ghettoimp

This is blatant misinformation.

"Penalties in this section do not apply to users of tiktok"

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf

Woah. I can't believe this is still online!

How do we know this is a "shameful misrepresentation" until we see how it pans out?

The depositors did nothing here but put their own money in a bank account?

What possible nefarious motive are you implying?

This is a superpower during refactoring.

Binning is definitely a possibility. Separately from binning, there are often just features that don't work right and get disabled with "chicken switches" or "feature enable bits."

Any two-ANE design would have a lot of control logic that has to be right, e.g., to manage which work gets sent to which ANE, which cache lines get loaded, etc. It's easy to imagine bugs in this logic which would only show up when both ANEs are enabled. So it's likely that there is a chicken bit that you could use to disable one of the ANEs and run in single-ANE mode.

Counter-opinion: industry simply has no plausible alternative to Verilog/SystemVerilog and succeeds in producing chips only in spite of the language's glaring flaws.

I worked for several years at a world class company verifying CPU designs. Even into the late 2010s, designers were afraid to use basic features like structs because who knows what tool might not support it correctly. They emulated structures using piles of defines that set all the bit offsets. I wouldn't know how to begin to estimate the amount of senseless work that this led to during debugging. The lack of any type safety was appalling. If you were lucky, you could catch gross type confusion by having a linting tool notice a size mismatch. These tools found hundreds of real errors that should never have compiled in the first place. I could go on and on...

But there's no escaping it. There are so many amazing tools built around it. The vendors love the moat the complexity gives them. The IP developers have huge investments in legacy code bases. Compatibility is worth too much.

Is AMZN stock really flat? Looks close to 4x its price from 5 years ago.

FWIW -- A later, vaguely related project was Jitawa[1]. Its Lisp dialect was not as fancy as VLISPs, but its verification was much more thorough (machine checked proofs down to the X86 code for the runtime.)

Today, ongoing, CakeML[2] extends these techniques to an ML language and is just generally super awesome.

[1] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mom22/jitawa/ [2] https://cakeml.org/

Uh. The US is suffering another 9/11 every few days. In huge parts of the country, life is nowhere near normal.

That's what they beat, and God willing will beat again.

Maybe the magic is just the discipline to somehow keep tuning and optimizing everything across the chip. Year after year they release another power-sipping design with another 10-20% performance. It's not a sudden tsunami, but an ever rising tide.

Ugh. Truly an abomination.

It does seem like TSMC has strong leverage since it would take Apple a lot of time and work to move to a competitor.

On the other hand, the incentives seem pretty well aligned. TSMC presumably makes a lot of money when Apple is successful and sells a lot of chips. Having a customer that is demanding and willing to pay for huge volumes of bleeding edge parts helps TSMC build on their lead. Having early access to the best process helps Apple differentiate, and their business model gives them the margins to afford all of this.

Anyway, I don't see why either side would want to really change this setup.

If it can emulate x86, is there really a motivation for developers to switch to ARM? (I don't have an M1 and don't really know what it's like to compile stuff and deploy it to "the cloud.")

For other ARM manufacturers, I wonder how much of this is a software problem.

I mean, what would the market be for a super-fast ARM laptop/desktop machine? It would run Windows RT, I guess?

How much better than Intel/AMD would the ARM machine need to be to justify buying it and running that? It seems like the M1's "magic" is not just the chip, but very much also the Rosetta thing.

I'm a free software fan, but I don't see that open source matters here.

How do you know the machine is running the program whose source code you're looking at, instead of some other program that looks superficially like it?

If a machine produces convincing evidence of what it has done, e.g., a print-out that (1) the voter can meaningfully check before depositing, and that (2) is audited with at least spot checks or formal recounts later, why does it matter whether it is open or closed source?

Yep, these new machines seem really good.

I heard (discussions with folks online) that in other parts of the state they are still using the older machines, which the voter just has to trust to record their selections correctly. I think I've heard they are transitioning away from these.

How do they get the ram into the SoC? Is it like a massive die?

