Comment Re: See, I told you (Score 1) 263
Please, keyboard warrior, tell us more of your righteous fight. Enlighten the bootlickers as to your vast campaign of fighting. the...somthing. We're waiting
Long Answer: If you are doing basic stuff (say, using word to write a papaer while using Firefox to research it, while VLC is plaing misic in the background), you can get by with 8GB, BUT:
You will have a bunch of compressed memory.
This will slightly increase latency of your apps (due to compressing and decompressing said memory) AND will make the fans spin faster (and louder) due to the extra heat involved in the extra calculations to compress and decompress.
If your machine is battery powered, battery life will decrease as a result.
Also, your machine may hit swap a wee bit more often, agravating the lag issue AND (possibly) weraing the SSD a wee bit faster.
IF you can live with this, so be it, but I'd rather go to 12 or 16GB RAM straignt away, both to scape these anoyances, and to future proof my machine.
And if you noticed that I avoided saying Apple, you are right, this applies to both Mac and Windows. I do not know about windows as a desktop, as my experience with Linux is on servers (OpenStack), and there RAM abounds.
I won't return in coin by calling you an idiot, because I don't think you are one. What I think you are is too *ignorant* to realize you're talking about evolution. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864 to refer to natural selection, a concept that's in the actual *title* of Darwin's book.
Well, no *one* of us in a position to save the coral reefs. Not even world leaders can do it. But we *all* are in a position to do a little bit, and collectively all those little bits add up to matter.
Sure if you're the only person trying to reduce is carbon footprint you will make no difference. But if enough people do it, then that captures the attention of industry and politicians and shifts the Overton window. Clearly we can't save everything, but there's still a lot on the table and marginal improvements matter. All-or-nothing thinking is a big part of denialist thinking; if you can't fix everything then there's no point in fixing anything and therefore people say there's a problem are alarmists predicting a catastrophe we couldn't do anything about even if it weren't happening.
As to the loss of coral reefs not being the worst outcome of climate change, that's probably true, but we really can't anticiapte the impact. About a quarter of all marine life depends on coral reefs for some part of their life cycle. Losing all of it would likely be catastrophic in ways we can't imagine yet, but the flip side is that saving *some* of it is likely to be quite a worthwhile goal.
Well, you bringing *evolution* into the argument shows that your views are so far off base theyr'e not even wrong.
Sure, the planet does not care, but we're not asking what the *planet* should do, are we?
Of course this isn't science, it's just wishful thinking and hand waving about things you don't actually know much about. It's probably worth noting that actual reef scientists aren't so cheerful about the prospects for coral reefs as you are.
It's not even that what you *think* you know is necessarily wrong. You're talking about about something reef scientists aren't particulary worried about: the extinction of coral *species*. In other words it's a straw man. What scientists are worried about is something quite different: a massive reduction in the 348,000 square kilometers of coral reef habitat that currently exist.
That's something that will take millions of years to recover from, and which will cause countless extinctions It will result in multiple species extinctions; sure that's survival of the fittest, but "fittest" doesn't mean "better"; it means more fitted to specific set of new circumstances, in this case circumstances we *chose to create*. And sure, in a few million years it won't matter. But that's not the test we use to decide whether anything other issue needs addressing. If someone broke into your house and took a dump on your kitchen table, it wouldn't matter in a million years, but you'd sure report it to the cops and expect something to get done about it.
No, it's not evolution *at work*. It's human intervention in the environment at work. Sure, evolution will *respond* to this intervention; if you want to see *that* at work, go into suspended animation for a hundred thousand years.
You could argue that *humans* are part of nature and therefore anything we do is natural. That's just quibbling. By that argument it would be just as natural for us to choose not to shit in our own beds.
Turbotax offers free service to low-to-moderate income people as part of an agreement it has made with the IRS. In return for this, the IRS doesn't provide free electronic tax preparation services like most other advanced countries do. For most consumers, the IRS could in fact automatically fill out their returns and the consumer could simply check it by answering a few simple questions rather than puzzling over instructions written for professional accountants.
If you've always wondered why filing your taxes couldn't be simpler, a bit part of this is marketing from companies like Intuit that make a lot of money out of simplifying the process for taxpayers.
The free tier service is something Intuit is contractually obligated to provide. Upselling low-income people to a paid service that wouldn't benefit them in any way is morally dubious at best.
If the main telcos fixted on, say, a Facebook Video fast lane, to the detriment of YouTube, and the people of the land is clamoring for a "YouTube fast lane" phone plan, be certain that one (or more) MVNOs will create a "YouTube fast lane" plan for the masses.
That's the beauty of a solid ecosystem of MVNOs and Number portability like you have in the USoA and Europe.
Us, in LatAm? We can only dream.
They're likely talking about NFVs, as you mentioned, but if there is any non-Huawei routing or switching gear in their network, it's also using Intel or AMD x86 for its control plane, and has been for years.
I imagine Huawei transitioned off of that, but they used to there too.
Nope, for a long while Huawei used IBM's PowerPC in the softswitches and 3G/4G cores, running WindRiver as the RTOS. But I do not know if they went a different route since then. Having said that, I know for certain they are firm believers in OpenStack.
from TFS:
Officials earlier this year directed the nation's largest telecom carriers to phase out foreign processors that are core to their networks by 2027, a move that would hit American chip giants Intel and Advanced Micro Devices
[emphasis mine]
the most prevalent place were such chips are used is in the form of the 5G core and NGN SoftSwitches. Nowadays, most of them (Specially the chinese made) use OpenStack (as required by the 3GPP) with NFV functions on top. And in the case of the chinese, they wrote their own NFVs.
Just Recompile for ARM/MIPS/Longsoon/RISC-V and you are golden.
Besides, is not like you need the most advanced nodes, as you could compensate by doing multi-socket mobos. These are 4U or more machines we are talking about. Yes, not as dense compute as one would like, but this is not Hypercloud, HPC or AI we are talking about, a small-ish datacenter would do.
JM2C YMMV
You want a pre-WW2 suburb.
I was visiting Oxford UK on business and I stayed at a colleague's house which dated from the1800s. I was shocked that the front door of her house was right at the sidewalk, you could look right into her front room. But it turned out that by giving up privacy in that front room, she got an enormous and very private back yard. The arrangement was something like this. That's just a street in the area I randomly picked off of Google Maps satellite view, but I checked it for walkability: it's less than one minute's walk from the local boozer, and on the way back you can get a takeaway curry.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer
