rewmie

64 ms·

781.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Don't know why you're downvoted since you're absolutely correct. OP might be down voted because, even though the answer might be technically correct, it still completely fails to explain the concept (i.e., it's a us
782.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Interesting. So what crimes then would putin be guilty of over the Ukraine war? If you're honestly interested on the topic, I welcome you to Google the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Putin.
783.
by rewmie 3y ago
> It would also drag units away from Ukraine to deal with him and undermine Russian efforts in the face of the Ukrainian offensive. Prigozhin has been repeatedly casting doubt on the decision of attacking Ukraine for the past couple of
784.
by rewmie 3y ago
Can you point exactly what you mean by international law? Because I think you're handwaving over something that does not exist, at least in the way you imply it does.
785.
by rewmie 3y ago
> I'm not "Trying to construct threads in bad faith" or "bikeshedding" or whatever else. It isn't a violation of the site guidelines to disagree with you. This comment is yet another example of how you are n
786.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Some of Ukraine's messages about the future are very optimistic, but it's always important to take forward looking statements with a grain of salt. I don't understand what you tried to say. All statements about the futur
787.
by rewmie 3y ago
> On the verge of the second Iraq invasion, on European TV, there was doubt about claims of WMD but a hint of oil and USA agenda. American TV at my friends house was rallying that Saddam and his regime must be ended immediately. The two
788.
by rewmie 3y ago
This is a high quality blog post. It raises awareness of a usecase that's always been there but it might never surfaced, it goes straight to the point, and provides clear examples. It's a blog post where everyone ends up being sli
789.
by rewmie 3y ago
> For others, a lower power, but still high core count solution could be better. I think OP's point is that you'd need over twice the number of the lower density cores to get the same performance, thus by going that route you&#
790.
by rewmie 3y ago
> For chips like these, they are complex enough that even benchmarking them to figure out which one is faster is a chore. If two chips are hard to tell apart in terms of performance, that just means that they are practically equivalent.
791.
by rewmie 3y ago
Of course Intel would prefer to sell 32 expensive server CPUs instead of just one expensive server CPU. Competition is good. We are lucky to have AMD.
792.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Lenovo straight up broke the USB-C ports support (...) According to AMD, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H does not have USB type-C support. https://www.amd.com/en/product/11621
793.
by rewmie 3y ago
> A chip with hundreds or thousands of E cores and AVX512 may be competitive with GPUs for AI. A chip with hundreds or thousands of E-cores should be ideal for any cloud provider to offer vCPUs with a high markup. For example, a company
794.
by rewmie 3y ago
Blockchain: the perennial solution in search for a problem.
795.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Every voice I've heard is, "we do all the work", "we produce all the value". Is it wrong to claim that, though? Social media sites are a dime a dozen. Countless social media sites came and went. In each and eve
796.
by rewmie 3y ago
> background. How long have you been programming in C? Since the mid 90s. > Have you encountered TAOCP and MIX/MMIX? I fail to see the relevance. > Do you write strictly standards compliant C? There is no such thing as non-str
797.
by rewmie 3y ago
> I think, most designers of languages want abstractions, convenience, and clevernes. You get that in C as well in the form of libraries and frameworks. Today you saw a post in HN on how to do object oriented programming with C. Some tim
798.
by rewmie 3y ago
> But then I discovered Usenet and the - I don't know exactly how to describe it - the cult of undefined behavior, and the people who care only about standards and not reality. I don't understand what you tried to say. The stan
799.
by rewmie 3y ago
> For instance the only reason C++20 added designated initializers was for improving C compatibility. That would be true if you ignore the fact that designated initializers are superb syntactic sugar that greatly contributes to fewer bug
800.
by rewmie 3y ago
> buying wrong COTS components, ones that are not fit for intended purpose What could possibly lead you to presume that? Do you feel in a better position to make that call than all the engineers who actually work on that task at a profe
801.
by rewmie 3y ago
Exactly what's the issues, then?
802.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Nothing to say this is the cause of the fault and probably going to be more reliable than something hand rolled. Also, COTS gear that's designed with a standard interface is by design trivial to replace even through hot swapping,
803.
by rewmie 3y ago
What's wrong with using COTS components?
804.
by rewmie 3y ago
> golang/rust doesn't spend 30 years to standardize networking/fs. Golang and rust standardized nothing. Golang and rust just provided implementations for features. Likewise, there's already a myriad of networking&#x2
805.
by rewmie 3y ago
> None of the current SaaS apps I use can come close to the experience of using softwares from that era. I'm afraid you're looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses. In general software back then sucked hard. User experience
806.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Nowadays ? Every fucking app gotta have their own different styling. This has more to do with the current state of GUI frameworks than with developer mindset. Microsoft is between GUI frameworks and rumoured to have deprecated everythi
807.
by rewmie 3y ago
> No designer is given promotion for sticking to conventional designs. It's their creative & clever designs that get them attention and career incentives. This. I recall the case of a couple of FANGs who on one hand expect their
808.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Continuously "improving" a language has upsides and downsides. It has zero downsides. If you are interested in new features you're free to adopt them. If you are not interested in them then you can simply not use them, o
809.
by rewmie 3y ago
> (...) any reasonable change (e.g. networking, fiber, reflection etc) (...) Except those aren't small or simple or trivial or consequence-free. Also, we're talking about standardizing current practices. You can do networking i
810.
by rewmie 3y ago
> I don't think it's too hard to learn a few new things every 3 years. Do you think that in software development circles backwards incompatible changes only happen each 3 years?

More ›