Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | netrikare's commentslogin

Hey Google, you can't do waitlists/not available in your country if you are chasing your competitors and your product is inferior.


This can all be abstracted away, so end user doesn't even know he is interacting with blockchain tech.


This is temporary until miners move their hardware elsewhere.


Banning it would make malware encrypt your data for "fun" and not profits of malware groups. Just like viruses in the '90s were written for fun.


People don't risk angering national governments and shutting down economies for fun. They do it either for ideology or money, and the former motivation makes it difficult to staff up a talented cracking team.


In reality bonds are rolled over so not really.


>When is concurrency in Java ever hard+?

Take a look at dated, but still relevant book by Brian Goetz - Java Concurrency in Practice - many problems are illustrated with a code section.


loopXX instructions do not use CPU LSD (Loop Stream Detector) while cmp/jnz construct takes advantage of it. This speeds up some small loops. Also, there are some rules in intel manuals for instructions within cmp/jnz loop like no mismatched push/pop, etc.

now, does anyone know why?


like no mismatched push/pop, etc.

My guess is virtual stack pointer update prediction latency.

To expand on that, Intel's CPUs have had for a long time a separate piece of hardware dedicated to a "virtual" stack which speeds up push/pop instructions. If pushes and pops are not mismatched, then all stack operations can stay entirely within that and there's no need to update the "real" stack pointer nor stack entries upon leaving the loop.


Thank you for your answer! Any idea why would loops not use LSD when programmed using loopXX instructions but would use when cmp/jnX is used?


There are free, base functionality accounts in every bank in Poland. Debit card use is also free provided you make few transactions per month.


What a strange rule. Debit cards presumably only cost the bank money if you use them.


So what. Everyone being capable of doing so should pay tax to maintain society functional. That banks should pay tax in form of a couple of free debit card transactions for poor people is not an unfair share. Banks earn enough money because society no longer works without debit cards.


No, I was saying that it is strange that the debit card is only free if you use it a few times. If you give me a debit card and I don't use it, what did it cost you? A few pennies for the plastic?


Ah, I read the original message as the card and its usage are free as long as you don't have too many transactions. No idea, my knowledge about Poland is very close to zero :(


It's not strange, it's the banks fighting back to prevent "cannibalization". Kind of like how Intuit lobbied the government to gimp the free tax tool.


ark.intel.com indicates that transactional extensions are not present in 10th gen processors. Did Intel decide to abandon tsx-ni?


Intel is a bit annoying at picking and choosing which instruction sets get included in the processes. Maybe they just removed it for the 10th gen mobile? I wonder if they will be included in the 10th gen desktop, if that is ever going to be released.

I've only looked at a few of the mobile and desktop 9th gen, looks like its only included in some of the higher end models.

Mobile:

i5-9300H - no

i5-9400H - yes

i7-9750H - no

i7-9850H - yes

Desktop:

i3-9300 - no

i5-9600 - yes

i7-9700 - yes


Maybe they're limiting it to Xeon products, since Intel seemingly has a quota of asinine market segmentation decisions per generation.


Does anyone know if AMD is working on supporting transactional memory in their cpus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Synchronization_Facil...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: