Buffalox 53m ago • 100%
I'm just wondering how Trump thought it was relevant to his policies?
Buffalox 1h ago • 100%
So it did when he declared he was in love with Kim Jong UN.
Buffalox 2h ago • 100%
To be fair the Dimensity 9400 is a marvel, the 3nm process and all the technologies in a modern SOC contain more know how and research than sending people to the moon.
So in a way it's sort of equivalent to having your own personal moon rocket.
The cumulative level of expertise required to make a modern SOC is mind blowing. Just imagine aligning multiple masks with nanometer precision! Just a "simple" thing as the light source required is so sophisticated a single "lamp" cost about $300 million USD!! The quantum theory principles used to make the motion sensors, the massive design and logistics behind the development of the billions of logic gates.
IMO this modern SOC is the "biggest" world wonder humanity has created yet. Who would have imagined it would be so small?
Buffalox 13h ago • 100%
OK that's a good point.
Buffalox 16h ago • 100%
Everything you write is true, but the most important thing is that it's not supposed to be like that in a democracy. It all boils down to the system in USA being flawed.
Buffalox 20h ago • 80%
Taiwan is not a member of Interpol, widely believed to be due to opposition from Beijing, which objects to its inclusion in international organizations whose members are normally countries.
Fuck China.
Buffalox 20h ago • 100%
Because USA is a flawed democracy. No more explanation needed.
Buffalox 22h ago • 75%
So you just made another one...
Buffalox 22h ago • 100%
Buffalox 23h ago • 100%
It means pointer width.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_computing
64-bit integers, memory addresses, or other data units[a] are those that are 64 bits wide. Also, 64-bit central processing units (CPU) and arithmetic logic units (ALU) are those that are based on processor registers, address buses, or data buses of that size.
It also states Address bus, but as I mentioned before, that doesn't exist. So it boils down to instruction set as a whole requiring 64 bit processor registers and Databus.
Obviously 64 bits means registers are 64 bit, the addresses are therefore also 64 bit, otherwise it would require type casting every time you need to make calculations on them. But it's the ability to handle 64 bit registers in general that counts, not the address registers. which is merely a byproduct.
Buffalox 23h ago • 100%
It means pointer width.
Where did you get that from? Because that's false, please show me dokumentation for that.
64 bit always meant the ability to handle 64 bit wide instructions, and because the architecture is 64 bit, the pointers INTERNALLY are 64 bit, but effectively they are only for instance 40 bit when accessing data.
Your claim about pointer width simply doesn't make any sense.
That the CPU should be called by a single aspect they can't actually handle!!! That's moronic.
Buffalox 23h ago • 100%
You don’t even see it listed on spec sheets.
Doesn't mean it's any less important, it's just not a good marketing measure,because average people wouldn't understand it anyway, and it wouldn't be correct to measure by the Databus alone.
As I stated it's MORE complex today, not less, as the downvoters of my posts seem to refuse to acknowledge. The first Pentium had a 64 bit Databus for a 32 bit CPU. Exactly because data transfer is extremely important. The first Arm CPU was designed around as fast RAM access/management as possible, and it beat the 386 by several factors, with a tenth the transistors.
Go look at anything post-2000: 64 bit means that pointers take up 64 bits. 32 bits means that pointers take up 32 bits.
Although true, this is a very simplistic way to view it, and not relevant to the actual overall bitwith of the CPU, as I've tried to demonstrate, but people apparently refuse to acknowledge.
But bit width of the Databus is very important, and it was debated heavily weather it was even legal to market the M68008 Sinclair QL as a 32 bit computer, because it only had an 8 bit databus.
But as I stated other factors are equally important, and the decoder is way more important than the core instruction set, and modern higher end decoders operate at 256 bit or more, allowing them to decode multiple ( 4 ) instructions per cycle, again allowing each core to execute multiple instructions per clock, in 2 threads. Without that capability, each core would only be about a third as fast.
To claim that the instruction set determines bit wdth is simplistic, and also you yourself argued against it, because that would mean an i486 would be an 80 bit CPU. And obviously todays CPU's would be 512 bit, because they have 512 bit instructions.
Calling it 64 bit is exclusively meant to distinguish newer CPU's from older 32 bit CPUS, and we've done that since the 90's, claiming that new CPU architectures haven't increased in bit width for 30 years is simply naive and false, because they have in many more significant ways than the base instruction set.
Still I acknowledge that an AARCH64 or AMD64 or i64 CPU are generally called 64 bit, it was never the point to refute that. Only that it's a gross simplification of what modern CPU's have become, and that it's not technically correct.
Let me finish with a question:
With a multi-core CPU where each core is let's just say 64 bit, how many bits is the whole CPU package? Which is what we call the "CPU" today, when saying CPU we are not generally talking about the individual cores, because then it would have to be plural.
