Which is actually pretty impressive, don't you think?
They emit literally 1/3rd the CO2 per person as the United States, and have over 4 times the population.
In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames.
Well ya, they have the largest population on the planet shit-for-brains.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You're spot on the money. He reminds me of a technocrat Donald Trump, and his superfans are like educated Trump voters, but somehow every bit as fucking stupid. And I say this loving Tesla the product.
Your argument could literally be used, word for word, to describe you describing "White South Africans"
Fuck, I hope you find that as hilarious as I do.
If I'm an idiot for possessing the ability to perceive reality accurately, so be it. Title accepted, with pride.
No, but you might be an idiot if you think your perception of reality is the accurate one and everyone else's is wrong...
Or you could be right, and actually a genius. But since you didn't know basic orbital mechanics above, I'm going with the former.
Well, yes... I think it's cool that a game AI is operating with a neural net.
That means it has been *trained* to understand and play that game, not *programmed*.
It means that though it uses an API right now to understand the game world- that could "easily" be replaced with a neural net in the future that does that using analog vision.
I can't figure out if you're insecure about the idea of AI, or just have a bone to pick with the OpenAI guys, but this really is cool, and you seem to hate for no reason other than to hate. Even the dudes who played and lost thought this was pretty awesome. This is a complex, real-time game with a whole lot of tactical strategy involved, and a trained neural net aced it, playing against the best on-the-fly adaptable strategic thinker we know of- humans. The fact that it had any kind of direct access or faster responses is irrelevant.
Don't let your ignorance get in the way of your mouth, either.
Having spent several thousand hours of my life dredging through Darwin's kernel interfaces, I can tell you the beating heart of Mach, the actual microkernel inside of MacOS, is literally dwarfed by the monstrous amounts of monolithic BSD and Mac bolt-ons.
In the end, I found the Mach aspect of Darwin served little purpose beyond making it more annoying to work in that Kernel. It sure didn't slow me down in my task of modifying the Kernel's page tables from user-space on an iPhone.
I love it when people who have no idea what they're talking about make such confident assertions.
Well, good for you. If fixing the US education system can be easily done by asking questions to random teenage girls on a time limit
I find it funny that you even ask that. As if you expect the "random teenage girl" to be less intelligent than a "random teenage male".
why hasn't it been already done?
Because the problem isn't the US education system. It's ignorant fucking southerners.
She's from South Carolina, a state practically famous for its derision toward women who think they have a right to be outside of their kitchen, or not pregnant.
I have listened to the question posed. I listened to it as it was posed.
It's actually not a really tough question, at all.
You're either really overthinking this, or playing the apologist. Either way, good luck selling that tripe.
I think the whole thing was good for a laugh, but it really doesn't say much about the contestant or her intelligence.
Oh I disagree pretty whole-heartedly, and having watched her on The Amazing Race, and other interviews, I haven't questioned the assertion once.
Now one can say she's representative of a larger problem in general- that we're raising young women to be shit-for-brained beauty queens- and she's not any worse than average for her class of people, but I'm sorry, that's not a hard question, and we shouldn't be defending a human being making it to that age and being so unfit to handle such a softball question.
If the guy had asked her about the culturally driven socioeconomic differences between Haiti and California, I'd agree they threw a hardball at her, but it appears the girl was never taught to think for herself, which makes sense. These things are highly coached and rehearsed. Even her corrected response in the interview with Matt Lauer were delivered as if from a teleprompter with glazed eyes. She's damn lucky he didn't ask her any questions that required more than 'ya' or 'haha' from her.
I should clarify- I don't think the girl has a deficit in brain cells or any such misogynist horse shit. I think she was raised by some shitstains who wanted her to be dumb and pretty.
In this case, that it was a trained neural network, which is a very different class of "AI" that is traditionally used for bots.
Which is cool. Not sure why you think it isn't?
