Io is in orbital resonance with Europa and Ganymede, which causes its orbit to be slightly elliptical. Due to Jupiter's immense gravitational field strength, Io experiences a very high changing tidal force, which causes a changing stress and strain on the entire structure of Io, which causes tidal heating due to friction. This makes it by far the most volcanically active body in the Solar System. Its surface is regularly completely resurfaced, and is covered in sulfur compounds.
Jupiter and Io have a very interesting symbiosis. Jupiter melts Io to form dusty volcanos. It then magnetically sweeps Io clean of dust. The dust forms a plasma ring that enhances the same magnetic field.
Based on the description prompting goes nowhere but "simple prompting" gets replaced by using a big network of AIs to fix each other's problems and get the task done more thoroughly.
>In a twisted kind of way, the replies were reasonable and logical. They're not dumb, they can see it was crap. No one org can actually own this fix, so in that kind of situation it realistically requires someone like Bill to choose someone to drive it, and demand updates to ensure that everyone gets aligned. Telling his execs, especially in a company so notoriously political and "empire" oriented as it was, isn't going to work.
This goes right back to the leadership failure on Bill's part. If your company is structurally incapable of producing good products (which Microsoft assuredly is and still was) then it's on you as the CEO to implement the correct structures.
That's literally the purpose of upper management: you create the conditions for success to happen.
Isn't the point that x86 instructions are themselves no longer a good mental model for what the processor is actually doing under the hood, and thus C which was long billed as a thin layer over top of assembly is itself a higher abstraction?
There is AFAIK no way to express or interact with speculative execution/branch prediction, for example.
Sure, but then you're really arguing that the ISA no longer maintains 1:1 instruction-level implementation and that this is the definitive quality of whether or not something is low level, to the point that any deviation from that model makes it not officially "low level". To me that's just a very tedious pedantic argument that simply fails to capture the actual meaning behind why/when we might call something low level.
TFA famously argues that Spectre/Meltdown et al break that abstraction. But note that they are quite literally exceptions to the rule: the only reason we know/care about them is that the "magic under the hood" that was supposed to make CPUs faster while maintaining that abstraction introduced a bug that caused the implementation details to leak to the end users.
Similarly even vp2intersectd took multiple cycles in its original Intel impl and even in the performant AMD Zen5 impl it still takes >1 cycle with 6 levels of pipelining or somesuch. Ok. If literally not even a chip's ISA is "low level" then the term is effectively meaningless.
The only way you could define a "low level" language capable of exercising that hardware's capabilities fully would be to have some kind of per-cycle, pipeline-aware annotation layer over the actual machine code... which really seems like quite a lot of noise/cruft you'd not typically want to add on top of everything, all in the name of still technically being low-level according to some dubiously pedantic criteria nobody would event want in practice.
>To me that's just a very tedious pedantic argument that simply fails to capture the actual meaning behind why/when we might call something low level.
The part I find tedious is C programmers who cling to the language by claiming it lets you understand and finely control what the machine is doing, when it clearly does not, because x86 assembly itself is being emulated by the cpu underneath. To me, anyway, that's where I find some credence in the "C is a high-level language" meme.
Intel don't have vpintersect. Its micro-coded dog slow but its such an obscure operation and of little use if any.
I'd rather AMD re-invest the hardware into speeding up useful operations, shave 1 cycle off divide or square root or something.
>Tesla offloaded the hardest, least profitable part of the Solar Roof — the physical install and the customer relationship — onto small local companies, let them absorb the training and tooling costs, and then pulled the product out from under them. Tesla keeps a manageable warranty liability on 3,000 roofs. The installers keep the stranded investment, the abandoned pipelines, and the awkward job of servicing a discontinued product for the next two decades.
Well, that's certainly on-brand for Elon Musk. Over promise, under deliver, pay a PR firm to operate sock puppet accounts to tell you how great he is. That is his MO.
Agreed. From the comments, lots of people down-thread who clearly haven't worked in large orgs.
They are arguing about not wanting to take ownership because they know the organizational structure is going to be an impediment. The problems Bill describes could not have been solved by Microsoft without a massive internal restructuring. We know this because Microsoft's UX is still abysmal.
Nobody wants to have the inevitable failure hung around their necks by "owning" something that depends on the cooperation and coordination of departments that don't report to them.
>Look at the histogram and think about what distribution one could reasonably impute from samples. And what you would set as bounds for "outliers", per your needs. While we're at it, let me also say that it might be useful to specify outlier bounds not just based on the spread in sample values, but the costs/payoffs they imply for your application.
Only people with prior education/training in statistics are capable of doing this. The people who don't need a textbook.
Something like 60% of US adults read at or below the 6th grade level, and 25% of US adults struggle to comprehend graphs or charts entirely. Someone who has no idea what a standard deviation is can't intuit about distributions. I think you're dramatically overestimating the average person.
> Someone who has no idea what a standard deviation is can't intuit about distributions.
I disagree vehemently with this claim. I could cite my experience in teaching this topic to liberal arts / humanities college students in the US, but it is really more obvious than that. Anyone can understand a histogram easily and far more intuitively than they can understand the formula for a standard deviation and whether it must divide by N or N-1. Statistics courses and textbooks get stuck on that kind of pedantry, and most students end up missing the forest for the trees.
>It's because Europe is absolutely obsessed with the United States and obsessed with Americans.
Is this the new cope?
The USA is a Goliath on the world stage. The deranged tweets of your president move global markets and the next time Israel manipulates him into starting another war it might not be Iran, it might be Denmark, or Canada.
People pay close attention to the US not because they want to buy because they basically have to.
It's actually a pretty great software suite.