When Wikileaks publishes some stolen documents it is generally just for the purpose of being open. When Wikileaks times the publishing of certain documents to effect the democratic process, they are playing politics.
In addition, if Wikileaks publishes documents that have been filtered by a third party that wishes to effect the democratic process, Wikileaks is straddling the boarder of playing politics. Such posts need to be identified so the reader can take this into consideration. Otherwise Wikileaks is lying by omission - and as a result, playing politics.
I love an impartial Wikileaks. But a Wikileaks that plays with politics is utterly useless.
That is not what I read. Sounds like PCIe power is reduced with the new diver. In addition, an option was added to further reduce total power consumption. This option is "separate" to the PCIe power issue.
In this driver we've implemented a change to address power distribution on the Radeon RX 480 -- this change will lower current drawn from the PCIe bus. Separately, we've also included an option to reduce total power with minimal performance impact.
So they were working on the drivers and decided to add a feature. This feature is off by default but could be useful for those with limited cooling in their cases. However, the PCIe power issue is fixed in all cases.
Branch prediction integrated with the pipeline. Most CPUs do not execute both branches so much as they perform all the work required to quickly switch to the alternate branch should a branch not go as predicted. This implies an alternate pipeline into which the instructions for the alternate branch are queued. This might not sound like much but it actually constitutes >90% of the work a CPU must perform. The ALU is fast and simple but getting the correct data to and from the ALU is challenging.
CPUs can also support multiple ALUs - but this is not to speed branches. Multiple ALUs are used when the CPU detects that incoming instructions are not dependent on one another and can be executed concurrently. When detected, instructions are executed in parallel. The benefits gained are limited and it comes at the cost of extra transistors. However, because you have less movement of data, power requirements are reduced.
Look at the Apple A9 CPU compared to alternate multi-core ARM chips that are available. The A9 is just as fast while running fewer cores at lower clock rate while consuming less power. It is able to do so by using the previously mentioned techniques. It uses billions of transistors and costs more to produce then other chips that are just as fast. Not a good choice for making devices with low profit margins, but an excellent choice if you can afford it.
While I agree this is more flash then substance, it hardly deviates from the laws of physics. Unlike the nVidia example you provided, this CPU does not have much in the way of IO bandwidth. So we are talking about minimal movement of data which in turn results in impressively low power consumption. For certain applications this could be great (a previous post mentions neural networks). For the other 99% it is worthless.
One should not compare this CPU to a GPU because the underlying design goals are very different. It is possible that certain tasks would be much better serviced by this CPU. Designing appropriate algorithms will take some time so I suppose we will have to wait to see if it is actually useful.
I would assume the reasons were more technical. Apple was fully capable of working out a deal if they thought it would be of value. The problem with ZFS is that it consumes more hardware resources. This is fine for a server because with additional hardware it performs quite well. People buying a server generally do not care about a couple gigs of RAM. But considering that Apple was selling laptops outfitted with 512MB - it was not a good fit. Any filesystem supported by Apple would also have to operate well over USB. If FreeBSD support for ZFS over USB is any indication, it is a bad idea (as I experienced with FreeNAS.)
If there were no legal problems then it is possible Apple would have continued to integrate ZFS with the plan of eventually switching over. But regardless of the legal problems, that switch would not have occurred right away. Looks like Apple supported ZFS just long enough to come to the conclusion that it was not a good fit.
I love ZFS on my fileserver. I am tempted to run ZFS on my workstation. But for the majority of computers Apple sells today, it would cause users more pain then it should.
How the sensor got that reading could still be manufacturing fault, cable fatigue, or a million and one other things not the fault of the driver.
Designing a pedal sensor that errors to 0% is expected. So when one of those million things goes wrong you do not get the 100% acceleration experienced in this situation. A far more likely scenario is that something dropped onto the acceleration petal. Alternatively, when in a state of shock, the driver mistook the acceleration petal for the brake.
"Truth never comes into the world but like a bastard, to the ignominy of him that brought her birth." -- Milton