost everybody lies regularly and hence almost everybody has reason to taint the basis for ground-truth.
But the fascist fuckers that want people to be completely unable to have secrets will keep trying...
This is also known as Interval Arithmetic, vintage ca. 1950 and available in many numerics packages. Just putting known algorithms in hardware does not make them anything meriting a patent.
The perversions of the US patent system are truly astounding.
Also sounds very much like they re-invented Interval Arithmetic, which was discovered originally around 1950 and has been available in numeric packages for a long time. And, to top it off, the title is lying: Interval Arithmetic does not give you an accurate representation. It just makes sure you always know the maximum error.
Indeed. Probably one of the reasons this design (if it actually exists) needs a warhead this big to be effective at all. Sound much more to me that some (utterly insane) people stand to benefit from this rumor, for example by being the ones that supply the designs the US uses to counter this.
A pity we cannot identify (and then reliably contain) such people at birth.
Well, as I said, low-quality "engineers" may need this stuff and it may even increase the quality of what they do a bit. But you will never get good quality with people that apparently benefit so much from this.
because you just basically regurgitated the popular image of low-quality engineering as the gold standard
You really don't know what you're talking about then!
Keep telling yourself that. Unfortunately for you, I very much do know what I am talking about. And I can recognize a low-quality operation by the approach it takes. You obviously cannot, but that is just consistent with you being part of one.
Funny. And dead wrong in the high-quality space. Oh, sure, people work together, but actual direct collaboration is a small part of what they do. Meetings are the exception and do not represent a major part of the work time. Of course, if you go to low-quality, low-competence engineering, then things change. I see the second variant all the time.
If you think engineering is not a team sport you're either extremely junior or don't know much about engineering.
I am neither extremely junior nor do I "not know much" about engineering. But this seems to apply to you, because you just basically regurgitated the popular image of low-quality engineering as the gold standard.
Actually, most of what he cited is not suspect at all, but established scientific fact. It is just that much of what he cited is not politically correct and hence usually does not get told to or reported by the popular press. You probably do not have what it takes to see that little difference.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of well-established facts are not politically correct and and there are always tons of morons that think they can "discuss" facts and change them by that. Usually these morons do not even understand what the facts actually say and imply, they just do not "like" them and then think they can change them. That is not how it works. Reality is there and has its characteristics. Putting your head in the sand or inventing some nice fairy tales about how reality should be and then mistaking them for the actual facts does not actually change reality, it just makes the problems that are there much, much larger.
Slashdot Mirror
Good summary. Now, "receptionist" is a job that will not go away, but it will not provide many jobs. The market is just exceptionally small and it has pretty steep requirements: Helpful, educated, pleasant manner and to look at, punctual and dependable. Most people cannot actually be receptionists.
Actually, everybody is at risk. I agree that the "paper pushers" will suffer horribly and that is the first time this happens. Many jobs in the "paper pusher" class can already be automatized to a large degree and it keeps getting cheaper to do so. But keep in mind that an empty (or not built in the first place) office building does not need cleaners either.
Zero argument and an unsophisticated insult. Do you actually have something to contribute? If you have no clue about the topic at hand, at least try to be funny...
While said "toilet cleaner" has a pretty secure job, you are mostly right. I have some insight into the area of engineering and there the higher-to-highly qualified jobs will not go away. Same for some of the technicians. The thing is that machines have a snowflakes chance in hell understanding what a capable engineer does or having the flexibility of a technician that does custom installation jobs. There is nothing in true AI coming out way, absolutely nothing. But automation (weak AI) do a lot of jobs to a large degree. It does not need to fully replace people to kill the majority of jobs. An example are 10 Amazon workers replaced by one Amazon worker and 5 robots. The one worker supervises the robots and does the part of the job where the robots fail. And 9 workers are out of a job as a result. There are tons of situations where something similar will happen.
The ones threatened are, for example, coders that are not very good (the vast majority), engineers that are tied to a single product or that have not kept up with things, technicians that only do generic mass-jobs, etc. True, that will be something like 70-90% of all tech workers, but the rest does not only have secure jobs, they become _more_ valuable.
I do agree that for most people "jobs" will be over and that there is urgent need to find a way to both keep them fed and provide meaning in their lives or things will get ugly. The few that will continue to be needed will not be the model the majority can to follow. Up-skilling is not going to work this time, despite propaganda telling people otherwise.
ARM does not have to fix anything for the issue under discussion and neither has AMD. Meltdown is Intel only. They did it to get more performance while everybody else was careful and did not do it. Intel was warned by numerous research papers that this could go badly. Now they are lying about it and are trying to a) confuse the issue and b) have the fix (which exposes their real performance when running securely) not active at startup. a) is dishonorable and b) is insane. Linus is just calling them out here.