Well, it's true that the first enemy of Socialists is always other Socialists who are doing it "wrong"
I'd say that's the second enemy of any group, with the first being someone who seeks to use your group's ideological following to become a dictator. This applies to literally every single political ideology that has existed, from the far left, to the far right, capitalist to communist.
but it's funny how many times people promising us Socialism have given us fascism.
No it's not, and it's surpassed only by how many times right wing capitalist nationalist governments have given us fascism. But that's not because either of them is predisoposed to such an end, it's simply an existing threat to all ideological power shifts, because of the above specified First Enemy, and the fact that successful left-wing revolutions are the minority in total revolutions, peaceful or otherwise.
You can say that's ancient history
I'd only say that if I were trying to invent a fallacious argument like you are.
which was once your go-to example of a Socialist success.
Sure wasn't. I've never thought the ugly revolutions in south america were examples of success of any dictatorship that arose from them, be they left-wing or right-wing.
I'd point to Scandinavia.
Now the only examples of it being successful are states that are subsidizing it by selling oil and investing the profits in the stock markets of capitalist societies.
Only if you exclude any of the very successful socialist states... but hell, I guess you could literally make any argument you wanted if those are the rules.
Congratulations, you're a fucking moron. Have a cookie.
While I agree some of the product spreads where AMD really wins in the value department, it is that bad, however in the case of the 8700K and the 2700X, it's only $20 more processor vs. processor. That's only part of the story though, since you have to purchase a cooler for your Intel, while the AMD comes with one, so realistically, you're looking at a minimum of probably $50 more, which is really only a 15% high total price for the Intel.
15% more money for 15-30% more performance?
Ya, seems like it's worth it.
We thank you for the explanation of progressive taxation. We both know what it is, and that the US still uses it.
The model we spoke of, was progressive taxation that with top brackets of 70% or more.
You should watch that interview you speak of. And then look up the rest of her career.
Call a spade a spade. Don't make it personal about her, be pissed off that our system is designed to produce that shit.
So is apologism.
The question asked was: "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?"
The answer given was: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh, people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future. For our children."
Bless that pretty girl, but she's dumb as bricks.
That girl was absolutely prepared to answer questions on stage. Just not questions that required her to think.
with his SA troops, he was a possible threat to Hitler's own power.
Correct.
Socialist ideology had nothing to do with it.
Annnnnd, wrong.
Sure, Hitler didn't kill Röhm because he was a socialist- he killed him because he was capable of taking power from Hitler, the not-socialist, and had began openly expressing his discontent with the complete lack of socialist landmarks achieved by the Nazi party, which had at that point, essentially seized power of the entire country.
So in essence, Röhm was a thread because he was a socialist with a lot of guns, and the socialists had started to realize the Nazi party wasn't socialist anymore.
I'd call 15-30% in single-threaded application benchmarks significant. Wouldn't you?
It also isn't a metric that is likely to remain especially relevant going forward
Oh I disagree with you very strongly right there.
I think the market for people who want 8 or 16 cores on their machine is very different than the market that wants higher performing single-to-6 core performance.
The current generation Ryzen chips don't beat current generation Intel chips in any benchmark except in aggregate performance utilizing more cores than the tested Intel has.
I, for one, will continue to buy Intel until AMD is more competitive core-for-core.
I'm also pretty sure I'm representative of the market.
This is the point I'm trying to make. I don't think the market finds high-core-count processors to be the better product.
[Ed: That's an awfully funny way to go about it...]
By giving a reasonable hypothesis for why AMDs market share has been stagnant for months, while Intel's has grown?
Single-threaded performance is certainly incredibly important, but again, this is a brand new fight between Intel and AMD with a new architecture. The market was just buying the "fastest" CPU avialble.
My argument is that the market still is.
AMDs performance lead requires a * next to it that says, 'In highly parallel applications'
I'm not sure if that's a winning strategy.
I'm hoping AMD starts focusing on their single-threaded performance, because this whole thing is starting to smell, to me, like an attempt winning market share with misleading performance metrics.
We will see over the next few years if AMD strategy pays off. I think we can both agree it's certainly been very successful so far, given the increase in revenue.
