Extra virgin

I prefer lightly fucked.

Screw it, I’m not picky, give me the full slut.

Hey hey hey, don’t just go around generalizing. Not all Linux users are like that (but I am, and I use arch BTW).

Like I’m sure we’re bound to find at least ONE Linux user who doesn’t tell.

Quite the contrary, it’s properly structured and leaves no room for misinterpretation, given that the reader can, well, read.

I’m pretty sure almost no nerds use chatgpt, as chatgpt kinda takes the nerdiness out of the nerd.

Script kiddy might fit better, looking at stackoverflow from the past half year.

Right, apologies for dumping it down so far, I find it hard to properly gauge the knowledge of others on the internet, and just try and play safe.

I wasn’t aware that one could serial program gate arrays, as, as far as I know, the definition of serial programming is code that is governed by a processor, and which prohibits anything but serial execution of commands. So it’s new to me that gate arrays can run serial code without any governance or serialization process, since gate arrays by themselves are anything but serial. Or rather, you need to synchronize anything and everything that is supposed to be serial by yourself, or use pre-built and pre-synced blocks, I guess.

Anyway, going by the definition that serial programming can only be performed using some kind of governance or synchronizing authority, that alone would be another layer of security.

As serial implies, it rid us, or lessened the burden, of those timing related issues, some of which included:

• All the problems of accessing in-use resources that multi-cored serial “parallel” programming reintroduced.
• Making a block and not properly timing it resulting in the clock changing while it’s still flipping gates and produce unexpected behavior.
• As the above, just generally having to time everything, as having too many clock blocks or sync checks results in unnecessary speed loss, and having too few checks might result in unexpected behavior.
• Over/underclocking and other slight power and clock variations.
• Uninitialized gates producing random behavior.
• And by extension: the power up process not being exactly the same every time, resulting in more unexpected behavior. Very annoying to debug when it looks all right to start with.
• Reading through seconds of timing diagrams (that’s a lot of reading with a clock time of nano seconds).
• Block placement and connection problems.
• Using gate array layouts/code with differing transistor specs.

And the list goes on, but you know.

Serial also has a lot of pitfalls, and you can definitely screw things up bad, but at least you don’t have to think much about clock or timing, or memory placement, unless communicating between devices or cores, and those sync problems tend to be rather tame and simple compared to intra-processor problems.

At least from my experience.

I think you are misunderstanding me. Are you perhaps thinking about multithreading or multi core? Because some people have also started calling that “parallel”, even if it is nothing like low-level parallel.

A CPU does not build upon a CPU, a CPU builds upon transistors which are collected into gates, and which can be assembled into the correct order using parallel programming.

EDIT: as an example, you do not actually need a computer to parallel program. Get yourself a box of transistor, some cable, and a soldering iron, and you can build some very rudimentary gate arrays, like a flip-flop.

This link might give a better understanding of our confusion.

EDIT 2: One could perhaps illustrate the confusion which this topic is often victim of as such:

Transistors are part of the hardware and are parallel programmed to form complex gate arrays called “Processors”, which feature instruction sets used by machine code, which is made using assembly, which is called “serial programming”, which enables high-complexity operations such as multi-core “parallel” programming.

I’m talking about the former “PGA parallel programming”, and not the latter “multi-core parallel programming”.

A CPU is a very complex gate array which handles bothersome tasks such as synchronization (run conditions) and memory access, and presents you with a very limited set of instructions. All serial programming builds upon this very limited set of instructions, and the instructions have been thoroughly tested over the past 6 decades.

Not to say that CPU architecture or microcode is fail-safe, but the chance of your computer blue-screening because of a failure of your CPU is rather small.

Now, parallel programming (the low level variant, not the hijacked definition) is the art of “wiring” those gate arrays. A CPU is actually made using parallel programming, so all the safeties it presents for serial programming will not be present in parallel programming, as parallel programming does not use a CPU.

EDIT: the above is of course simplified, there exist multiple architectures, collected into more common instructions sets such as amd64, armhf, arm64, etc. but even the most barebone processing unit contains a lot of securities and nicities that parallel does not have.

Lots of buzzwords indeed, author apparently doesn’t even know what a smart sensor is, as they described a regular sensor in their first paragraph.

