Branches are particularly bad on GPUs. In that SIMD model of computation you usually have multiple hardware blocks (called threads but unrelated to CPU threads) implementing the same instruction on different data in parallel. Since some of the threads will evaluate the branch condition to true and others false, and they are all operating in lockstep, that means the hardware needs to execute both branches every time, with some of the threads just sitting doing nothing while the other threads execute the "if", and visa-versa while the others execute the "else".

At least that was the case when I was doing CUDA 5+ years ago. Don't know if things have changed since then.

Vorbis was significantly better quality than MP3 and roughly on par with WMA and AAC. But yeah everything but MP3 had an uphill battle, and without a big company to push it, vorbis only ever had limited support on portable players.

FLAC was completely uncompetitive for portable players at the time because it uses like 5-10x the space than high quality AAC or Vorbis encoding that could not be distinguished in side-by-side listening tests with high quality audio equipment. FLAC was a good format for CD rips and online purchases because it was lossless, but if you wanted to take your music with you had to reencode with something else.

It was at least a decade after the first iPod until storage on portables became large enough that 5-10x wasn't worth worrying about and lossless encoding become obsoleted by convenience.

No, adding friends is opt-in, but they changed what information is shared with friends, and that change was opt-out and done without notice.

This mission is part of a program that is all about low-cost projects that are willing to take on more risk. The total cost of the mission was $80 million including $20 million for launch. A Falcon 9 launch costs around $70 million, which would have been more expensive than all the other hardware and operations costs combined. So if it works NASA get a great bargain, and whether it works or not they are helping develop competition in the launch market.

That is one of four factors *considered* in determining fair use. Something can be radically transformative and still be considered copyright infringement if it fairs poorly on the other factors. The effect upon the work's value is a big one when talking about ML, particularly where the value the model provides is competing directly with the works used to train it (for example, stock art).

Sure, the RX 7600 is basically is on par with the RX 6650 XT, and doesn't really push the midrange significantly forward. But it is launching at an MSRP that is $130 less than the RX 6650 XT launch price. Attracting customers that skipped the last two generations due to price is more important to the video card manufacturers than providing an increase in capability for those who purchased a card recently, especially in the mid-range.

The $4.5 million of the criminal judgement may be classified as restitution (I haven't read the decision), but I don't think you can say the same for the $10 million civil settlement. In that case Nintendo was asking for actual, statutory, and punitive damages, and the actual damages were significantly smaller that the other two. Since this settlement is an agreement to cover all of the claims of the lawsuit, it is fair to say that most of the amount is punishment not restitution.

All of which would improve almost immediately with competition.

I have posted here for maybe five years. But I felt a twinge of nostalgia, so I decided to check out the latest headlines.

So I see this headline and I go: This is totally crazy, so nothing has really changed about the world during my absence.

So then I see your comment and I go: This is totally crazy, so nothing has really changed in the discourse, either.

The competition-porn security blanket was a cute idea back in the early 1980s. I was there when the Apple II, the TRS-80, and Commodore Pet were busy trying to set the world on fire. And I've watched the evolution of this space very carefully ever since. As a blue-blood digital native it's the main story of my life and times. My fascination with digital electronics began in the early 1970s. My attitude when the original home-computing toys arrived wasn't: Where did this come from? No, it was: Where have you been all these long, painful, pining year?

This was all supposed to set the world free. That's the story we always tell entering into a new age.

What do I see around me now? Five or so trillion dollar corporations dictating nearly every damn thing about this technology is developed, how it is delivered, and how it is consumed.

This is the house that competition built.

What were these companies competing for all these long years? What was the final brass ring? I'll tell you, and it should be obvious: To gain the monolithic scale to collect monopoly rent not just from their products, but also from the very context in which those products are rendered relevant to our psyches.

Sure, competition is a magic growth hormone, considered narrowly. But surely there's enough water under the bridge at this point that "considered narrowly" ought to be consider harmful. No?

So let's step back and not consider competition narrowly. What are the systemic realities of naive faith in competition?

The systemic reality is that competition injected at the bottom (a good thing) merely kicks the can down the road. The corporations then compete to rise above the discipline of competition. Maybe we double down and inject competition again, this time bigger, purer, bolder than before. Then the cycle repeats again. This time with even bigger corporations competing to rise above competition as titans, behemoths, and leviathans.

Is the government succeeding at taming these giants? Do Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook practice all that much legitimate competition? Here's a skill-testing question. Which of those five corporations is not known for commanding a primary vertical? Google has search and YouTube and the gated Android store. Scratch one. Amazon has AWS and the gated Kindle store. Scratch two. Apple has the iPhone and the gated iOS app store. Scratch three. Microsoft has government workflow integration and the PC gaming community. Scratch four. Facebook has social. Scratch five.

Even to define these verticals as duopolies requires athletic feats of imagination. I happen to use YouTube as my main social platform, and I've never had an account on Facebook. Do I strike you as a typical consumer? Or the 1% of the 1%?

I'm not just speaking here in cliche. I'm extremely well versed on free market principles, free market principles, and the theory of systems, including economic systems and human discourse systems. I spent over 500 hours consuming neoliberal podcasts featuring every possible flavour of neoliberal guest.

On a parallel track, over the past year I traced pretty much the entire evolution of postmodern thought from Hegel and Marx forward to the present times. There's actually quite a lot of neoliberal theory I'm sympathetic toward. I wish I could say the same for postmodernism, but that's another can of worms.

I like much of neoliberalism, but I'm not stupid. I can see the world plainly as it exists plainly before my eyes. We injected competition, it was wonder and vigorous for many decades, but finally and we got was monopoly on a larger scale than we've ever seen before.

