ahartmetz

Consensual and very tame. That's nothing.

I particularly would not want it between rain and crops.

It's interesting to hear indeed. The 6c's improved latency hiding might be intended for use in extremely high core count Epycs, which have lots of memory channels, but not many at all per core.

Obviously. But it gets a few people killed at first.

Still useless. If it updates its Google-provided software or is serviced by Google employees, they must comply and do whatever it takes to get the data when the US government asks.

The main reason why guerillas kidnap EU citizens is that the US have a policy of not paying ransom. Which is game-theoretically smart, but gets really bad PR the first few times, and if I knew the people sacrificed the first few times, I might have a different opinion, too.

ARM is a UK company, of course they have the IP. While their highest performance CPU cores have been designed in the US in recent years, they also have design teams in the UK and France. I don't doubt that their European part can adapt an otherwise finished design to a different process.

Intel or AMD IP would need to be stolen somehow. GlobalFoundries might still have some old AMD materials around. Yeah, this does seem really difficult - it would be easier and less risky to run x86 code on ARM if necessary.

Lastly, a factor of 5 or so in computing power does not decide a war.

It's only RAM, mass storage and GPUs. Desktop CPUs, mainboards, PSUs, and cases have become cheaper because PC building demand has declined. Peripheral prices have remained largely unchanged.

Regarding the fabs (well... fab - not good), GlobalFoundries Dresden, and regarding IP, ARM. Or old AMD or Intel designs, because intellectual property goes right out of the window in a war.

Perhaps an uninformed take, but there seems to be nothing about memory packaging that European industry would have much trouble with - except not having an already existing factory and specific know-how. Otherwise, it seems to be precision mechanics (for bonding) and chemistry (for the materials), both of which are bread and butter of European industry.

Ten years old CPUs are "okay" and there are fabs in Europe that could make them. Faster is better, but slower isn't entirely useless and hugely better than no CPU. Like a 100 hp heavy truck is greatly underpowered, but almost infinitely better than no truck.

I almost forgot abuot GlobalFoundries and I wonder if they could profitably make DRAM at current prices...

AFAIK, they do power and analog stuff and digital logic for automotive and industry, not cutting edge digital logic at the smallest feature sizes.

That Nvidia exists, it is ATI / AMD GPUs. They are doing mostly OK, but nothing like Nvidia especially in the dollars department.

Oh boy. They bought my business's bank (Postbank). It was okay until they transitioned Postbank IT to their own systems, massively delayed, with several long outages that made the news, and it's still worse than before now.

It was common knowledge that Postbank had good IT for a bank, but the acquirer had to show them who's boss instead of learning from them.

They were sacked for vibe-working, which is how AI is supposed to be used if you listen to some business hype. Of course it is not how it's supposed to be used according to people who actually know the current situation.

And because of massive overhiring. In that scenario, the sequence of events is: Cheap money (ZIRP), companies hiring developers just to deny them to the competition (there were reports) or for empire building or as a signal to investors (etc), AI and nonzero interest rates come around, need to spend billions on AI with limited money -> lay off overhired developers and say it's because AI replaces them. It's great for companies because it allows to admit no mistake regarding the overhiring and claim to be fully in on the current thing.

Simple enough, no?

I guess no one noticed because they all looked the same. I imagine Bezos in the wife store like "Oh yeah, I like exactly that look. Gimme another one of these!"

Everyone has some preferred types, but same body, different person is pretty creepy.

I also mean stuff like stealthily reducing quality until the customer notices and such things. It seems to be more common in B2B than in B2C.

It was when I looked up what's behind Fatboy Slim's "You're not from Brighton". That was well after its release date (1998). Let's say 2010-2015?

On the other hand, catching up is usually much faster than doing something for the first time. China is catching up fast. I think the cheating / dishonesty gives Westerners the wrong idea - Chinese cheating is like doping at the Olympics: if you want to win, you have to be among the best and cheat.

Hand-authored engagement or clout (LinkedIn) farming articles and corporate press releases are usually slop, most others aren't. I'd be surprised if corporate press releases today weren't largely AI-written - no one would know the difference.

I think the difference might be that you find bad style easy to ignore and I don't.

It's like the saying beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone. Bad AI writing makes an article "unreadable" - you'd have to force yourself to read it, and people don't get paid for reading stuff on HN. The HN value of an unpleasant to read article is basically zero.

Why? "There is gravel in the food" is a perfectly valid contribution. You don't need to write a compelling story about it.

That is not usually how it works. Most bugfixes are about the implementation of the logic, not its design, so fixes can be very small changes.

AFAIK, being a flexible JIT compiler (for C-like languages, not Java) was a large part of the idea. The pivot to static compilation only happened "accidentally" in the first few years until the by then pretty broken JIT part was officially removed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Stupid work for you, smart work for us (and let's be real, that is the idea) doesn't work forever if the other guys are smart, too. And they are.

IMO, the iPod wasn't that much better than other MP3 players.

For most of these, invention wasn't even the right word. An invention is usually a new technology that solves a pre-existing problem. Most of Steve Jobs' "inventions" were just product development.

I'm sort of OK with calling the iPhone an invention because it was a big improvement in several areas at the same time, but apart from that?