Spectre is something else, and hits almost everybody. While fortunately, it is much, much harder to exploit (Meltdown is easy), Spectre will also be much harder to fix. It is possible that we will see an arms-race for a while with Spectre and that, in the end, it will need to be a compiler-level fix that finally fixes things. Not good, but apparently, the performance penalties for an actual hardware fix at this time would be a performance loss of 5x...20x.
But to re-iterate: The only reason why Intel tries to lump Meltdown and Spectre together is so that they do not look as grossly incompetent and dismissive of their customers's security as they are with Meltdown.
My reading also. Intel did some shady things they likely did know were shady in order to have the best performance. Now that they have been caught and the shady things actually turn out to be really bad, they still do not want to fix them, because they do not want to admit how much they padded the performance of their chips and they still do not want to compete with an actually good design because everybody will see how they have been screwed over by Intel.
Linux is just calling that out. I mean, a functionality that fixes a very critical security bug and it is _off_ by default? That is insane!
Indeed. It is time this US-based nonsense stops and patents are only granted for things that have more merit than standard straight-forward engineering work.
I agree. It also depends on what you need. If, for example, you must be able to compare for ordering accurately and must know when you need extra effort, interval arithmetic is the way to go. If, on the other hand, you just need a small error, more precision in everything is the way to go. It is always good to have different tools with different strength and weaknesses available and float calculations are no exception.
That should be "century". It was discovered around 1950.
Nice!
Hahhaha, indeed. But since SJWs are aggressive all the time (one could even argue that SJWs are people that never mastered their aggressions) , this could tragically backfire.
And the problem starts with establishing ground-truth: Those that are into deception will not give you a sample or will taint the data-set intentionally. From the press, I gather that the average human adult lies once every 10 minutes. Sounds too high to me, but still, almost everybody lies regularly and hence almost everybody has reason to taint the basis for ground-truth.
But the fascist fuckers that want people to be completely unable to have secrets will keep trying...
If done right, this works. It is also more than half a decade old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is also known as Interval Arithmetic, vintage ca. 1950 and available in many numerics packages. Just putting known algorithms in hardware does not make them anything meriting a patent.
The perversions of the US patent system are truly astounding.
Also sounds very much like they re-invented Interval Arithmetic, which was discovered originally around 1950 and has been available in numeric packages for a long time. And, to top it off, the title is lying: Interval Arithmetic does not give you an accurate representation. It just makes sure you always know the maximum error.
Pathetic.
Indeed. Probably one of the reasons this design (if it actually exists) needs a warhead this big to be effective at all. Sound much more to me that some (utterly insane) people stand to benefit from this rumor, for example by being the ones that supply the designs the US uses to counter this.
A pity we cannot identify (and then reliably contain) such people at birth.
Well, as I said, low-quality "engineers" may need this stuff and it may even increase the quality of what they do a bit. But you will never get good quality with people that apparently benefit so much from this.
I do not share your delusion. But I have cleaned up after people like you...
Well, look at some of the extreme stupidity found in human beings, and this is just a bit more spectacular than most.
Idiots like this one should to everything they can to remove their presence from this world. If they do it in an entertaining fashion, all the better.
because you just basically regurgitated the popular image of low-quality engineering as the gold standard
You really don't know what you're talking about then!
Keep telling yourself that. Unfortunately for you, I very much do know what I am talking about. And I can recognize a low-quality operation by the approach it takes. You obviously cannot, but that is just consistent with you being part of one.
Funny. And dead wrong in the high-quality space. Oh, sure, people work together, but actual direct collaboration is a small part of what they do. Meetings are the exception and do not represent a major part of the work time. Of course, if you go to low-quality, low-competence engineering, then things change. I see the second variant all the time.
If you think engineering is not a team sport you're either extremely junior or don't know much about engineering.
I am neither extremely junior nor do I "not know much" about engineering. But this seems to apply to you, because you just basically regurgitated the popular image of low-quality engineering as the gold standard.
Thanks, at least one person here is able to actually understand a simple statement.
Actually, most of what he cited is not suspect at all, but established scientific fact. It is just that much of what he cited is not politically correct and hence usually does not get told to or reported by the popular press. You probably do not have what it takes to see that little difference.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of well-established facts are not politically correct and and there are always tons of morons that think they can "discuss" facts and change them by that. Usually these morons do not even understand what the facts actually say and imply, they just do not "like" them and then think they can change them. That is not how it works. Reality is there and has its characteristics. Putting your head in the sand or inventing some nice fairy tales about how reality should be and then mistaking them for the actual facts does not actually change reality, it just makes the problems that are there much, much larger.