I think "fast, cheap, good, pick 2" applies. Obviously the current bloated, ad-laden state of the web is pretty horrible and indefensible. But if we can keep making compute faster, it should ultimately save programmer time, which can be used to either get cheaper or better programs.

It really is a beautiful program, in its own way.

The dimensions that you are scored on are fixed ahead of time and haven't changed in years.

The individual goals are set in this year's review, evaluated in next year's review.

Sure -- once per year:

- Write up self review. 1-2 pages to highlight what you worked on and accomplished, who you helped, why it matters. Score yourself on various dimensions of how good of a job you are doing (working with others, getting stuff done, etc.)

- Nominate 3-4 people to give you peer reviews. Best to pick people who can speak to your work, ideally with some folks from outside your particular group, and ideally with some seniority.

- Managers decide who to ask for peer review about whom. You'll get asked by various managers for feedback about their reports. Write and submit this feedback -- could be as short as a paragraph, more typically 2 or 3 paragraphs: what did you work on with them, what did they do achieve, what could have gone better? I've probably given feedback for 5-10 people on average.

- Manager synthesizes all of this into a report, score you on the same dimensions.

- Manager meets with you, gives you their report, goes over it with you. There's a lot to this meeting. It's a review of how they see your work, a comparison of your self-scores and their scores to get on the same page, a discussion of noteworthy feedback from others (positive and negative), a chance to defend yourself against any negative feedback, and a discussion of ideas for addressing any concerns. Typically there is also a lot of goal-setting for the upcoming year, and more generally a discussion of how things are going, how happy you are, and so on.

- Formally acknowledge that you discussed the report with your manager (checkbox in some system). This also gives you a chance to formally comment on the report, I imagine in case of some dispute.

- Followup meeting, some time later, deals with compensation adjustments, promotions, etc. This is kept separate from the review itself.

Effort level has been perhaps 2-3 days per year for writing up all the reviews. I'm sure it's worse for managers.

I've been at $megacorp for a few years. We just completed yet another formal, annual review. It would be easy for me to look at the process and say it is needlessly structured, time consuming, and has never had any surprises.

That said, I once worked for many years at a small company with no formal review process at all. At this place, there was practically no communication from upper management about how they thought you were doing, whether they understood or valued your work, what they wanted you to focus on, etc. After years of this, I left feeling rather bitter and unappreciated.

For all its flaws, the review process at forces a conversation where you get to summarize to higher management what you have accomplished and why it is important. Peer-review at least gives you a chance to call out outstanding work from your co-workers. And the review itself at least gives you a venue to hear what management thinks of what you have done.

Anyway, I'd do a lot differently now, if I were back at the old place. But on the whole, I think the review process is actually a good thing.

There's a pretty in-depth video analyzing the motivations and perceived strategic benefits here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEKDGNjqsk

I'm not sure he's entirely right, but I found it pretty compelling, overall.

It would probably start to depend on the person. If you live in New Zealand where covid has been eradicated, then why risk it. If you are a front-line medical worker in Georgia, you probably want the vaccine.

Somewhere in the middle things would get iffy and ethically interesting. The front-line medical worker is probably well-compensated. The essential workers at the grocery stores and warehouses are not.

Hopefully the vaccines are safe and effective and all of this remains a hypothetical.

I stayed away from twitter until about a month ago when boredom set in. I found it utterly fascinating during the BLM protests. It's amazing to be able to follow political leaders and journalists and see the evolving discussion. But yes, gosh, so so much blatant racism, trolling, etc., it is just miles apart from the general level of thoughtfulness on, say, HN.

I probably just don't use it enough to understand this perspective, but why is it a toxic wasteland? My facebook feed has my friends from college, family far away, etc., and yeah there's an occasional political argument from time to time, but if anyone gets annoying you can just block or unfriend them, so...?

I really wish there were consistent title-bars. Windows 95 nailed this. It's really nice to immediately know where to click to move something out of your way.

Hrmn. Wouldn't this be leaving out android and windows? It might be practical for some apps, but that's an awful lot of users.

Would Intel be able to use patents to prevent them from doing x86 emulation?