|
I'm actually excited about this.
Market pressure like this, despite growing pains is a good thing, as it increases research into maximizing and expanding production, even to the point of making chips that are able to be produced more expediently.
So in the end, in the long term it's a good thing. It may even make chips easier to make and lower the bar for entry into CPU lithography, lowering the manufacturing cost altogether for fancy etched silicon CPUs.
I doubt the following, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that it forces us to advance alternatives to traditional digital/silicon CPU design altogether.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully, getting a graphics card is almost impossible.
Just built a computer and had a hell of a time finding a card, not the one I wanted but workable.
|
|
|
|
|
This document aims to be a guide to help the creation of source generators by providing a series of guidelines for common patterns. A dash of magic, a smidge of config, and a cup of code
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: A dash of magic, a smidge of config, and a cup of code
Do you compile it for 20 minutes? Or maybe 30%? I tried it in fast mode, but the binarys were still a bit crude.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I stopped reading after they defined anything that takes source code as generation input as outside the scope of their model.
I have a complete model that is based around transformation of inputs to produce outputs much like XSL works, and it is input agnostic, as long as the input is declarative, the model can accommodate any input, even source code itself, so you can do things like aspect oriented coding or even domain specific language support.
They haven't provided a good rationale for why a source generator can't take more source code as its input set.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Every major open-source project has its own style guide: a set of conventions (sometimes arbitrary) about how to write code for that project. It is much easier to understand a large codebase when all the code in it is in a consistent style. Non-evil ways of writing your code
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Non-evil standard ways of writing your evil code
FTFY
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
No line break before opening brace.
No line break between closing brace and else.
That's not how this works! 
Don't these people use Visual Studio to write their C#? 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Don't these people use Visual Studio to write their C#?
Probably not.
Unless they're doing something that cannot be done without using Windows, Google devs must use Linux/Mac systems.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Just 6% of respondents said they ensure AI is used ethically and responsibly by making development teams diverse. Of course, that's the same results for most decisions by business leaders
Unless there's a profit angle, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
6%...?? 
That's 5% more than I thought...
Good that AI can't be really considered AI yet... because in the moment it is really intelligent we are going to be screwed.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Criminals are phishing for Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace accounts. I'm not sure why I'm posting this. No reason at all...
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: I'm not sure why I'm posting this. No reason at all...
About the reason... I don't know. But just one message after the other...
Just a supposition... if you get phished... it is your fault, isn't it? I mean... then you can't sue them, can you? 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Just a supposition... if you get phished... it is your fault, isn't it? I mean... then you can't sue them, can you?
True, but I could certainly see someone trying to go after them after a breach. Lawyers gotta be lawyers after all.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Well the previous post has MS encouraging the cloud... sooo, I don't know what to think.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft uncovered sophisticated phishing attacks targeting thousands of accounts belonging to government personnel and human rights organizations last week, attributing the malicious activity to Nobelium. Why bother securing things when you can let them do it? (and sue them after they get hacked)
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Why bother securing things when you can let them do it? (and sue them after they get hacked)
Let me see... how many companies have been sued and have any customer compensation after data breaches?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
A “lethal” weaponized drone “hunted down” and “remotely engaged” human targets without its handlers’ say-so during a conflict in Libya last year, according to a United Nations report first covered by New Scientist this week. "Come with me if you want to live"
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: “lethal autonomous weapon system”
And now abbreviate it:
LAWS.
Oh sanctissimi Wilhelmus, Theodorus, et Fredericus!
|
|
|
|
|
Bernhard Hiller wrote: And now abbreviate it:
LAWS.
Why are lawyers like nuclear weapons?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Why are lawyers like nuclear weapons?
Nice  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Bernhard Hiller wrote: Quote: “lethal autonomous weapon system”
And now abbreviate it:
LAWS.
Light Antitank Weapons System.  
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Ars talks to the filmmakers who collaborated with an AI for Sunspring. Then they didn't come for my summer blockbuster as they're not there yet
|
|
|
|
|
Does this explain the Star Wars prequel and sequel trilogies?
|
|
|
|
|
Probably yes... there could be no other explanation for Jar Jar Binks... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
