The benchmarks for all these CPUs that my personal view point is based on are all out there. Anandtech was my favorite source for this at the time due to relatively detailed testing and a clear understanding of the implications of architecture decisions. The complete history of their contemporaneous reviews are still online and userbenchmark.com has independent data on these older CPUs as well although obviously with less control over potential mitigating factors.
AMD was struggling to release CPUs that were competitive against year old Intel Core 2 Duos which remained the status quo through their Bulldozer architecture. Things started turning around with Ryzen when a combination of architecture improvements and typical workloads taking more advantage of multicore flipped the script.
The bits about "true" multicore are also sketchy considering Bulldozer was using shared L2, fetch/decode, and floating point hardware on each module and calling a module two "cores" for marketing purposes.
K7/K8 were great, and while the follow-on K10 Athlon2/Phenom/etc were definitely not bad, they weren't great and they were competing against Conroe/Core2 onwards. That kind of tag-team trading places highlights how (mostly) good the CPU market is now, both AMD and intel are putting out some really nice products with variety so you can pick the most suitable for you, but there's no default "just pick [company]"
AMD did become at least competitive in high end CPUs with the original Athlon or Athlon XP. Not sure whether they were faster than the Pentium 3 but they weren't trailing.
So perhaps a bit more than a couple of years, but my impression is also that they fell behind on (single-thread) performance for a long time after that.
I've also understood that in more ancient history AMD CPUs sometimes beat contemporary Intel parts in performance, although releasing their parts later than Intel. I'm not sure that's relevant to any remotely recent developments anymore though.
Test pilots doesn't mean their lives should be treated as expendable. Every possible step should be taken mitigate known risks.
> They even launched with a helium leak
I don't know how big of an issue this is,but I wonder how much of that decision was based on engineering vs pressure to launch as they were way behind schedule.
Reminds me of the challenger space shuttle disaster [1], where the chief engineer (from a contractor) flat out refused to sign off on the launch due to several safety concerns, but NASA pressured them and overruled them and then tried to cover up their mistake.
Quotes from [1]:
> "And I made the smartest decision I ever made in my lifetime," McDonald told me. "I refused to sign it. I just thought we were taking risks we shouldn't be taking."
Your Letters Helped Challenger Shuttle Engineer Shed 30 Years Of Guilt
The Two-Way
Your Letters Helped Challenger Shuttle Engineer Shed 30 Years Of Guilt
> McDonald persistently cited three reasons for a delay: freezing overnight temperatures that could compromise the booster rocket joints; ice forming on the launchpad and spacecraft that could damage the orbiter heat tiles at launch; and a forecast of rough seas at the booster rocket recovery site.
> The NASA official simply said that Thiokol had some concerns but approved the launch. He neglected to say that the approval came only after Thiokol executives, under intense pressure from NASA officials, overruled the engineers.
> “I want to make it real clear that we’re not in any rush to come home,” Steve Stich, NASA’s commercial crew program manager, said during the press conference. “The station is a nice, safe place to stop and take our time to work through the vehicle and make sure we’re ready to come home.”
It's like you went on a trip and your vehicle is having technical issues, but you are at the hotel so you can extend your stay until the car issue is sorted out. Any reasonable person would call it stranded.
It is sad that NASA has lost it's integrity and trying to cover up for private company.
> It's like you went on a trip and your vehicle is having technical issues, but you are at the hotel so you can extend your stay until the car issue is sorted out. Any reasonable person would call it stranded.
I think it's a little more complicated than that.
Starliner has many redundant systems; from what I can tell, NASA accurately says that it is (probably) safe for Astronauts to return to earth in the vehicle.
However, all of the leaks and thruster problems are in the service module which will burn up on re-entry. Which means that none of the malfunctioning hardware can be examined once the vehicle lands. A big part of the delays are NASA and Boeing trying to recreate the problems on the ground.
There was a helium leak before the vehicle was launched, and the only reason NASA gave the OK is because they thought the understood the problem. But then 4 more leaks sprung up - one of which is quite large; it's pretty clear that NASA and Boeing did not understand the problem. So I think they're trying to be extra cautious.
All that being said, I don't want to make it seem like I think everything is OK or that I'm a Boeing apologist. This is a "test" flight, but really it's supposed to be a demonstration that the capsule is built to standard and is performing properly. It is not.
It is as if you went for a test drive at a dealership, and the breaks stopped working, but you were able to use the e-break to stop and get back to the dealership. Technically, you were "safe"... but it's also not a good experience.
They can't confidently safely return home at this time === stranded. The parent's point was that NASA is using weasel language, when in the past they were not known for stooping to this.
Does GPL does this already? Doesn't it already say that code derived from GPL code should be GPLed? So does that include any code produced by an LLM based on GPL code ?
That would seem to be a logical implication assuming courts reject claims that "everything on the internet is public domain" or that training an LLM on copyrighted material constitutes "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
I suspect it would technically be infringement even for MIT licensed code because the original author's copyright notice would presumably be missing.
This is kind of sad. It was /is a functioning profitable public company with employees. A PE firm decides to take a huge loan to buy it, and now the company is gone. All those people lost their jobs. A huge net negative on the world and society because of greedy PE.
Leveraged buyouts just feel like something that should be plainly illegal. I know a bunch of wonks here will trip over themselves to try and justify it, but given how much of these kinds of transactions are basically "the directors just decide to empty the coffers"... at least tax it in a way that makes sense or something!