We definitely agree on that point. I just think they've saturated their market for the people who are looking for the aggregate performance of core counts that the average high-end computer purchaser has precisely zero need for.
Time will tell how much marketshare they can take from Intel with this strategy.
Agreed. But I'm betting not much more than they have before growth went stagnant.
Also- look at that Amazon list.
Their flagship processor comes in at #4, beaten out by their value processors, while the Intel performance king is #1.
I don't think anyone in the universe could make a credible argument that value processors aren't where AMD is king. I'm certainly not. But the revenue of the 8700K and the 8600K are more than every AMD processor sold in the couple of retailer breakdowns I've seen.
I don't think the market is shifting.
I've been watching adoption on Steam, and while there was a pretty incredible initial bump for the 2700X, adoption growth then essentially dropped to zero, and has remained there.
AMD is competitive with them on single thread and beats them hands down overall at dramatically lower prices.
Depends how you define competitive, I suppose. Let's take the 2700X for example. Their flagship desktop chip. Cheaper than the 8700K, 2 more cores, giving the expected performance boost in applications that use all 8 cores...
It loses out in single-threaded benchmarks by between 15-30% depending on the benchmark, and for games benchmarks, in non-GPU bound tests, the 8700K wins very conclusively in pretty much every case.
My latest purchase was an 8700K. It was down to between that and a 2700X. At the end, single-core performance was what made the choice for me. The performance of all cores loaded just isn't important to me. Of the time my desktop spends with 1 or more core completely loaded, 99.9999999999999% of that time is just one core loaded. Single-threaded performance is what matters.
Now, you could argue that I'm not the target, but I *am* representative of the market- says the market.
Slashdot Mirror
More than 1/3 of co2 being emitted is from china.
Which is actually pretty impressive, don't you think?
They emit literally 1/3rd the CO2 per person as the United States, and have over 4 times the population.
In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames.
Well ya, they have the largest population on the planet shit-for-brains.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So do people capable of even rudimentary logic.
Dude, learn to work the quote and break tags with your ass. That shit is not fucking comprehensible.
You're spot on the money. He reminds me of a technocrat Donald Trump, and his superfans are like educated Trump voters, but somehow every bit as fucking stupid. And I say this loving Tesla the product.
Your argument could literally be used, word for word, to describe you describing "White South Africans"
Fuck, I hope you find that as hilarious as I do.
It was definitely shitty before and after... But I distinctly remember it got a lot more shitty after.
Fuck it, that's not even the right word. It got straight up evil.
If I'm an idiot for possessing the ability to perceive reality accurately, so be it. Title accepted, with pride.
No, but you might be an idiot if you think your perception of reality is the accurate one and everyone else's is wrong...
Or you could be right, and actually a genius. But since you didn't know basic orbital mechanics above, I'm going with the former.
wait on gravity to do its thing?
Air, really.
Gravity isn't bringing those satellites back down once they're in a stable orbit.
Well, yes... I think it's cool that a game AI is operating with a neural net.
That means it has been *trained* to understand and play that game, not *programmed*.
It means that though it uses an API right now to understand the game world- that could "easily" be replaced with a neural net in the future that does that using analog vision.
I can't figure out if you're insecure about the idea of AI, or just have a bone to pick with the OpenAI guys, but this really is cool, and you seem to hate for no reason other than to hate. Even the dudes who played and lost thought this was pretty awesome. This is a complex, real-time game with a whole lot of tactical strategy involved, and a trained neural net aced it, playing against the best on-the-fly adaptable strategic thinker we know of- humans. The fact that it had any kind of direct access or faster responses is irrelevant.
Don't let your ignorance get in the way of your mouth, either.
Having spent several thousand hours of my life dredging through Darwin's kernel interfaces, I can tell you the beating heart of Mach, the actual microkernel inside of MacOS, is literally dwarfed by the monstrous amounts of monolithic BSD and Mac bolt-ons.
