5 ms·

It may be far better than average software quality but far more also relies on it. The question is whether the quality is adequate in light of what is at stake.

lorenzhs 9y ago
Really? How is it different from a kernel bug that causes random behaviour? Both apparently can be fixed with a software update. They're both bad, but why should Intel be held to a higher standard if mitigation is similarly complex?
- wav-part 9y ago
  Because futher down the stack, more reliable a tech has to be. Otherwise good luck debugging. Also agree with heisenbit.
  - justinclift 9y ago
    Hmmm... on that note, if the universe is a simulation, then a bug in that could have some interesting ramifications. "Don't use the bookshelf over there, physics is broken on that shiny spot." :D
    - roywiggins 9y ago
      The problem with finding a physics bug is that it's liable to be amplifiable. Break conservation laws just a little bit and suddenly you have potential for exponential runaway leading to an unplanned reality excursion, and say goodbye to your light-cone.
      - justinclift 9y ago
        Well, by definition the behaviour would be undefined so could go any which way. ;) Modern day VM software has various levels of exception checking, and code to catch/mitigate/etc when bugs crop up. So, a universe-capable simulator might have any kind of behaviour if/when a bug occurs. It doesn't need to be an unbounded, runaway scenario. :)
        rbanffy 9y ago
        And, if a very bad reality excursion happens, you scrap that branch and restore the last checkpoint. Nobody inside the simulation will ever remember it. You only bother fixing it if halt/scrap/restore becomes a burden. It probably happens more often than we imagine ;-)
    - qubex 9y ago
      I don't know why you were downvoted. I find this hilarious and thought-provoking.
    - wolfgke 9y ago
      > Hmmm... on that note, if the universe is a simulation, then a bug in that could have some interesting ramifications. > "Don't use the bookshelf over there, physics is broken on that shiny spot." :D You know "The Animatrix - Beyond"?
      - justinclift 9y ago
        Nope, just looked it up though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animatrix#.22Beyond.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animatrix#.22Beyond.22 Seems like the same kind of concept. :)
    - krylon 9y ago
      // FIXME Trying to read both the position and the momentum of a particle reliably crashes the simulation. // Workaround: Make the accessor method return fuzzy values for either of those values.

lorenzhs 9y ago

Really? How is it different from a kernel bug that causes random behaviour? Both apparently can be fixed with a software update. They're both bad, but why should Intel be held to a higher standard if mitigation is similarly complex?

wav-part 9y ago
Because futher down the stack, more reliable a tech has to be. Otherwise good luck debugging. Also agree with heisenbit.
- justinclift 9y ago
  Hmmm... on that note, if the universe is a simulation, then a bug in that could have some interesting ramifications. "Don't use the bookshelf over there, physics is broken on that shiny spot." :D
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    The problem with finding a physics bug is that it's liable to be amplifiable. Break conservation laws just a little bit and suddenly you have potential for exponential runaway leading to an unplanned reality excursion, and say goodbye to your light-cone.
    - justinclift 9y ago
      Well, by definition the behaviour would be undefined so could go any which way. ;) Modern day VM software has various levels of exception checking, and code to catch/mitigate/etc when bugs crop up. So, a universe-capable simulator might have any kind of behaviour if/when a bug occurs. It doesn't need to be an unbounded, runaway scenario. :)
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        And, if a very bad reality excursion happens, you scrap that branch and restore the last checkpoint. Nobody inside the simulation will ever remember it. You only bother fixing it if halt/scrap/restore becomes a burden. It probably happens more often than we imagine ;-)
  - qubex 9y ago
    I don't know why you were downvoted. I find this hilarious and thought-provoking.
  - wolfgke 9y ago
    > Hmmm... on that note, if the universe is a simulation, then a bug in that could have some interesting ramifications. > "Don't use the bookshelf over there, physics is broken on that shiny spot." :D You know "The Animatrix - Beyond"?
    - justinclift 9y ago
      Nope, just looked it up though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animatrix#.22Beyond.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animatrix#.22Beyond.22 Seems like the same kind of concept. :)
  - krylon 9y ago
    // FIXME Trying to read both the position and the momentum of a particle reliably crashes the simulation. // Workaround: Make the accessor method return fuzzy values for either of those values.