What do you suppose the host talks about after conducting over 500 hours of interviews with hundreds of different guests, on mostly the same small set of topics?

Here's an eternal theme: If only we did it right, this time.

You see, every attempt to reform the world that lead to the world remaining the same as ever, only more so, shared the same universal flaw: We didn't go big enough to make $purity cure $horse. This is the one true universal excuse. It was used for socialism. It was used for market capitalism. It was used for every darn thing in between.

So the silver lining in creating worse monopolies than we've ever had before is that we forced them to make us a lot of nice toys in getting there. So I guess we have actually reformed monopoly to some degree. Once upon a time, monopolies came into existence without hardly making anyone a new toy worth having.

Okay, so what's another topic that burns eternal when you discuss the same small set of neoliberal principles for 500 hours?

Education reform. Sound familiar? It surely must. You see to be an expert, with an expert diagnosis, which in your unique genius you've managed to distill down to one word. Competition. Quite the magic trick there, I must say.

Here's a small thing. Charter schools, as normally implemented, are yet another government program. It's a government program with an extra degree of freedom inside compared to the normal landscape. But it's still a government program.

How do Charter schools mainly compete? For the quality of the parents. They often say that they are neutral. But then the application process is so arduous, that only the most truly devoted 1% of parents make it all the way through. So many meeting you have to attend with the school admissions people. What kind of family can organize that? Either a family with means, or a family with fervent devotion to the educational cause.

The vast majority of superior Charter school outcomes comes from this factor alone. Education concerns human capital. Nothing improves human capital like a sorting hat that selects only the right people, for whatever metric you wish to optimize.

Actual value-add in education has mostly proven to be a long unicorn hunt. You can figure out who your best students are easily. No matter how you teach, your best students will remain your best students. For the rest of your students, things are far more hit and miss. One teaching method might connect with one student, whereas a different method might connect with a different student. Neither of these were A students to begin with. And rarely do they become A students at the end. (There are of course some spectacular exceptions if you pray at the alter of N=1.)

Because building a school with better human capital is so much easier than improved the human capital you're stuck with, almost all the best charter schools have mostly done the former. Mostly. There are marginal gains to be had by getting the rest right. Marginal.

So what happens? The schools get good at lying about the reality that they are competing for human capital, and make a big story about how they've improved the capital of their students during their time at the school.

I think it's Finland that has gone furthest in education reform. This was also a competition for human capital, but they moved this into the teaching ranks, rather than the student ranks.

Education is very nearly the hardest degree program in Finland to get into. It would be maybe a small step down from medical school. Dullard teachers in Finland are rare birds. The students have far less class time, are given far less formal homework, but they work hard anyway, and consistently score highly in the world tables.

South Korea does everything exactly the other way. Stories are written about high school students in Korea jumping out of windows. After you sleep through most of the official school day, off you go to the second, private sector school day. And all they ever graduate are narrow technocrats. It's a disaster on wheels.

Blowing smoke up the ass of competition sure beats having to know something about the real world. Makes you sound smart, without typing your fingers off, like I've just done.

Which is why I finally moved on from Slashdot to greener pastures.

Referring to the crypto-scam-ecosystem as an "industry"...

Who paid? And how much did she get?

Thanks, I wouldn't have thought to look there. I disabled the voice assistant first thing when setting up a pixel 6, and have been confused about why the power button did absolutely nothing on this phone. Even the power + volume buttons didn't bring up a menu - maybe because the assistant is supposed to capture and relay the button press? The only power down option was to hold it for about 15 seconds until it forcible rebooted.

Hence why they tried to make it about a violation of the ToS rather than copyright, since they know they don't have standing when it comes to copyright.

So far the largest attempt at writing a Linux driver in Rust has been the Asahi Apple M1 GPU driver. That has a few hundred lines of unsafe code* out of about ten thousand lines total. The author said this has both decreased the number of memory corruption bugs that they would expect in a new driver this size and made them much easier to track down when they did occur.

* Not counting common rust wrapper code not written for this driver. There are a few thousand lines of unsafe code there, not all of which are used by the driver, and which in the long run will be amortized across many drivers.

There wasn't a single sentence in that article mentioning Musk, let alone giving him credit for this. It was all attributed to SpaceX in general, as it should be.

Building a Raptor a day isn't an individual effort. Back when SpaceX was a small startup building Falcon 1 it was not hard to find articles crediting individual engineers for the work they did, like Tom Mueller, who designed the Merlin engine used on Falcon 1, and lead all the improvements made to for the Falcon 9. But when people try to give him credit for the Raptor he pushes back. To paraphrase (don't have the book in front of me): "I may have made the very initial designs, but it has been reworked so much there is little left for me to take credit for. I assembled a team that has done incredible work on the Raptor - that is all I can take credit for." There are literally thousands of people working on Raptor at this point. Crediting it to any individuals would be a misattribution.

They are saying that it was overkill for the specific mission requirements that were put out for bid. Other proposals were less risky from a technical point of view while still accomplishing the job. That is a non-controversial assessment of the proposals, and something that needs to be taken into consideration when awarding a contract. But it isn't the only thing that needs to be considered, and NASA decided that SpaceX's superior track record of meeting technical challenges balanced that risk.

Likewise.

This advertisement (all plugs are advertisements) is a solid indicator that they've allowed very poor decision makers get final say on what gets built into core tools in the deployments.

Thankfully this was just a red warning flag, and not an actual catastrophe. But the situation where technical decision making is done by marketing is not conducive to actual reliable and secure systems.