In the end, I found the Mach aspect of Darwin served little purpose beyond making it more annoying to work in that Kernel. It sure didn't slow me down in my task of modifying the Kernel's page tables from user-space on an iPhone.
I love it when people who have no idea what they're talking about make such confident assertions.
I agree. Like a politician, she came off as someone with very little going on in their head that wasn't written by a speech writer.
Did she seem uncomfortable in front of the camera while walking around in her bikini?
Well, good for you. If fixing the US education system can be easily done by asking questions to random teenage girls on a time limit
I find it funny that you even ask that. As if you expect the "random teenage girl" to be less intelligent than a "random teenage male".
why hasn't it been already done?
Because the problem isn't the US education system. It's ignorant fucking southerners.
She's from South Carolina, a state practically famous for its derision toward women who think they have a right to be outside of their kitchen, or not pregnant.
It's actually not a really tough question, at all.
You're either really overthinking this, or playing the apologist. Either way, good luck selling that tripe.
I think the whole thing was good for a laugh, but it really doesn't say much about the contestant or her intelligence.
Oh I disagree pretty whole-heartedly, and having watched her on The Amazing Race, and other interviews, I haven't questioned the assertion once.
Now one can say she's representative of a larger problem in general- that we're raising young women to be shit-for-brained beauty queens- and she's not any worse than average for her class of people, but I'm sorry, that's not a hard question, and we shouldn't be defending a human being making it to that age and being so unfit to handle such a softball question.
If the guy had asked her about the culturally driven socioeconomic differences between Haiti and California, I'd agree they threw a hardball at her, but it appears the girl was never taught to think for herself, which makes sense. These things are highly coached and rehearsed. Even her corrected response in the interview with Matt Lauer were delivered as if from a teleprompter with glazed eyes. She's damn lucky he didn't ask her any questions that required more than 'ya' or 'haha' from her.
I should clarify- I don't think the girl has a deficit in brain cells or any such misogynist horse shit. I think she was raised by some shitstains who wanted her to be dumb and pretty.
In this case, that it was a trained neural network, which is a very different class of "AI" that is traditionally used for bots.
Which is cool. Not sure why you think it isn't?
Well, it's true that the first enemy of Socialists is always other Socialists who are doing it "wrong"
I'd say that's the second enemy of any group, with the first being someone who seeks to use your group's ideological following to become a dictator. This applies to literally every single political ideology that has existed, from the far left, to the far right, capitalist to communist.
but it's funny how many times people promising us Socialism have given us fascism.
No it's not, and it's surpassed only by how many times right wing capitalist nationalist governments have given us fascism. But that's not because either of them is predisoposed to such an end, it's simply an existing threat to all ideological power shifts, because of the above specified First Enemy, and the fact that successful left-wing revolutions are the minority in total revolutions, peaceful or otherwise.
You can say that's ancient history
I'd only say that if I were trying to invent a fallacious argument like you are.
which was once your go-to example of a Socialist success.
Sure wasn't. I've never thought the ugly revolutions in south america were examples of success of any dictatorship that arose from them, be they left-wing or right-wing.
I'd point to Scandinavia.
Now the only examples of it being successful are states that are subsidizing it by selling oil and investing the profits in the stock markets of capitalist societies.
Only if you exclude any of the very successful socialist states... but hell, I guess you could literally make any argument you wanted if those are the rules.
Congratulations, you're a fucking moron. Have a cookie.
While I agree some of the product spreads where AMD really wins in the value department, it is that bad, however in the case of the 8700K and the 2700X, it's only $20 more processor vs. processor. That's only part of the story though, since you have to purchase a cooler for your Intel, while the AMD comes with one, so realistically, you're looking at a minimum of probably $50 more, which is really only a 15% high total price for the Intel.
15% more money for 15-30% more performance?
Ya, seems like it's worth it.
We thank you for the explanation of progressive taxation. We both know what it is, and that the US still uses it.
The model we spoke of, was progressive taxation that with top brackets of 70% or more.
