For this, and because of tab completions (perhaps tab completions post-date zork, but nonetheless) I find the work:zork story compelling. I have used the first letter is replaced by "z" trick many times (z-tab, done!), and that pre-dated any contemplation of the zork mystery.
Certainly sounds plausible. Most of the time the first thing I do after I log in to a terminal is "cd work." And if I blundered that on a french keyboard at some point it might pop into my head as a funny thing to name a project.
Maybe a French or Canadian person typed it wrong often and complained about the weird location of the w. Don't think it is the reason but there are more than one way to explain there lines of thought.
We're building a crypto exchange, on a chip. We sell ultra-low latency market access to HFT participants through our on-chip λ API. For all other participants, we offer free trading with cash rebates for making and taking.
PAX is the fastest exchange from crypto to Wall Street.
I'm curious about the results under the section titled "Demonstration."
The author claims that ground truth is that each goroutine utilizes 10% of the CPU time (so stipulated that this should be the case). But, what if the results shown are accurate, i.e. that the results are the actual CPU time (because of idiosyncrasies of scheduling between the OS, the go runtime, and anything else happening on that system).
Does running the new profiler show less variance in the results from that initial experiment? Showing this result would strengthen the claim that the "out of the box" solution is inaccurate.
I have a theory that news occurs with a far lower frequency than people think, far lower than even when people try to account for their knowledge of the 24 hr. news cycle. In my theory, most of what counts for news, is either a story update (737 Max stories), or not news (say Trump "news").
My hypothetical news organization would strive to identify the unifying element of a given news item, and then keep one article about them. The article would include the following elements: a summary, a timeline, a fact set, and a commentary or critique. All subsections would be allowed to evolve, but the "story" would be one thing.
I've considered trying to self fund this somehow, but I've never convinced myself that it would really get traction.
Have you seen Wikipedia's current events portal? [1] It's pretty much what you describe there, sans critique (level 1, factual reporting).
In trying to escape the aggregators and filter bubbles, I have blocked all news sources on my phone (including HN!) save for Wikipedia. Since the stories are only high-priority and slowly evolving, I spend a lot less time on reading news, and am happier for it.
I'd pay a approximately $10 monthly fee for this if it was minimally biased and had wide coverage of all news stories. I'm unsure if enough people would to become profitable, but some market exists.
For some long running stories that I only tune into occasionally, such as the Muller Investigation, I do not have enough context to fully understand the newest headlines. The only place where full comprehensive coverage will be in one place is in a book, and while I often buy books of that genera it will not be released until after the topic is concluded. This seems to be a one-stop-shop for everything about a news topic.
I think you'll have more success if you find a niche to start with. Maybe US National Politics & Economics, which covers your two examples. Finding your zone and sticking to it can separate you from the mainstream news which follows hype much better than a startup organization can.
I think this type of project is a great candidate for Crowd Funding. Crowd Funding can give positive reinforcement for a product/market fit and to help attract journalism talent.
I would pay for something that let me keep up with actual news, with a time lag that allowed me to get a more stable picture after the first flurry of opinions and overselling had exhausted most of its energy.
"I have a theory that news occurs with a far lower frequency than people think, far lower than even when people try to account for their knowledge of the 24 hr. news cycle."
I gave up Reddit for Lent, and I've been shocked how little news actually happens in a day. I compulsively check Apple News (I know, baby steps), but without all of the Reddit commentary, wise cracks, trolling, and mutually reinforcing outrage, it all just seems very repetitive.
"Yep, Barr still hasn't released the Mueller report."
"No, the House still doesn't have Trump's tax returns."
"Candidate X is too progressive/too moderate/too male/too old/too young to be the Democratic nominee, even though it's still almost a year before any Democrats can vote on them."
"Still no trade agreement with China."
"Trump makes hyperbolic claims about an action he might take, but doesn't actually take any action."
That seems to be the daily news summary every day for the past few weeks.
It's not nice that so many writers parrot that the solution is "more pilot training." Under the hypothesis that there needs to be a solution (one that I think is correct), then the answer of more training amounts to mere hope. One hopes that the pilot a) knows and b) remembers to turn off the autopilot when the emergency starts.
Pilots can fly planes with unusual characteristics when properly trained. That is the point of the type rating. I feel the 737 MAX needs its own type certificate distinct from the rest of the 737s and that should solve the problem, since the MAX has very different flight characteristics in certain situations.
Either that or ground the plane permanently for being poorly designed and unsafe with any amount of training.
If the FAA does anything else, it will harm my faith in the organization, which is already at a recent low.
737 pilots have said that they are already trained in the tendency of a 737 to pitch up when full power is applied at low speeds, which apparently is present in all 737 models. (Stall recovery procedures for a 737 apparently specifically detail that you must lower the nose first, and then apply power (and not too much power) as applying full or higher power near stall speed will overwhelm the pitch authority.
What's not clear to me is how much worse the characteristics of the MAX are compared to the NG or earlier 737s? Would it really be unsafe to fly without the MCAS, or was this just the route Boeing took to avoid having to retrain pilots?
We're told that MCAS only activates with the autopilot already off.
I agree with you that pilot training doesn't seem to be a plausible answer given that the Lion Air crash was world news, resulting in retraining, and yet that wasn't enough.
