> I was reading a lot of c++ core guidelines and modern c++ blogs and books while writing a little game a couple of years ago and std::println was definitely not the common suggestion for modern c++.
I wasn't sure what I was looking at at first, since there's no material, just a rough outline of a hypothetical course. The initial commit makes it a little clearer:
> Wrote this a few years ago, wanted to put it online. Hiring is hard, a lot of modern CS education is really bad, and it's so hard to find people who understand the modern computer stack from first principles. Maybe if I ever get 12 free weeks again I'll offer this as a play at home course. I want to play too.
We also found effects of CO2 (a proxy for ventilation) on cognitive function. For every 500ppm increase, we saw response times 1.4-1.8% slower, and 2.1-2.4% lower throughput.
Which is why you open a window: Atmospheric CO2 is at around 410ppm. And rising, yes, by around 2-3ppm/a. So I suppose it's making us around 0.02% slower per year, going by those figures.
We need to curtail emissions, but not because atmospheric CO2 is affecting cognition.
It's not a straight line, no. In 1970 it was around 320ppm, so not quite 100ppm less than today as opposed to 100-150ppm. So 0.3% slower, again if you take those performance numbers at face value which you probably should both, because they are the result of experiments that take place at levels of 1000ppm and beyond and it's unclear if they even apply to lower levels.
Today’s 422ppm (https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2) assumes you’re outside in a remote area with a light breeze to constantly get fresh air. Even just a city has higher levels and normal office space is sitting at 800ppm or so. A meeting room can break 1500ppm depending on occupants and ventilation, which is one of the reasons meetings suck and packed meetings suck more.
Thus a meeting where the PPM was ~1200ppm in 1970 with the same number of people in the same room in 2023 should be ~1300ppm.
I was pointing out that outdoor CO2 ppm vary significantly, and we are at ~420ppm not 410ppm which was quoted earlier.
Also, outdoor ppm increases indoor ppm which is within the range being studied so talking about cognitive decline from ongoing carbon emissions is supported.
> Impairment of cognitive performance is not expected from exposure to 20 000 ppm CO2, neither as direct effect on central nervous system function nor as a distraction related to perception of health effects.
The study you’re linking is discussing the combined effects of CO2 and PM2.5; likely it’s the particulate matter that’s the issue rather than the CO2.
CO2 is generally used as a proxy for IAQ as in the link you posted. I strongly suspect it's another factor than just CO2, for example reduced O2 levels, or VOCs and particulates. I'm sceptical that usual levels of CO2 have a noticeable impact on metabolism.
Very cool. FYI, I had to remove some compiler flags and change the 'section' attributes to get the tests building with Clang, but it seems to be working on my Mac.
I was looking for a benchmark that would give me an idea of the RAM/ROM footprint for the library, but I don't see one.
You can design both a circuit board and a case with Fusion360, which is free for personal use. Use JLCPCB to assemble the board for you. You can 3D print the case yourself.
It took me about 20hr to learn how to use Fusion360 and make a simple circuit and case this way.
The answer to these sort of questions (OP) is always the same: it was done because it made all the sense in the world to do.
Most likely, 150 GB/s -> 200 GB/s results in a fairly small improvement (when paired with a processor of M2 Pro / M3 Pro overall capability) only in a fairly small and specific subset of GPU applications. In particular, it's pretty much the matter of fact that that extra bandwidth achieves nothing in CPU-bound applications. It's also a matter of fact that only some of the GPU applications benefit, I just can not attest to exactly how big (or rather, small) and important that subset is.
With every new process node nowadays the following happens:
1. The cost per unit of area increases substantially. Decades ago the cost per unit of area was practically staying the same, resulting in 2x smaller node being 2x cheaper for the same design as the same design would take up 2x less area. Not anymore. The cost per unit of area is higher, therefore, if a portion of the design doesn't shrink much, it's actually more expensive on newer node. It takes a large shrink for the design to get cheaper or even merely stay the same in per-unit manufacturing cost.
2. IO shrinks very little. 4nm -> 3nm resulted in only 10% IO shrink. 1.25x SRAM, and 1.7x logic.
3. DRAM bandwidth is just a product of bus width * DRAM frequency, where bus width is really just a number-of-DRAM-controllers * 32.
4. DRAM controllers is IO. It barely shrinks in area going 4nm -> 3nm. But 3nm is more expensive per unit of area to manufacture. Therefore, DRAM controllers of the same design and the same count and the same bandwidth cost more money now on 3nm.
Most likely, that very marginal and situational performance benefit in a subset of GPU applications that M2 Pro saw going from 150 GB/s to 200 GB/s was still large enough to justify the relatively low (on 5nm) cost of 8 DRAM controllers (in traditional 32-bit-bus-per-controller terms). On M3 Pro that performance gain probably just dropped below the threshold and became unjustifiable against the increased cost of DRAM controllers, and the number of DRAM controllers was reduced to 6.
> Cancel culture is cancel culture. But what's the idea that makes it bad? It's not over a protected class which we do deem worthy generally but over political views which are not uniformly considered protected.
I think it's important to parse out the difference between bad and illegal. Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal, and just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's bad.
Cancel Culture is a bad thing, but I don't think it should be illegal to fire someone because he's controversial. That being said, I don't think our culture should tolerate it.
Cancel Culture creates a chilling effect on speech; it's hard to have a candid conversation when you know that expressing the "wrong" opinion could mean losing your job and being publicly humiliated.
It can also create a mob rule, which has no interest in the truth, but rather seeks to demonize anyone who challenges its worldview. I'll give you an example of this that happened in San Francisco recently. A school board member was accused of being a "racist" after she remarked that "black and brown students" lack family support. Despite the fact that this is objectively true in her school district, she was forced to publicly apologize and resign, Chinese Cultural Revolution style. This kind of publicly humiliation creates a toxic environment, where instead of identifying and addressing the root cause of problems, school boards will plug their ears and hum while doing things that actually make things worse [1]. Or, people will say one thing, but actually think another. San Francisco is notorious for this; people virtue signal left and right, but when it comes to actual policy, they vote very differently.
The fact of the matter is that people have a wide range of opinions. I work with people who are all over the political spectrum, none of whom should be publicly humiliated and forced to resign, apologize, and flagellate themselves just because their opinions are controversial. This is definitely not how you win hearts and minds for a cause, at least not among rational people. Sooner or later, the things you use against other people will be turned against you.
Probably because it has only been available since C++23: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/println.