I've had the exact same thoughts, so if you're wrong you aren't alone. I personally believe this is due to the imbalance of wealth. Where money isn't circulating properly and we end up with these massive funds that move from one investment type to another destroying everything in their wake
I find it fascinating that he has such a strong desire to have people have a certain perception of him. I'm not sure what that perception is supposed to be,if it's admiration or respect or whatever.
But it does seem to drive him to do odd things. Sleeping on an office floor. There's no reason for him to do that. Pay somebody to follow him around and make a bed for him to sleep in if he doesn't want to go home. Taking photos of himself and then using alt accounts to post wonderful things about himself. It's weird.
He is a deeply lonely person. He has no real friends and appears to be incapable of forming genuine emotional connections. He needs friends but doesn’t have any and the pursuit of adulation from strangers is a poor substitute but it’s the best he can do.
One of the things I like to mention to younger devs, when I pull out a solution that they think is from thin air, is that I have failed far more often then they have. I just have a good memory on how to fix my mistakes.
Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Haidt, "The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum" https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092
These were what I was thinking of. I believe they asked liberals to answer a political question about their own beliefs, and then again to answer for a 'stereotypical' liberal and conservative. The liberals were not accurate for anyone. The conservatives were able to better match the 'average' for those groups. In other words, the study claims that this means they are better able to put themselves in the shoes of the 'other' side
> The participants were 2,212 visitors (62% female; median age 28; only U.S. residents or citizens) to ProjectImplicit.org, where they were randomly assigned to this study. All participants in the research pool had previously filled out demographic information, including sex, age, and political identity (7-point scale, strongly liberal to strongly conservative). 1,174 participants self-identified using one of the three liberal options, 538 chose the “moderate” midpoint, and 500 chose one of the three conservative options.
The strong left-leaning bias in the sample makes me suspicious that this sample isn't representative of the wider population. I can't find the raw data, but given the selection method I strongly suspect that the sample is mostly college students.
If so, one hypothesis that might explain the results is that conservatives who go to college of necessity have a stronger understanding of the other side than liberals because they're the minority on campus for many years. If you repeated this study with a more representative sample of conservatives, including conservatives who do not have the opportunity to interact with many liberals, do you get different results?
After reading the article. I don’t see where they said it was a counting system. Rather that it has the same rhyming structure as counting systems and so it had to be considered a possibility that it came from that. Which by the end they said was very unlikely.
Point taken. I suppose the 'out' is open to interpretation. I read it as in 'counting out[loud]' or just 'counting out [the number of something]'. But I can see how they could have meant it as in 'counting out [which ones amongst X sheep were for mating/selling/killing/etc.
The main goal is removing replacing pointless stack-to-stack copies with simply mutating in-place on the stack correctly in the first place.
Due to some mix of:
* Rust code relying more on copies than C++ (for esample, harder to make something uninitialized and fill it in)
* LLVM missing optimizations that rust relies on heavier than C++
* No real guarantees around RVO / NRVO
Rust code often will put something on the stack, and then just instantly copy it somewhere else on the stack, even in optimized code. I've observed this happening sometimes pretty blatantly myself.
Shouldn’t Rust in theory have a lot more freedom in defining its calling conventions than C++ has? I wonder if there’s anything that prevents doing RVO by default, or if just hadn’t been a priority yet.
I think in theory it could, but something was definitely getting clogged in the optimizer. I'd see code like
"
a = A::new(...);
return a;
"
Create a on the stack, and immediately copy a into the stack region the caller was expecting it in. This seemed to get worse as struct size got larger, so I'm guessing there was so much IL the optimizer had to churn through it just gave up at some point.
Evaluation order is unspecified in C++, whereas it is well-specified in Rust. This makes things easier to reason about in Rust, but does give the optimizer less wiggle room.
In code like `a(b(d),c(e))`, I think it could be relevant. You would want different code based on the size of `b(d)`, `c(e)`, `d`, and `e`. If you must evaluate b before c, that would eliminate some possible arrangements.
Specifically, if `e` and `b(d)` are huge, you probably would want to evaluate `c(e)` first and then `b(d)`.
"Memory moves to the stack frequently represent wasted computation. For the most part, they're CPU cycles that are spent shuffling data from one place to another instead of performing useful work. Stack-to-stack memory moves in particular are very likely to represent pure overhead; non-stack-to-stack memory moves are sometimes genuinely useful and necessary but frequently also represent waste."
It's essentially a critique that the optimizer is missing opportunities.
> Memory moves to the stack frequently represent wasted computation. For the most part, they're CPU cycles that are spent shuffling data from one place to another instead of performing useful work. Stack-to-stack memory moves in particular are very likely to represent pure overhead; non-stack-to-stack memory moves are sometimes genuinely useful and necessary but frequently also represent waste.
> Is there a trade off in being stack efficient and speed?
It's just rust being slightly less efficient: it spends instructions doing unnecessary stack-to-stack copies, and has larger stackframes (to hold the redundant copies, which can be an issue both with deep recursion and for inlining).
I believe they looked at them. The issue is essentially the expansion board that handles the processing of the 2.5Gbit/S and the port combined were larger than the space they had designated.
No? But that might be because I don't need the same options as you do. I however do like the dual HDMI, USB-C, and the extra storage I added to my framework and since your Thinkpad only has 1 HDMI output I think that's rather odd. It's 2mm thicker how do you handle the lack of a second HDMI port?
I cannot imagine a realistic scenario in which I would need two HDMI ports on the laptop. When I need to connect more than one screen (home, work) I would always use a docking station.
