u320

9 ms·

61.
by u320 3y ago
Rust async semantics are complex because they need to support resumable computations on a single C-style stack. It has nothing to do with concurrency, which was already supported, but at the cost of multiple stacks (either green threads at
62.
by u320 3y ago
Some guy posted a common neo-nazi conspiracy theory about Jews. Elon replied in approval. Apparently you did now know this, yet you come here and post that we should not talk about it.
63.
by u320 3y ago
They like how they sound when handled. They have fantastic hearing, so it's not a surprise that it affects how they play.
64.
by u320 3y ago
This is not a big mystery. Cats play for the same reason that dogs and kids do. For some reason cats vary a lot in how they play. But its no mystery why it often involves chasing something that moves. They are genetically evolved to practic
65.
by u320 3y ago
It's a foundation in Luxembourg, with a Dutch subsidiary that owns some offices in Sweden.
66.
by u320 3y ago
Sure, but 64-bit x86 did materialize and killed Itanium, there is little reason to think it wouldn't have killed those archs too.
67.
by u320 3y ago
HP wasn't just involved, it was their baby from the beginning. But they realized that the investment was too large and risky and Intel needed a 64-bit arch. So they partnered up.
68.
by u320 3y ago
He left Rust long before ? was introduced.
69.
by u320 3y ago
> Just personally, I can count on one hand the number of algorithms I've written where weird control flow was necessary to make the algorithm easier, and they were all weird shit that I expect other people to use libraries for in mo
70.
by u320 3y ago
No the default action is to do nothing (ie do not install the OS). You have to actively consent or reject.
71.
by u320 3y ago
The RISC-V community seeing an influx of large interests, used to ARM-style architectures might create conflicts. But it is really a sign of RISC-V winning.
72.
by u320 3y ago
EPYC was AMD, Intel's x86 successor was called EPIC.
73.
by u320 3y ago
It doesn't really matter HOW they do it, as long as you get the advantages of float encoding (practically infinite headroom). Of course if you zoom in enough there will be something in there that uses integers, but this would be true f
74.
by u320 3y ago
No the resulting T would not react immediately. This doesn't happen in existing D-T reactors, why would it happen here where the T/D ratio orders of magnitude lower? Most atoms in a cycle will never fuse.
75.
by u320 3y ago
There will be barely any D-T fusion. Neutrons from D-D is a problem they will have to manage, but they have lower energy than D-T would have.
76.
by u320 3y ago
That's not how grid economics work. Transmission costs are large and rising, but that is more of a problem for intermittent sources.
77.
by u320 3y ago
By making deuterium fuse with itself.
78.
by u320 3y ago
Float can be justified where performance is more important than accuracy. Which does happen sometimes in the financial world.
79.
by u320 3y ago
It's not really symmetric. It's not hard to imagine a situation where everyone stops believing something (a currency) is not worth anything anymore. But why would somebody believe that nothing except currency is not worth anythi
80.
by u320 3y ago
Paxos is a family of algorithms of which Raft is a member. You can change Raft in various ways but then it's not Raft anymore, but it can still be Paxos. So of course Paxos can "do more".
81.
by u320 3y ago
Transformers as toy vehicles that can turn into robots.
82.
by u320 3y ago
They started to pay podcasters to publish on Spotify exclusively. E.g. Joe Rogan.
83.
by u320 3y ago
In theory, we could have had a much better power grid with more transmission. The reasons we don't have nothing to do with the price of aluminium, or the resistive losses of it. It's just difficult to build large-scale infrastruct
84.
by u320 3y ago
No, switching from raw aluminium to an obscure synthesised compound is not going to be worth it for a few % efficieny gain. We've had centuries of "scale up" with copper and it's still not worth it.
85.
by u320 3y ago
REBCO was a bigger deal for fusion than LK99 would have been. We can't make tokamaks smaller, the magnetic forces would rip them apart.
86.
by u320 3y ago
Why would it be cheaper? The actual rails is a pretty small part of constructing high speed rail, isn't it? Especially on problematic terrain.
87.
by u320 3y ago
Do you have a source for this?
88.
by u320 3y ago
It would make fusion experiments cheaper, but not more successful.
89.
by u320 3y ago
You could put nuclear reactors in the middle of the desert today (ignoring cooling for now). The reasons we don't typically do it has nothing to do with resistance.
90.
by u320 3y ago
Transmission losses aren't really a big problem for the grid. Cost, geopolitics, and resiliency matters more. I don't expect superconductors to change much here.

More ›