Buffalox 1d ago • 100%
By your account a 386DX would be an 80-bit
And how do you figure that? The Intel 80386DX did NOT have any 80 bit instructions at all, the built in math co-processor came with i486. The only instructions on a 80386DX system that would be 80 bit would be to add a 80387 math co-processor.
But you obviously don't count by a few extended instructions, but by the architecture of the CPU as a whole. And in that regard, the Databus is a very significant part, that directly influence the speed and number of clocks of almost everything the CPU does.
Buffalox 2d ago • 100%
Yes, I absolutely thought Intel would make their own, and AMD would lose the fight.
But maybe Intel couldn't do that, because AMD had patented it already, and whatever Intel did, it could be called a copy of that.
Anyways it's great to see AMD finally is doing well and finally is profitable. I just never expected Intel to fail as badly as they are? So unless they fight their way to profitability again, we may be in the same boat again as we were when Intel was solo on X86?
But then again, maybe x86 is becoming obsolete, as Arm is getting ever more competitive.
Buffalox 2d ago • 40%
address width.
That's just stupid, no CPU has ever been called by the width of the address bus EVER.
And there’s also instruction size
AVX on new CPU's is 512 bit.
Buffalox 2d ago • 100%
it could even be said that if they hadn’t tried to get into digital they might’ve averted bankruptcy.
Now there's an interesting thought. ;)
There’s also horse breeders around which survived the invention of the automobile,
Exactly, and retro film photography is making a comeback. Kind of like Vinyl record albums.
Buffalox 2d ago • 50%
By your account a 386DX would be an 80-bit CPU because it could handle 80-bit floats natively,
No that's not true, it's way way more complex than that, some consider the data bus the best measure, another could be decoder. I could also have called a normal CPU bitwidth as depending on how many cores it has, each core handling up to 4 instructions per cycle, could be 256 bit, with an average 8 core CPU that would be 2048 bit.
There are several ways to evaluate like Databus, ALU, Decoder etc, but most ways to measure it reasonably hover around the 256 bit, and none below 128 bit.
There is simply no reasonable way to argue a modern Ryzen CPU or Intel equivalent is below 128 bit.
Buffalox 2d ago • 75%
The Ukrainian defense forces continue to conduct an operation in the Kursk direction, where the enemy launched 36 airstrikes over the past day, using 54 guided bombs; in addition, the russians carried out more than 200 attacks.
Whoa, it's pretty extreme the amount of fighting behind the numbers going on, this is just one part of the total, but at least in this part no Ukrainian civilians were hurt, no Ukrainian infrastructure destroyed, and no Ukrainian people lost their home.
That's a pretty significant argument for Ukraine going into Russia IMO.
Buffalox 2d ago • 100%
They absolutely did, but they knew they couldn't do that forever, because Moore's law goes for CMOS too. film photography would end as a mainstream product, so they actually tried to compete both in digital photography, scanners, and photo printing.
But their background was in chemical photo technologies, and they couldn't transfer their know how in that, to be an advantage with the new technologies, even with the research they'd done and the strong brand recognition.
Buffalox 2d ago • 100%
Lack of competition results in complacency and stagnation.
This is absolutely true, but it wasn't the case regarding 64 bit x86. It was a very bad miscalculation, where Intel wanted bigger more profitable server marketshare.
So Intel was extremely busy with profit maximization, so they wanted to sell Itanium for servers, and keep the x86 for personal computers.
The result was of course that X86 32 bit couldn't compete when AMD made it 64bit, and Itanium failed despite HP-Compaq killing the worlds fastest CPU at the time the DEC Alpha, because they wanted to jump on Itanium instead. But the Itanium frankly was an awful CPU based on an idea they couldn't get to work properly.
This was not complacency, and it was not stagnation in the way that Intel made actually real new products and tried to be innovative, but with the problem that the product sucked and was too expensive for what it offered.
Why the Alpha was never brought back, I don't understand? As mentioned it was AFAIK the worlds fastest CPU when it was discontinued?
The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 07.10.24 approximately amounted to: personnel – about 660470 (+1160) people Tanks – 8933 (+14) units armored combat vehicles – 17710 (+31) units Artillery systems – 19156 (+64) units MLRS – 1223 (+7) units air defense – 972 (+2) units aircraft – 368 (+0) units helicopters – 328 (+0) units Operative-Tactical level UAV – 16643 (+65) Cruise missiles – 2615 (+2) Ships /boats – 28 (+0) units submarines – 1 (+0) units motor vehicles and tankers – 26102 (+96) units special equipment – 3364 (+1) The data is being clarified. Fight the occupier! Together we will win! SOURCE: https://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2024/10/07/zagalni-bojovi-vtrati-rosiyan-za-dobu-1160-osib-7-rszv-ta-14-tankiv/ Translated with Firefox.
AOC speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention
https://noshingwiththenolands.com/what-is-the-scoville-scale/ Scroll lidt ned, så er der en fremragende oversigt.