That said, you can absolutely program analog ICs, such as by using a Field Programmable Gate Array instead of just your regular Gate Array (your usual, ‘stupid’ IC). Though, while a random IC might cost you less than half a dollar, a FPGA will cost you around 100$ for a simple chip.

On the other hand, skipping any GPU or CPU and their limitations by clock speed should speed up the AI considerably, though parallel programming (not concurrent programming, and not multi-core “parallel” programming either) is much harder and comes with almost no safety when compared to serial programming.

Gel, shampoo, balsam, shaving foam/cream, and roll-on deo from Neutral/Minirisk. Simple, cheap, safe. And the best thing? It doesn’t trigger any allergies.

Though, I do use aftershave from Matas, and oil from ecooking.

I think that covers most of my self-care products.

Yes, but I’m trying to wean myself off of it. Partly because it feels like destructive behavior, and partly because it must be annoying for others to constantly listen to me cracking my knuckles.

Hell, if the Amaricans and Vietnamese can call a girl “Kim”, then we can call a boy “Jennifer” and say we got inspired.

I guess that depends on whether you only travel through time (time vs space), or whether you follow the time-line back (aka. travel through time and space, kinda like both you and I are doing right now).

EDIT: there’s also the reference point, and whether you can bring a physical vessel, or have to possess your younger self.

Back to the Future appears to be using a kind of relative spatial reference point, and you bring your body along the ride.

Contrary, Steins Gate (the part shown in the series) uses a body as reference, and has you “possess” said body. Though it hints that Back to the Future-like travel is also possible.

Not sure if I can name any story where time and space are disconnected.

Perhaps (hopefully) i just encountered some folks who just assumed something, and that it’s not actually becoming a trend.

w/ appears to have origin in the food industry some 70 years ago (according to this question).

To me it makes sense, as I first encountered it in video games where abbreviations, acronyms, and text-saving-slang are commonplace. Furthermore, while abbreviations usually have multiple letters (in written text, not physical or mathematical equations), single letter abbreviations can quickly become confusing, so I belive that this is the reason for putting a slash behind it, or possibly a bar above it.

RANT: While I know that language changes all the time, I find it very unfortunate that this little fellow o/ and possibly his slightly more formal friend o7 have become synonymous with “nazi salute”. First off, it’s the wrong arm! And second off, what do you have against “man waving” and “man saluting”?

It must be very confusing for someone who uses this newer definition of o/ to visit the Elite:Dangerous forums.

EDIT: I’m very happy that I apparently am the only one who has met people who don’t know the real meaning of o/ and o7. I feared that this was a widespread problem, but luckily it appears that I simply am a worrywart.

But it should be.

Better technology and more storage should never excuse a lack of optimization.

I’m not up to speed on the optimization levels of mobile Web browsers, but these days you rarely see properly optimized consumer software. Games and websites tend to be the worst offenders, and many mobile apps appear 10x the size you would expect them to be.

I guess that does make sense, and definitely not as bad as I had misunderstood it to be.

It feels a little weird, and I’m not sure if T+29:00 or equivalents are allowed in ISO 8601, but I have seen computer programs that represent time differences in similar ways.

Thank you for the clarification!

In Denmark we say “2 o’clock” or just “14”, sometimes also “14 o’clock”. No one says fourteen hundred, except perhaps for a few military wannabes.

If it’s quarter past 2, we’d usually say “14-15”. Half past 2 would be “14-30”, you get the idea.

If we mean to say “from 2 o’clock to 3 o’clock”, we’ll say “14 to 15”, which I imagine can be confusing for the uninitiated, as the only difference from “quarter past 2” would be a “to”.

For those downvoting me, what do you say? I imagine it must be other Danes or neighboring countries, as one surely wouldn’t downvote a culturally dependant statement if not from said culture.

Like the bastardization of the 24h clock by the television companies, doesn’t Amarican military time also allow for relative time instead of absolute? Like writing 5:00 on the second day of a time critical mission as 2900?

I’m pretty sure I heard this somewhere, though I have yet to verify this claim.

As a side note, if you for some reason turn off the central heating entirely and just use space heaters, then the failsafe will do no good.

Most central heating solutions waste some energy when idling, so one might be tempted to turn them off. Please be careful when doing this.