JJ Treks are good movies, but terrible Star Trek.
I guess it depends on your view of what "Star Trek" is. The concept of "Star Trek" is very broad, given the vast distance between the original version and the later incarnations. For example the "goodies and baddies" vibe of the first series was replaced by an aggressively post-modern "everyone is right in their own way" vibe in later series.
Personally I loved the Star Trek reboot and it definitely fitted my view of "Star Trek" pretty well: That is to say, a good story with some pantomime villains, some decent actions scenes, an attempt at personal relationships, a few laughs, and none of the actors taking it too seriously.
And, yes, I watched Star Trek from the early days: it was the first program I ever saw on a colour TV.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but Python is inherently strongly typed.
It is difficult to be pedantic about strong typing because there is no clear definition of what it means. Wikipedia will tell you that Liskov gave a definition of "strongly typed" that is closer to our current usage of "statically typed".
Python has support for some basic types, but it does not support typing for lists, enumerations, structures or functions. You can test the class of an object, but you cannot tell if two objects have the same or related classes. And Python allows you change the members and methods of a class after it is declared, so knowing the class doesn't really help much anyway.
In my view Python lacks a sufficiently rich type system to be classed as "strongly typed", but YMMV.
[And before you decide, look at Scala to see a rich type system that supports both static and dynamic typing of all data types ]
More to the point what kind of cryptography needs to be done nights and on the weekends?
The "Oh My God Someone's Hacked Our System And We Need A Fix RIGHT NOW" kind of Cryptography...
I think we all knew that Bill Nye would not have made a statement like in the headline. It's just clickbait, but people want to complain about it anyway.
Really not sure if this is sarcasm or not. The headline is "Bill Nye explains that the flooding in Louisiana is the result of climate change" and in the video he is asked about the flooding in Louisiana and says "This is the result of climate change" so it is really not clear what the problem is what that headline.
Or more accurately Bill Nye says "it is reasonable that these storms are connected to [climate change]", and the media cannot understand the difference between drawing a probable conclusion and drawing a definitive conclusion. Bill Nye never said this was absolutely because of climate change.
Or more accurately, the very first thing that he says (46 secs into the video) is "This is the result of climate change, and its only going to get worse". No ifs, no buts, no probabilities, just a plain statement of fact.
And I don't buy the idea that he was misquoted and they twisted what he said. Bill Nye is a media personality who has been on the TV for decades, and he knows how to put his message across. He is savvy enough to know that this kind of remark will be picked up and used as headlines, and any equivocation that follows will be ignored. He is smart enough to know that he could have said "This might be the result of climate change" or "This could be the result of climate change" and it would have been reported that way.
I don't like 'drag lock' functions because then that makes more steps. You have to three finger click, and then drag, and then three finger click. Too many actions for one operation. With a mouse it is basically one action, hold button and move mouse.
With the Mac trackpad it is one action: Press with three fingers and drag.
Clicking with three fingers gives the Dictionary and Thesaurus
Just because they use it more doesn't make them more savvy. The burning video did them more harm than good.
I'm not sure what harm you think it caused them but it certainly helped them achieve their goals. It gained huge attention to their cause and doubtlessly encouraged many other people to join them. They want to fight the US so antagonising them is not harmful, so by their distorted morality it did them more good and no harm.
>Talk to the people at Intel and ARM who know about this
I am one of those people.
If Intel think that bit-aligned variable-length instructions are a good idea then they are in more trouble than I thought.
I'm not seeking to prove a claim. It's just the way things are.
Nice.
Accordingly a CPU with a real Huffman coded instruction set might be even better.
The additional cost of caching, decoding and branching with bit-aligned variable-length instructions would outweigh any benefit from reduced instruction fetch bandwidth. It would take more gates and more energy, which is why nobody does it. Talk to the people at Intel and ARM who know about this sort of thing, or look at the trends in instruction set design for high-performance CPUs and ask yourself why none of them have gone in this direction.
The exception to this is situations where code space is very tight or memory bandwidth is very low, which is true is some embedded environments but not in high performance systems.
I don't need to presume, I know that they removed some complex instructions because they made the hardware more complex and reduced performance.
Which contradicts the evidence of the vast majority of CPUs ever made, which is they get faster as you throw more gates at them.
More gates only make CPUs faster if they are doing useful work. Wasting gates on complex decode or complex instruction semantics reduces performance.
there is a linear relationship between code density and the functional bandwidth of the instruction caching at every level.
Even if this were true (which it isn't), and even if you were right that CISC has twice the code density of RISC (which it doesn't), it would still be a long way short of proving your claim that CISC gives better performance than RISC.
I don't presume to understand why ARM do what they do.
I don't need to presume, I know that they removed some complex instructions because they made the hardware more complex and reduced performance.
I don't know what the use case for ARM would be. They have less performance per thread, a smaller maximum system image and a few other downsides.
ARM servers should have lower power per operation, which is a critical factor for data centres. So far this theoretical advantage hasn't been fully realised, but neither has it been comprehensively disproved.
The Huffman like encoding of CISC instructions is certainly more beneficial for performance than the benefits of a 'simpler' instruction format which take twice the instruction bandwidth to do the same thing.
This is far from certain. Most instruction sets are decoded into mutliple RISC-like instructions (uops) which are then executed. The advantage of having a more compact instruction set is balanced by the greater energy required to decode those instructions, so there is no clear winner either way.
If the benefits of CISC are so great, why did ARM remove complex instructions from their 64-bit architecture rather than adding new ones?
We'll need engineers in 20 years, that would be a fairly safe bet... Probably lawyers too... And doctors...
I'm not sure we need lawyers now, let alone in 20 years
If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.
