It was always going to be that way. Threadripper 2 is just Threadripper with the two blank spacers in the IHS replaced with two more Zen dies, and a fab process change from 14nm to 12nm (but not architectural changes). It's very much what would be a "tick" in Intel CPU terminology.
The segway died because it was trivial to tip it over without a lot of practice and training, which is not ideal for adults, and it cost thousands of dollars to purchase.
The total outlay for a 1.5M Bird trip is a buck 90, and you can use one if you've ever ridden a push scooter or bicycle as a child.
Why not ask them to do it? No need to be confrontational. "Hey, could you put that in the rack just down the street? It gets in the way of disabled people, families with strollers, the elderly... Thanks."
Swearing in general doesn't damage morale, but swearing at and verbally abusing someone does very much so. That's exactly the kind of treatment that would lead me, if I were a developer, to walk away from the project.
In fact, here's an edit which gets his point over in less words, and more clearly:
"Honestly, this looks questionable to me. [U]sing a union to do type punning is the traditional AND STANDARD way to do type punning in gcc. In fact, it is the documented way to do it for gcc. The fact is that gcc documents type punning through unions as the "right way". You may disagree with that, but using the [C] standard to push it - the same standard that came up with the completely mis-guided aliasing rules - is not a valid argument. his is why we use -fwrapv, -fno-strict-aliasing etc. The standard simply is not important, when it is in direct conflict with reality and reliable code generation.
So what's the _real_ reason for avoiding union aliasing?"
No swearing, no abuse, all points covered, less typing required. No talk of splinters.
And that's the reason PR exists. To translate text written by "knowledgeable person, who writes in not acceptable to everyone language" into "language acceptable to everyone". This also leads to no more direct contact between public and those people and the eternal cries of "we only get PR speak!!"
The chances that you get to hear things from the source and never hear things in a way you don't like is almost zero. You have to make a decision.
PR gives things a nicer wording, but they also push unjustified implications and flat-out lies. When people object to PR-speak, it's usually the latter. Or that an apology doesn't seem to actually be sorry or trying to fix anything. They're rarely objecting that the language is a bit less harsh.
Which part of my abridged version missed vital technical details or changed the fundamental meaning of what Linus said? It's not PR speak, it's treating others with dignity. Linus seems to think that isn't important. He'll be programming the Linux kernel with only AI for companions at this rate.
They do expect you to change that posture if Autopilot does something you think is dangerous, though. Wandering out of lane uninitiated (lane change indication, for example) and accelerating towards a barrier would likely count as one of those situations.
I've yet to see an incident so far where a human driver, properly engaged with the driving experience and road conditions as they should be when in charge of a vehicle, couldn't have taken action and prevented the accident. There were 7 seconds between the beginning of the maneuver and impact; Human reaction time (including taking action) is typically 0.5 seconds. That leaves 6.5 seconds to correct steering or apply the brake, bearing in mind that Autopilot will always relinquish control in either situation.
Not apologising for Tesla, they need to sort out this edge case, but that's exactly what it was and exactly why the driver is supposed to remain engaged.
> They do expect you to change that posture if Autopilot does something you think is dangerous, though.
Their lawyers and their marketing departments are contradicting each other.
Their legal department will always insist that your hands must remain on the steering wheel. If your hands are not on the wheel, and the car crashes, they will mention this clause and implicitly blame the driver.
Their marketing department (like this webpage) say "This car can drive itself!".
And the car itself? Well it has a sensor that detect hands off wheel situations (plus point from the lawyers' "cover our asses" side), but it allows a few (/lot of) seconds of that situation before it warns you (their lawyer must've once screamed "Why the fuck does the sensor tolerate this situation!").
For a stupid analogy, it's almost like a bar owner advertising his bar as a smoke joint, but saying "you're not allowed to smoke in here, and I can spot anyone smoking" but still tolerating a few minutes of lit cigarettes.
While using Autopilot (Big A), there should be a loud klaxon every 30 seconds followed by a notification "CHECK ROAD CONDITIONS" and "REMAIN ENGAGED WITH DRIVING" in the same urgent tone of an aircraft autopilot (small a) warning system.
Tesla did make a mistake calling it Autopilot, but only because regular folk don't understand that aircraft autopilot is literally a heading, altitude, and speed, and will not make any correction for fault. Aircraft autopilot will fly you straight into a mountain if one happens to be in the way.
I don't know why Tesla defenders keep repeating this FUD:
> Tesla did make a mistake calling it Autopilot, but only because regular folk don't understand that aircraft autopilot is literally a heading, altitude, and speed, and will not make any correction for fault. Aircraft autopilot will fly you straight into a mountain if one happens to be in the way.
How long ago was this? You could take it up with someone higher up the food chain, providing you can demonstrate your successes and prove the review is unjust. A decent company doesn't want to lose talented, hard working employees through the malicious actions of middle managers.
But this is an enclosed system. Can't those blinding factor values also be pulled via the same monitoring techniques, or at least give enough information to reduce the number of possible values for brute forcing them?
Definitely not an expert, but I think this defends against differential power analysis as you can't statistically correlate multiple runs (assuming you can't force or precisely measure the random number used each time).
By default the Apple Watch duplicates the settings on the iPhone (Whether to show notification content, DND settings etc) but it can be customised. You could set the phone to never show notifications and always be silent, and the Watch to show notifications and vibrate.
Edit: Plus, the TR4 socket is guaranteed to be supported for 4 years, per AMD's roadmap at https://community.amd.com/thread/226363