Today's cap of 37% is a caricature of the model.
You should watch that interview you speak of. And then look up the rest of her career.
Call a spade a spade. Don't make it personal about her, be pissed off that our system is designed to produce that shit.
So is apologism.
The question asked was: "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?"
The answer given was: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh, people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future. For our children."
Bless that pretty girl, but she's dumb as bricks.
That girl was absolutely prepared to answer questions on stage. Just not questions that required her to think.
He was a threat, too
with his SA troops, he was a possible threat to Hitler's own power.
Correct.
Socialist ideology had nothing to do with it.
Annnnnd, wrong.
Sure, Hitler didn't kill Röhm because he was a socialist- he killed him because he was capable of taking power from Hitler, the not-socialist, and had began openly expressing his discontent with the complete lack of socialist landmarks achieved by the Nazi party, which had at that point, essentially seized power of the entire country.
So in essence, Röhm was a thread because he was a socialist with a lot of guns, and the socialists had started to realize the Nazi party wasn't socialist anymore.
It also isn't a metric that is likely to remain especially relevant going forward
Oh I disagree with you very strongly right there.
I think the market for people who want 8 or 16 cores on their machine is very different than the market that wants higher performing single-to-6 core performance.
The current generation Ryzen chips don't beat current generation Intel chips in any benchmark except in aggregate performance utilizing more cores than the tested Intel has.
I, for one, will continue to buy Intel until AMD is more competitive core-for-core.
I'm also pretty sure I'm representative of the market.
even if they produce a better product.
This is the point I'm trying to make. I don't think the market finds high-core-count processors to be the better product.
[Ed: That's an awfully funny way to go about it...]
By giving a reasonable hypothesis for why AMDs market share has been stagnant for months, while Intel's has grown?
Single-threaded performance is certainly incredibly important, but again, this is a brand new fight between Intel and AMD with a new architecture. The market was just buying the "fastest" CPU avialble.
My argument is that the market still is.
AMDs performance lead requires a * next to it that says, 'In highly parallel applications'
I'm not sure if that's a winning strategy.
I'm hoping AMD starts focusing on their single-threaded performance, because this whole thing is starting to smell, to me, like an attempt winning market share with misleading performance metrics.
We will see over the next few years if AMD strategy pays off. I think we can both agree it's certainly been very successful so far, given the increase in revenue.
We definitely agree on that point. I just think they've saturated their market for the people who are looking for the aggregate performance of core counts that the average high-end computer purchaser has precisely zero need for.
Time will tell how much marketshare they can take from Intel with this strategy.
Agreed. But I'm betting not much more than they have before growth went stagnant.
Also- look at that Amazon list.
Their flagship processor comes in at #4, beaten out by their value processors, while the Intel performance king is #1.
I don't think anyone in the universe could make a credible argument that value processors aren't where AMD is king. I'm certainly not. But the revenue of the 8700K and the 8600K are more than every AMD processor sold in the couple of retailer breakdowns I've seen.
I've been watching adoption on Steam, and while there was a pretty incredible initial bump for the 2700X, adoption growth then essentially dropped to zero, and has remained there.
AMD is competitive with them on single thread and beats them hands down overall at dramatically lower prices.
Depends how you define competitive, I suppose. Let's take the 2700X for example. Their flagship desktop chip. Cheaper than the 8700K, 2 more cores, giving the expected performance boost in applications that use all 8 cores...
It loses out in single-threaded benchmarks by between 15-30% depending on the benchmark, and for games benchmarks, in non-GPU bound tests, the 8700K wins very conclusively in pretty much every case.
My latest purchase was an 8700K. It was down to between that and a 2700X. At the end, single-core performance was what made the choice for me. The performance of all cores loaded just isn't important to me. Of the time my desktop spends with 1 or more core completely loaded, 99.9999999999999% of that time is just one core loaded. Single-threaded performance is what matters.
Now, you could argue that I'm not the target, but I *am* representative of the market- says the market.