jas0n

I used to buy broken video cards on ebay for ~$25-50. The ones that run, but shut off have clogged heat sinks. No tools or parts required. Just blow out the dust. Obviously more risky, but sometimes you can hit gold.

Was a bit tongue in cheek. Edge can download Linux. Rufus puts it on a USB stick, and goodbye Windows. Then, I can use my computer.

Rufus is the first (and only) program I install on Windows =]

Don't worry bud, I'll upvote you. Not everyone is afraid of pointers.

I was actually quoting a buddy of mine. That was his reasoning:

If a loaf of bread goes from $2 to $5 in one presidential term somebody fucked up

You have to love those GOP talking points. State some facts, then intentionally come to all the wrong conclusions. World class whiners.

Occam's Razor time, he doesn't have to do anything because we are on the downslope of the inflation. He just has to sit there and tweet for a year, then claim credit. And the same low information voters who said it was Biden's fault bread went from $2 to $5, will praise his economic prowess.

Yup. Stopped answering questions as soon as they did that.

In response to:

Moreover, the claim that they can harm the software is unwarranted because it is OPEN and many eyes are on it.

The xz attack was an intentional backdoor put into a project that was "OPEN and many eyes are on it." Also, it was discovered due to the way it was executing and not because someone found it in the source. The original assumption has been proven wrong.

xz attack was an open source attack and it would be silly to assume that it was unique.

I shouldn't have used C++ as the example. Even C would work. I agree with everything you're saying, but the original premise. I think if you put ASM vs C, C++, rust, etc, performance would fall near 50/50.

I'm not the best assembly guy, and I'm not advocating we all write it. But I always felt that the compiler optimization assumption was wrong or weak. Everything would be aligned nicely for my sanity, not performance =]

I feel like that's only true if I was asked to "write the assembly for this c++ program." If I'm actually implementing something big in assembly, I'm not going to do 90% of the craziness someone might be tempted to do in c++. Something that is super easy in c++ doesn't mean it's easy for the CPU. Writing assembly, I'm going to do what's easy for the CPU (and efficient) because, now, I'm in the same domain.

The bottom line is cranking up the optimization level can get you a 2-5x win. Using memory efficiently can give you a 10-100x win.

This opinion is a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of tech journalism screaming "AI software engineer" after each new model release.