>Russia has launched an offensive into the Kharkiv region, and it has created a lot of alarmist news reports. In reality it is difficult to see what Russia's plan is, and it is not self-evident that it is a smart use of resources. In this video I discuss whether we might be seeing a return to the fragmented command structures that Russia had in the beginning of the war.
My old $200 Motorola G9 Power phone lasted almost 4 years with only very minor scratches. Obviously in that period I have dropped it a few times getting out of the car, where the phone sometimes work itself out of my pant pocket while I drive, and then it slips out when I get out of the car. But no problem on my previous phones, despite the Moto had cheap Panda glass front. Then I bought my $800 glass back Xiaomi 13T Pro in January, and I loved the phone for the camera and good specs. But alas after only 4 months, and single drop of just 30 cm while sitting on the porch, the glass back immediately cracked! The back now looks like an ugly mess, and the high water resistance is very likely gone too. For sure the last time I buy a phone with a glass back!!! I wonder why glass back is so popular, and I curse the media for reviewing the Samsung Galaxy S2 as "feeling a bit cheap", because the back was synthetic, and drop tests showed it was 10 times as durable as the iPhone with its glass back. Samsung did it right in the beginning, glass backs are a curse. PS: I don't use condoms for my phones, if they need that for daily use, it's an obvious design flaw!!! The glass back is supposedly there to give a premium feel to the phone. But because it's fragile, people have to use a cover, but with the cover, the premium feel of a glass back is gone anyways? How is glass back not a design flaw? **EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION:** I am not clumsy, that's why I believe the phone should be able to last without cover. This was the first time the phone slid out of my packet, and I've NEVER dropped it out of my hands. One 30 cm slip and it's broken. Where for instance my Moto had maybe 4-6 in all over the years, and remained unscathed, apart from some tiny scratches. The sliding out of pocket does occur maybe a couple of times per year, but it's a low drop, and the phone should absolutely be able to handle that tiny drop, as it's an item for everyday use. I've also never had problems with scratches on my screen on any phone, which is the reason people use screen protectors I guess, which I don't either, because they are ugly, for instance they create a tiny ring around the camera, and they feel awful IMO, my phone came with it, and it took exactly 10 seconds for me to decide to remove it, because I could feel the edge of the screen protector when using the phone. But please stop with the dropping my phone regularly comments! Just because I dropped my Moto a few times (slid out of pocket) over almost 4 years! Always from low height, which it should be able to handle a few times.
Profits were expected to be halved from the 2022 1.2 tn Rubles, but instead they made a loss in 2023 of 629bn Rubles or £5.5bn.
It used to be very convenient that when searching for something that had a geographic location, Google searches used to show a small map which linked to Google maps when pressed. Now all I get i a tiny useless map, that doesn't have any of the feature of Google maps, and often I don't even get that. Anyone know why that is? And if there is a fix? I use Firefox, but I'm guessing it's independent of browser, unless Google is up to their shenanigans again. I've added Google maps as search option, which luckily is dead easy in Firefox to do. At the same time I added Open Street Map, to minimize Google map use to maybe show them they are losing traffic. EDIT: I think this is the reason as u/garrett@lemm.ee writes: >If you’re in Europe, it may be due to the DMA. > >https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2024/03/06/digital-markets-act-how-the-way-you-use-google-maps-and-messenger-is-changing_6591969_13.html > >> You may also have noticed something new on Google, when looking for the address of a place: It’s now impossible to click on the map that appears in your search results. > >Google is one of the “gatekeepers” according to the DMA (Digital Markets Act). The law recently went into effect. It is supposed to lessen the amount of preferential treatment the big tech companies give themselves. > >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act
The total combat losses of the enemy from 02.24.22 to 01.20.24 approximately amounted to: personnel - about 375,270 (+750) people, tanks ‒ 6171 (+4) units, armored combat vehicles ‒ 11,455 (+10) units, artillery systems - 8868 (+14) units, MLRS – 967 (+1) units, air defense equipment ‒ 654 (+0) units, aircraft – 331 (+0) units, helicopters – 324 (+0) units, UAVs of the operational-tactical level - 6934 (+5), cruise missiles – 1818 (+0), ships/boats ‒ 23 (+0) units, submarines – 1 (+0) units, automotive equipment and tank trucks – 11,848 (+17) units, special equipment ‒ 1389 (+5) The data is being verified. Beat the occupier! Together we will win! Our strength is in the truth! Source Ministry of Defense of Ukraine : https://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2024/01/20/ponad-375-tisyach-osib-bilshe-50-tisyach-odinicz-bojovoi-tehniki-%E2%80%93-zagalni-vtrati-rosii-vid-pochatku-shirokomasshtabnoi-vijni-proti-ukraini/ Translation with Google Translate.
The levvel of anti Ukraine propaganda in USA is insane, here Jake Broe exposes how people like Elon Musk, Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson push a false story about an American youtuber being tortured and dies in a Ukrainian prison.