phire

9 ms·

151.
by phire 6mo ago
> If I hand wrote some notes in a notebook or diary, I wouldn't have to hand them over, as I understand it, even with no lawyer in the mix. Same if I wrote some notes in a text file on my computer. There is some protection of person
152.
by phire 6mo ago
You don't have to use a publicly documented checksum. If you use a cryptographically secure hashing algorithm, mix in a secret salt and use a long enough checksum, attackers would find it nearly impossible to synthesise a correct check
153.
by phire 6mo ago
You need to support revocation, so I'm not sure it's ever possible to avoid the need for a round trip to verify the token.
154.
by phire 6mo ago
Appears that nobody ever ran a search. Probably because everyone just assumed there was no new land to discover.
155.
by phire 6mo ago
They don't do it on purpose. It's just really easy to do accidentally with custom allocators, and games tend to use custom allocators for performance reasons. The system malloc will return pointers aligned to the size of the large
156.
by phire 6mo ago
The model is probably legitimately better. But it might not be enough better to justify the extra cost of inference. They know if they released it publicly, people will be able to see exactly how smart it is, and adjust their demand corresp
157.
by phire 6mo ago
The peers generate two sets of transactions. One is a quick summary of the current balance in a channel. A new transaction is created each time the balance in the channel changes. It's somewhat cheap to put on the blockchain (And the m
158.
by phire 6mo ago
They are suggesting bypassing the RP2350's internal switching regulator (which only needs an external coil and some caps) and replacing it with an external linear regulator (which is actually supported by the datasheet) Switching regul
159.
by phire 6mo ago
They weren't claiming it was dangerous because "AGI soon", that didn't come until later. OpenAI were claiming GPT-2 was too dangerous because it could be used to flood the internet with fake content (mostly SEO spam). An
160.
by phire 6mo ago
It does make it a little hard to understand how the parser/ast_builder works. But the rest seems easy enough to understand.
161.
by phire 6mo ago
CPU documentation often lies. The docs are written by completely different Technical Writing teams, who don't always fully understand the design they are documenting. They are usually correct enough for someone using them normally, but
162.
by phire 6mo ago
Lakemont doesn't actually share much history with the 486SX. Hard to tell the exact ancestry of Lakemont. It might be a from-scratch scalar design that just so happened to target the i586 instruction set, but with a 486 style 5-stage s
163.
by phire 6mo ago
The point is still very valid. You can't add a math coprocessor to the 486SX. The 487SX is nothing more than a polite fiction to allow consumers (and the computer shops selling to them) to continue their existing habits of buying FPU-l
164.
by phire 7mo ago
Not the same. The story about John Glenn's "day in space" was about half way through, nothing about Shackleton and the two-page board game was "race to the moon" The board game was paired with an abridged version of
165.
by phire 7mo ago
That Hexapawn article was my first introduction to AI as a kid, though I never actually built it. Found it in a "Reader's Digest Young Persons annual" which my dad got when he was a kid in the 60s. I still have that. The orig
166.
by phire 7mo ago
The short answer is that L3 is local to each CCD. And that answer is good enough for most workloads. You should stop reading now. _______________________ The complex answer is that there is some ability one CCD to pull cachelines from the o
167.
by phire 7mo ago
I'm not sure thats a fair description of server workloads. I'm also not sure it's fair to say Itanium was bad at integer-heavy, branchy workloads (at least not compared to Netburst) The issue is more that server workloads are
168.
by phire 7mo ago
It is 100% valid to label an algorithm that plays tic-tac-toe as "AI" Much of the early AI research was spent on developing various algorithms that could play board games. Didn't even need computers, one early AI was MENACE [
169.
by phire 7mo ago
I'm sure I've seen basic hill climbing (and other optimisation algorithms) described as AI, and then used evidence of AI solving real-world science/engineering problems.
170.
by phire 7mo ago
I'm really not sure if POWER1 and PowerPC 603 should be counted as OoO or not. It's certainly not the same kind of OoO. They had register renaming¹, But only enough storage for a few renamed registers. And they didn't have an
171.
by phire 7mo ago
> It’s as if they actually bought into the RISC FUD from the 1990’s that x86 was unscalable, exactly when it was taking its biggest leaps. That's exactly what was happening. Though it helps to realise that this argument was taking
172.
by phire 7mo ago
What I find interesting is that Intel engineers actually designed their own 64-bit extension, somewhere along the same lines as AMD64. Intel's marketing department threw a fit, they didn't want the Pentium 4 competing with their f
173.
by phire 7mo ago
From a standards design perspective, there is nothing wrong with it. It's the same protocol running on two very different frequency bands. They co-exist and support each other. The problem is how marketing interacted with it.
174.
by phire 7mo ago
> The upshot is that the PIO can do multiple bit-shifts in a single clock cycle... it's likely there are clever optimizations in the design of the actual PIO that I did not implement I was curious, so looked into this. From what
175.
by phire 7mo ago
Barrel shifters are one of those things that end up a lot bigger in FPGAs than ASICs. Not really because a barrel shifter is harder, but because FPGAs optimise for most other common building blocks and barrel shifters are kind of left behin
176.
by phire 7mo ago
That's kind of my point... You are looking at it from the perspective of a western 90s kid who quickly adopted emulators (I am too). Of course it seems obvious to you that Sony should have encrypted the discs or something. Of course it
177.
by phire 7mo ago
In this era, console designers were't concerned about emulators or ripping games. They were entirely focused on preventing game duplication (especially with CDs being so easy to copy) and unlicensed games. And the PS1's copy prote
178.
by phire 7mo ago
But you couldn't rip the copy protection signal (not that you needed to, it was a fixed 4 letter string, "SCEA", "SCEI", or "SCEE" depending on region) Nor could you burn it onto a CD-R. It was there to pr
179.
by phire 7mo ago
It was apparently hidden in the lead-in area, but I can't find any information on how it was encoded. Some sources say "a hidden sector in the lead in" but that doesn't seem right, as there is nothing physically stopping
180.
by phire 7mo ago
The steaming services won't have lost any money on this. It's the advertisers who paid for ads to get played to the bot accounts, and (depending on how the advertising deals were structured) other artists with legitimate listeners

More ›