You might also want floooh's remix which has a nicer UI, with the ability to see instructions evaluated, modify memory, assemble/disassemble code, view traces, etc.
This is going to sound quaint, but because of this simulation, this is the first time I realized they're _literal_ flags on the sides of the CPU, which is blowing my mind.
Unless they are hooked directly to little Swiss clock figurines holding semaphores. At that point you’d kinda have the amazing human CPU from Three Body Problem.
What does 'layer' mean in this context? I'm only familiar with planar style logic process nodes which have maybe up to 20 layers (and way more lithography steps to manufacture those layers), but I am completely ignorant of how the term is used for a flash process node.
How many layers are needed for each physical cell?
Is it 1,2, or a lot more? Is this effectively 321 physical TLC cells stacked vertically and some planar style logic at the bottom of the stack.
Also, where do multiple pieces of silicon factor into this - I assume we might be up to 16 silicon dies deep with through-silicon-vias, which would mean a cross section of a package could actually have 5000 layers - that sounds crazy!
Probably done with 3 separate litho/etch layers, where they etch and process in groups of 110 or so.
Each of those layers can have a cell, so if you have a tlc device at a 100nm pitch, you have a density of 321*3/(1e-4)^2 bits/mm, or about 1e11bits/mm2.
Fun reference: atomic density is 1atom/.5nm, so 1/5e-7^2, or 4e12/mm2 ish.
For people who does not have the context, intel operates totally differently from big techs. Stack ranking is not a concept there, you can stay 30 years there without having to be worried about be marked as bottom x%. So for meta you can imagine there is 6% cut every year without layoff a single employee.
The ‘flagged dead’ comment is right on. Intel has been a bloated bureaucracy for a long time now and things need to get tightened up for it to continue.
What's special about "them"? Twitter was technically never a particularly complex product that required some kind of exceptional talent. Not even remotely in the same ballpark compared to what Intel is doing (or trying to do anyway...)
Indeed there are highly valuable experts at Intel - there have to be, for them to function at all. They're an engineering company making incredibly complex products, unlike Twitter which just sold ads.
But there are also likely to be countless "twitter-like" employees too, paid to sit on their hands or faff about with branding or tinker with devops parlor tricks or gate access to resources that engineers need.
So the current level of cuts passes the "gut" check for me. They surely have less "chaff" than Twitter, and it's crucial not to accidentally cut too many key personnel in the process.
The big difference is that Intel is a manufacturer, not just a web site. They need people on the ground, many of them, in anticontamination suits, 24/7. That changes the "can we just fire 80% of them" question by quite a bit.
Twitter has dropped in value almost 80% since Musk bought it. Twitter is this weird zombie unicorn which keeps attracting money while mostly losing money on net. I don't think its useful to use it as an example.
I'm very surprised people are really taking advice from freaking Twitter for how to handle a silicon hardware company. Also the lack of empathy for fellow developers, but that's a sadly rising sentiment. Crabs in a bucket.
The only reason Twitter isn't a dead husk is because network effects are really damn strong. That's it. The attrition to Bluesky or Mastodon or whatever won't be as drastic as the Myspace days when single percentages of the current internet populace were connected.
You don't get network effects with hardware, especially since most people these days buy laptops and won't bother to specify an intel chip (if available at all).
Dropped in projected value as a company irrespective of the stock which you can't buy now because its private per individuals with large stakes.
Their financials tanked as advertisers fled the platform or reduced spend drastically. It's now basically a money pit that at present trajectory will continue to burn money until Elon's other ventures can't afford it. Given his wealth he can keep losing a billion or two a year forever even if people stop buying his overpriced poorly built cars.
I predict however that eventually it looks less interesting and they try a rebrand as twitter with 90% less Elon for 2x the advertising dollars (for real this time) and borrow as much money and assets as possible and eventually exit.
advertisers are free to join the platform back. Could it be that allowing people to publish 200 word texts just isn't that great of a business? Also, I can't help but notice the similarities in the arguments about censorship ("It's their platform their rules"), then when the wrong person buys the platform, suddenly that argument gets put to rest.
Why would they when bots are up, engagement with valuable users down, and your ad could play opposite nazi shit.
Censorship is when the government won't let you publish something. It's not when Twitter doesn't let you post something, it's not when your post isn't shared, it isn't when Pepsi won't pay you to run ads, and it's not when users stop engaging.
All of these things are things people are morally entitled to do.
Elon is the wrong person because he's ruining it and because he's doing so in service not to a different tax or economic policy but in service to evil.
I maintain that no owner of twitter really understood what they had, either before or after Musk. Twitter was really good at news if you knew who to follow and you had direct access to a lot of experts in various fields. They had to put an enormous amount of effort into dealing with misinformation, but couldn’t figure out the balance between that and mass market appeal. The result is that they financially treaded water.
Musk thought that what people wanted was raw unfiltered “free speech”, but he thought his kinds of views were restricted. The result was when he got control, the guardrails were mostly removed and a lot of users recoiled, and advertisers left due to the desirable users targets disappearing as well as having their ads shown next to questionable content. Then he contradicted himself by blocking accounts that hit his ego.
I’m a geopolitical nerd and loved twitter, but finally gave up on it when I started getting fake news as well as promoted tweets by musk himself, whom I didn’t give a shit about his at best bizarre opinions. The blocking of third party clients meant that I couldn’t even filter client-side anymore (RIP Tweetbot).
It could be because in conjunction with the layoffs Intel are battling with a potential class action against their two latest series of desktop CPU's being faulty
I don’t use GitHub in my day to day work, but since I don’t see any other answers: for me the main reason it to prove the tag hasn’t been changed under me feet. It’s too easy for a lightweight tag to be changed without you knowing, whereas an annotated tag has some permanence of a date, comment, sha, author etc.
Has caught out multiple people at my workplace. Feature is buried in the camera pipeline of MacOS, had assumed it was a bug in zoom that it could not be properly disabled - until same thing happened in a msteams call too, so realized it wasn't the zoom feature recognition triggering!
> Some consider the Autonomy acquisition to be the worst corporate deal ever.
> Just how bad is confirmed by the latest revelations from a shareholders’ suit over the deal: Mr. Apotheker didn’t even read the due diligence report on Autonomy that H.P. commissioned from KPMG, the giant accounting firm. Nor did Raymond J. Lane, the board chairman, or any other member of the board, according to a report prepared by the law firm Proskauer Rose, which was hired to represent H.P.’s independent directors.
> Had they read even the executive summary, they would have discovered numerous warnings — enough to have prevented the deal in the first place, or at least to have led them to renegotiate it.
> “For the C.E.O. not to have read it, for an acquisition this size, is highly disturbing,” said Charles M. Elson, director of the Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware and co-author of “The Art of M&A Due Diligence.” “And the entire board should have at least read the executive summary.”
