346 karma · joined November 30, 2017
No it's not. Except if you __force_inline__ everything, of course.
Inlining reduces the number of instructions in a lot of cases. Especially when things are abstracted and factored with lot of indirections into small functions that calls other small functions and so on. Consider a 'isEmpty' function, which dissolves to 1 cpu instruction once inlined, compared with a call/save reg/compare/return. Highly dynamic code (with most functions being virtual) tend to result in a fest of chained calls, jumping into functions doing very little work. Yes the stack is usually hot and fast, but spending 80% of the instructions doing stack management is still a big waste.
Compilers already have good heuristics about when they should be inlining, chances are they are a lot better at it than you. They don't always inline, and that's not possible anyway.
My experience is that compiler do marvels with inlining decisions when there are lots of small functions they _can_ inline if they want to. It gives the compiler a lot of freedom. Lambdas are great for that as well.
Make sure you make the most possible compile-time information available to the compiler, factor your code, don't have huge functions, and let the compiler do its magic. As a plus, you can have high level abstractions, deep hierarchies, and still get excellent performances.
For instance, a heat pump lifting heat from 20°C to 100°C with a COP of "only" 2 is excellent, whereas lifting heat from 20°C to 30°C with a cop of 3 is not impressive.
He successfully made investors waste hundreds of millions into these hyperloop startups, which are like real life parody of high-tech scam startups.
On the other hand, one must be quite illiterate scientifically to buy into Musks grand sci-fi projects. Should only work on 5 years old. But you don’t have to believe, you just have to pretend and take these easy millions from rich but dumb VCs.
Even inside EU, people shit on the EU. My take is that people in EU and in the west generally are bored/ashamed with their easy lives, they want to be badass, not to have it easy. So they live in a fictional universe where they are actually persecuted. "We have no freedom of speech!! We live in a dictatorship". But deep down it's all pretending, no one want to actually emigrate from EU to Russia. Even Russians, whenever enough money is around, well, you can be sure the children of wealthy oligarchs are living in London, Paris, Bruxel, enjoying free speech, freedom, healthcare, schools, but somehow, still shitting on the EU...
Hmmm, I wonder who benefits from this.
I reported the ad, twice, but YT claims it doesn’t violate any policies. I’m pretty sure it violates EU laws about disinformation, but no one is going to listen to me right ?
He seems to care for future humans, current humans can suffer, it doesn’t matter because everything will be so great in 100 years. But wait, maybe it won’t be so great because another great leader will disregard current humans, for humanity?
I’m still waiting for any sort of progress towards the hyperloop. Not to mention "Full" self driving, or Mars colonies. Last time I heard of Neuralink, they butchered hundreds of animals for no apparent progress.
Anywhere you have money and trade, you will have wealthy people, using their wealth to get unfair advantages over poor people, and get even wealthier. I don't care if it fits your definition of capitalism, even though I think it does. My point is that you can fight it, or embrace it, but it's going to emerge, and you won't eradicate it. So, instead of describing this naturally emerging thing as pure evil, let's try to make it fair, have regulations to protect consumers, taxes to redistribute wealth and prevent too much wealth accumulation. That's what I would like "socialism" to mean.
Being a billionaire is absolutely not my goal in life, not even a desire. Billionaires actually are lonely people, stuck in a very restricted social circle. They can't have normal friends. Ask minecraft's creator.
Please don't assume I'm a brainwashed wannabee-billionaire defending my "Capitalist" overlords. I would be better placed to assume you're the typical anti-system guy that thinks "Capitalism" is the root of all evil, and that sees everything in this light.
I'd like to define socialism as a moderate regulation of capitalism. Like, capitalism with the right balance of regulations (so industries aren't free to wreck the environment, risk people lives, etc), cheap/free social services/health care and taxing the wealthy more than the poor.
Then I could say I'm for socialism. Now a lot of "socialist" countries are dictatorships and/or heavily corrupt states. So I... don't know. I guess I'm a centrist then?
Let me try that game. Capitalism is what emerges from trade and money. You can fight it, you can embrace it, but you won't eradicate it. Black markets and barter will emerge, which are forms of capitalism. In the end, all you can do is regulate it (or not). Then I would define socialism as an attempt to regulate it so it doesn't turn into the law of the fittest.
Édit: I mean in the last paragraph of the answer.
What about your language? And his?
"Bitching", "baffling", "rage-baiting trolls", "completely wrong", "literally doesn't matter".
My language: "in my experience", "more often than not", "I'd like to be wrong and happened to have came across mostly bad apples."
So, I'm not the one who is "mad" and "bitching" here. You are the one mad at me.
Who is being tricked? Sounds like you are tricking yourself.