> If you had a 386DX then I believe you had the math copro? The 386SX did not have an FPU and needed the additional 387SX.
The 386DX/386SX distinction was the external databus (32-bit on the DX, 16-bit on the SX)
DX was “Double word eXternal", SX was “Single word eXternal”. Neither had an FPU builtin, and there were corresponding 387DX and 387SX coprocessors.
Then Intel used the same naming split (despite the abbreviations not applying) for high-end vs low-end of the 486 where the DX had a builtin FPU and the SX required a “487SX coprocessor” to get an FPU (which IIRC was internally just a 486DX processor which went into a separate “coprocessor slot” which just bypassed the “main” processor when populated.)
Enshitification doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same way. You have 10,000 systems all each interacting at a 90% success rate when it needs to be 99.999%.
They fired all the SDETs 11 years ago. It's catching up with them.
Yes this is what made GnG and other difficult games like it great. While some games balanced the financial side on forced limited play time, e.g. timers or constant depleting health, others like GnG were just hugely difficult. You can play for 4 minutes or 40 depending on skill.
As a kid with no money, I learned to get good at these and avoid the obvious cash crabs
Also it was impressive when someone was good enough to play 40 minutes. Usually a small crowd would gather, which could inspire bad players to plunk in more quarters to improve.
I remember beating Zaxxon when I was only 6 years old in '82, in large part because I probably spent at least 100 hours watching older kids do it.
It doesn't have to be low quality. It really is another tool like any other. You can put low effort in and get working results. This low effort, working result gets shipped immediately and gives the whole process a bad wrap. The source is generated crap that lacks craftsmanship and quality. But this gets AI dismissed when it shouldn't be. You can get quality, well crafted source code if you make that a goal and keep iterating.
You can, but when you go through this effort to bring AI to generate good code, you could just self write it. So there are only two kinds of code that are falling out of AI tools. Boilerplate code and shitty code.
Exactly. There's no benefit to using LLMs as they exist today, because it winds up being the same amount of work (if not more!) to ensure that they are giving you code which actually works. That isn't a useful tool.
I noticed when tearing down an old microwave for salvage that the light bulb was part of the power circuit. If the bulb burned out, so did the microwave.
That is true but it is unclear why you believe that to apply to recycling electronics. I doubt anyone can put hard numbers on the environmental costs involved.
I think framing it from the other side makes the whole idea a lot more palatable.
If I work hard to create clean drinking water from dirty, it is not your right to take it from me. It is my responsibility to help a fellow human being.
reply