Thank you for the insight! Just for clarity, I'm using "autopilot" as a catch-all term that refers the automated systems that plausibly seem to have caused these crashes.
It's that pilot training wasn't done that absolutely needed to have been.
A three page if even that description of the system, and it's inputs/outputs/controls should have been sufficient for a pilot to be able to build up a mental model to deal with a faulty AoA sensor, and modify their piloting technique to stay within a more conservative maneuvering envelope while operating the plane.
Whether that would have been sufficient to prevent both disasters I don't know, but it sure seems like it would be a small trade off that even in the absence of any other system hardening could have made the difference between no survivors, and an emergency landing.
Please see my other comment as to what this map is useful for. Furthermore, on a global scale, light pollution is not equivalent to population; consider the light levels of Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country.
It should be the case that if the same amount of work is done, then the energy used will be the same. If it takes less work to compile the web assembly, then less energy (holding all other parameters the same). If you have to idle a CPU, then you probably use more energy (holding all other parameters the same) i.e. because you will spend more time and accomplish the same amount of real work (but waste energy on the idled core, albeit waste very little, accomplishing extra, but non-productive, work). Cannot let some other CPU parameter changes as a result of cores being idled (e.g. frequency gets boosted on non-idle cores as a result of dynamic frequency scaling with idle cores) to run this experiment. Thinking about CPU energy use is interesting :)
The real killer with energy usage in browsers is idle wake ups per second. If you've got a lot of tabs open and they're all running timers, waking up, hitting the network, etc. then they're keeping the CPU from going into low power state and thus wasting a lot of energy.
Even though I'd prefer to use Firefox I tend to stick with Safari due to the battery life advantage which really shows when you open a lot of tabs.
That's for max frequency on a given process node. Power scales with voltage squared. But that doesn't say anything about wasted power. And dynamic scaling screws that up in modern chips.
I believe I could summarize things by saying the only way you can really save energy* doing the same work+ is by using a different semiconductor process (either power/leakage-reduction-focused or smaller).
* For serious values of "energy"
+ Where the same work is not always true for a given task, if one optimizes an algorithm
For chips, power scales with voltage squared. Is also true that P=IV (since both are true, these observations cannot be in contradiction). Apparently, for chips, the current must be proportional to voltage also. Glossing over some details, turning on (off) a transistor is the same as charging (discharging) a capacitor. The energy stored on a capacitor is 1/2 C V^2. If you turn on and off the transistor periodically (say with frequency f) you use 1/2 C V^2 energy f times per second (energy per unit time is power). Normally the capacitance is ignored when discussing how power changes because for a given design the capacitance is a fixed quantity.
I think it is linear for frequency and non-linear for voltage, i.e. P~fCV^2. But in many current CPUS, the feature that adjusts frequency also adjusts voltage. That's why I stipulated that, for my comments to be true, such shenanigans as dynamic frequency (and voltage) scaling must be "turned off." I think the OP was asking, what happens to CPU energy if you load the web page with and without the optimized compilation. The OP was interested in core sleep states, but I think that dynamic frequency scaling is a confounding factor. It would be interesting to see the measurements w/ and w/out that feature perhaps.
To increase the frequency, you also have to increase the voltage so that the transistors charge faster, otherwise they won't be able to switch in the shorter time.
If Bezos gave all his money to everyone in the world we would all get maybe $13 or so. If all the billionaires did the same we would all get $1000 or so.
So you are saying the richest still have potential? I mean we can expect the average person around the world to be able to "yield" $500 for the richest person in this global era. That's like trillions for the worlds richest.
I don't speak for your comment's parent, but anytime I see these types of figures, it brings to mind Iain Banks' comment "Money is a sign of poverty" [1]. You'll see rants [2] against this sentiment, but I have yet to find a rant that doesn't essentially deify money. It's just a tool, and if it doesn't help us sufficiently move the needle towards greater human satisfaction (which I believe is very congruent with moving us towards post-scarcity factors), then it is upon us to find another, better tool.
Democratize their companies. control them by employment or by employee or government committee if they are too big. Make the big corporations work for the benefit of everyone, rather than shareholders and owners.
This tends to realign the systems around serving the interests of that one large company, and historically has been a mixed bag. Finland's reliance on Nokia, Russia's on Gazprom and Saudi Arabia's on Aramco was good while it lasted.
For what it's worth US laready has large ownership stakes in such corporations as AIG, Amtrak, USPS, Freddie Mac, etc.
If the following criteria is met, then perhaps the branch mis-predict penalty is less of a problem:
1. you are sorting a large amount of data, much bigger than the CPU LLC
2. you can effectively utilize all cores, i.e. your sort algorithm can parallelize
Perhaps in this case you are memory bandwidth limited. If so, you are probably spending more time waiting on data than waiting on pipe flushes (i.e. consequence of mis-predicts).
Absolutely - there are cases when branch misprediction is not the bottleneck. It depends on a lot of factors.
Another such case is when sorting strings because every comparison causes a potential cache miss and introduces even more branching, and all that would dwarf that one misprediction.
For this, and because of tab completions (perhaps tab completions post-date zork, but nonetheless) I find the work:zork story compelling. I have used the first letter is replaced by "z" trick many times (z-tab, done!), and that pre-dated any contemplation of the zork mystery.