That is what I remember too.
It is more of a “For typical cards, expect very competitive options from AMD. If you want top performance, buy Nvidia.”
In theory it allows them to focus more on the cards that actually get bought, and thus they could make those cards better products.
As the great operation begins.
It is a hardware failure. Screens are complex and sensitive parts that are exposed to a lot of (ab)use. What is cryptic about that?
I agree, it looks nice in my opinion. It doesn’t look like the house itself is crooked. It’s just asymmetrical furniture, which I find fun to look at!
we think you’d be best with a bigger team with a better support network
Sounds like they think you’re not independent enough for the position. If it is a small team, they might need someone who can immediately start being productive, while they think you will need more coaching to get up to speed.
No need to drag any disabilities into this.
Well, if
Then we can be quite confident that your connection is indeed encrypted!
And of course, you’re welcome!
Just get uBlock Origin instead. Years ago I made the switch and never looked back!
If the timestamps line up, maybe Wireshark just doesn’t manage to understand the entire exchange. What could happen is that Wireshark sees the SSH handshake, and after that it might become just encrypted gibberish due to the encryption. In that case the SSH traffic could just show up as “some kind of TCP”.
Do you see an SSH handshake, followed by random crap on the same ports?
(I’m not a Wireshark expert, just an IT guy trying to help!)
TCP is on a lower level than SSH, usually SSH uses TCP as its underlying transport layer. TCP as such is not encrypted, but it can of course be used to transport encrypted data.
Are those packages not part of the same SSH connection according to Wireshark?
Any liquid is drinkable, some even more than once!
They say there are 16 screens inside, each with a 16k resolution. Such a screen would have 16x as many pixels as a 4k screen. The GPUs power those as well.
For the number of GPUs it appears to make sense. 150 GPUs for the equivalent of about 256 4k screens means each GPU handles ±2 4k screens. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but it could make sense.
The power draw of 28 MW still seems ridiculous to me though. They claim about 45 kW for the GPUs, which leaves 27955 kW for everything else. Even if we assume the screens are stupid and use 1 kw per 4k segment, that only accounts for 256 kW, leaving 27699 kW. Where the fuck does all that energy go?! Am I missing something?
He also called them mûmakil in elvish. In my mind, when the Hobbits call them oliphaunts it is because a long time ago someone talked about elephants, and over the years the correct pronunciation was lost.
Yeah a zero-day would be very unlikely, but a months-old, publically known and patched vulnerability could always be attempted. One of the reasons why the hypervisor should definitely be kept up-to-date. There is always someone who forgets to patch their software, why not give it a try? We’re talking about a Windows XP scenario after all!
Is it bad that I kinda do want to get high and have my fridge come over to me to fulfill the munchies without ever having to get up?
It’s pure speculation, but I assume you’ll need
Sounds like quite a bit of work, but I don’t see why malware couldn’t automate it. An up-to-date hypervisor should help reduce the risk though.
Well there is this thing called a speed limit, that is a very clear hard limit. If you go over, it is at the very least financially unsafe.
It would also be very hard to compete with products that are this mature. Linux, Windows, and macOS have been under development for a long time, with a lot of people. If you create a new OS, people will inevitably compare your new immature product with those mature products. If you had the same resources and time, then maybe your new OS would beat them, but you don’t. So at launch you will have less optimizations, features, security audits, compatibility, etc., and few people would actually consider using your OS.
The function should be cubic, so you should be able to write it in the form “f(x) = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d”. You could work out the entire thing to put it in that form, but you don’t need to.
Since there are no weird operations, roots, divisions by x, or anything like that, you can just count how many times x might get multiplied with itself. At the top of each division, there are 3 terms with x, so you can quite easily see that the maximum will be x^3.
It’s useful to know what the values x_i and x_y are though. They describe the 3 points through which the function should go: (x_1, y_1) to (x_3, y_3).
That also makes the second part of the statement ready to check. Take (x_1, y_1) for example. You want to be sure that f(x_1) = y_1. If you replace all of the “x” in the formula by x_1, you’ll see that everything starts cancelling each other out. Eventually you’ll get “1 * y_1 + 0 * y_2 + 0 * y_3”, thus f(x_1) is indeed y_1.
They could have explained this a bit better in the book, it also took me a little while to figure it out.
DocFx could do what you’re looking for. You would write your stuff in markdown and it generates an interactive and customizable site.