You shouldn't disable Spectre mitigations, but Retbleed and Downfall (Intel) are much more of a "lab" exploit, and the fall-out for Retbleed is much more severe on cloud boxes than your personal PC. Easy 20-40% performance uplift on AMD Zen1-Zen2 and Intel 6th-11th gen.
To be honest, that is not a problem unique to.. well.. any domain-specific company's tech stack.
Raymarine their marine GPS navigation units are supposed to be very intuitive, but they lack so many "that would have been nice" features, and their UX has stuff where various buttons have click / double-click / hold / hold 2s / hold 10s, all to access different functions. Some of it isn't even written down in the manual.
I mean honestly I have this issue with every level of compute device. Smart phones are much more limited than computers and so much stuff is buried. But then think about the absolutes gigantic amount of undocumented buried stuff that exists on Windows and Linux and macOS. You have a keyboard and internets and a mouse and it's still literally millions of people's jobs to deal with UI issues on these devices professionaly.
It would have been nice if KDE and Valve could (would?) work together to reimplement KWin's features on top of wlroots. That would have basically made Gnome the sole holdout, and I imagine they'd eventually have switched to the extended wlroots as well, or at least forked it.
One that is functionally different but causes the same type of morale hit is managers and upward equipping themselves with fully loaded MacBooks and iPhones, but equipping rank-and-file employees with shitty Dell laptops and budget tier Android phones.
That happens more at traditional companies than tech companies, but it immediately signals that it's a crappy company steeped in "rules for thee but not for me" culture.
> Also, one of my friends has a PhD in literally rocket science (aeronautical engineering from MIT)
One of my friends is a nuclear physicist from TU Delft and they somehow managed to install a fake clone of Chrome haha. Somehow never got their accounts broken into or money stolen.
> Yeah, it's an English thing. A literal translation in Dutch would mean "explain yourself here",
That's just patently untrue. The literal translation is "ik denk niet dat dat een goed idee is" and the better translation would be "dat is niet de bedoeling".
If I got told in an interview "dat is niet de bedoeling" I'd be damn sure to rework my solution because they're clearly trying to coax me towards whatever they're looking for. And in a way it is actually a nice thing of them, because they could just say nothing and fail me out of that round of interviews.
I agree. But the nature of open source means that you can't force someone to work on something, unlike a job. And for whatever reason, open source seems to attract people that would rather be principled and split a project into two barely viable one's, rather than be receptive to feedback, compromise / find common ground and work together to something better.
GIMP is the best example of this. Years back a few devs tried to get it renamed from GNU Image Manipulation Program to GNU Libre Image Manipulation Program (GLIMP), because multiple people found it embarassing or even got shot down by their boss for suggesting to use and donate to a program named GIMP.
What happened? GIMP devs did a big nuh-uh, dug in their heels, and the other devs forked GIMP into GLIMP for a while. GlIMP is no longer maintained now, and GIMP still gets scraps for funding :)
> the example I found that illustrated this best was "Hey there's a warehouse full of valuables let's go rob it" isn't entrapment
Literally entrapment.
Like you said, it hinges on if you would have committed the crime without encouragement from the police.
A trap car is not entrapment. You walking past a trap car, checking if the door is unlocked and then going for a joyride / stealing it means you convinced yourself to do this crime.
An undercover policeman telling you he's seen an unlocked car, and "just take it for a spin, for the hell of it"? That's entrapment.
>By a 5–3 margin, the Court upheld the conviction of a Missouri man for selling heroin even though all the drug sold was supplied to him, he claimed, by a Drug Enforcement Administration informant who had, in turn, gotten it from the DEA. The majority held that the record showed Hampton was predisposed to sell drugs no matter his source...The case came before the court when the defendant argued that while he was predisposed, it was irrelevant since the government's possible role as sole supplier in the case constituted the sort of "outrageous government conduct" that Justice William Rehnquist had speculated could lead to the reversal of a conviction in the court's last entrapment case, United States v. Russell.[2] Rehnquist was not impressed and rejected the argument in his majority opinion.
Here's one where the government said "Hey you should sell this heroin that I gave you" and the conviction was upheld because "the record showed Hampton was predisposed to sell drugs no matter his source." So no, the simple act of an undercover cop asking you if you'd like to commit a crime isn't entrapment on its face.
> In late February 1974, Hampton and a DEA informant known as Hutton were playing pool at the Pud bar in St. Louis when Hampton noticed the needle marks on Hutton's arms. He said he needed money and could obtain heroin to sell. Hutton responded that he could find a buyer. After the conversation, he called his handler, DEA agent Terry Sawyer, and reported the proposal.
It was under his own will, the DEA just supplied him the means to do so.
It's basically as if I was in a seedy bar and spot a pistol on an undercover agent, and I tell them I know an easy spot to rob near the bar. Then the undercover agent gives me the pistol, asking for 20% of the take. It only turns into entrapment if I was talking about money problems and the undercover agent would have told me robbing a nearby convienence store could be an easy solve to my money troubles.
This is false. 3D VCache is enabled by TSMC's 3DFabric packaging. It also didn't really play a role in AMD passing Intel. Chiplets are also enabled by TSMC technology, CoWoS.
When AMD passed Intel, they hadn't even decided to use TSMC at all yet. Of course now Intel is behind in leveraging TSMC technology. They started late.
reply