ganymede

did anyone read the link?

tldr: i'm not the one making these ridiculous claims, it was a statement made (apparently in earnest) by a loopy politician.

“You would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving in a car,” he said. However, he said he had not “done any analysis” of the difference in CO2 from a person on a bike compared to the engine of a car" 😂

so what they're really saying is they won't give it away for free

cycling? but then you're breathing out more co2 than sitting in a gas guzzling SUV?!!?

don't you wish i was joking??

@op looking back, what was the specific cringe aspect of what you described in your story?

that you'd hope for this seemingly impossible outcome, of being a positive force in an established group with a clear bigoted direction?

or that you feel foolish for relapsing into believing religious topics again?

or something else?

may i ask why you believed that and why you stopped believing?

what piece of knowledge changed things for you?

surely you already knew all the reasons why that sounds pretty fantastical, even back then?

tangent away mate

seems like i'm mostly telling people in this thread not to feel bad about their prior cringe...

i really didn't follow this closely AT ALL. but i feel like back in the day libertarian ideas were much more left of center than they are now. to my inexpert perception, it feels like libertarianism (and alot of other things) have been co-opted by conservatism over the years.

which version of the hollow earth are we talking? if you mean a giant hollow shell, then yeh i'm not sure how well supported that is.

if you mean the honeycomb earth idea, where there could be myriad of huge deep caverns. then i'm kinda open to that possibility.

(not that my geoscience knowledge extends beyond highschool geography and the odd wikipedia article - so would welcome an opportunity to discuss with someone adept.)

yes, as i said

from the article it’s not clear what the performance boost is relative to intrinsics

(they don't make that comparison in the article)

so its not clear exactly how handwritten asm compares to intrinsics in this specific comparison. we can't assume their handwritten AVX-512 asm and instrinics AVX-512 will perform identically here, it may be better, or worse.

also worth noting they're discussing benchmarking of a specific function, so overall performance on executing a given set of commands may be quite different depending what can and can't be unrolled and in which order for different dependencies.

from the article it's not clear what the performance boost is relative to intrinsics (its extremely unlikely to be anything close to 94x lol), its not even clear from the article if the avx2 implementation they benchmarked against was instrinsics or handwritten either. in some cases avx2 seems to slightly outperform avx-512 in their implementation

there's also so many different ways to break a problem down that i'm not sure this is an ideal showcase, at least without more information.

to be fair to the presenters they may not be the ones making the specific flavour of hype that the article writers are.

for sure, its perfectly reasonable to say "this tool isn't useful for me"

its another thing to say "this tool isn't useful for anyone"

nice.

can usually get a pretty good performance increase with hand writing asm where appropriate.

don't know if its a coincidence, but i've never seen someone who's good at writing assembly say that its never useful.