>On modern CPUs, avoiding branch misprediction is a key technique to speed up programs. This branchless approach:
>
>for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
> small_numbers[smlen] = numbers[i];
> smlen += (numbers[i] < 500);
>}
Excuse my terrible ignorance but isn't there still a branch? If numbers[i] < 500 then 1 else 0?
I would think something like addition plus a bit comparison would avoid said branch. Unless compilers already optimize the code, but then wouldn't they also optimize the naive piece of code?
From a quick search online, the max brightness of your laptop is 400 nits SDR and 500 HDR. My M5 MacBook Pro is 1000 and 1500 nits.
Screen brightness is not something I will compromise on after having a taste of greatness.
I personally wouldn't mind spending 30-40% more for a Linux laptop with similar qualities + repairability. But I will not settle for something much more expensive and worst in some aspects.
There are also arguments agains repairability in Framework's laptop. I did the calculations and for the Framework 16, it would be cheaper to buy a gaming Asus laptop and throw it out in a couple years to replace it versus buying a framework and upgrading it. Utter insanity.
- Tesla's vision only approach seems a lot more competent than the Lidar suites from smaller Chinese makers. Perhaps I misjudged how necessary Lidar was to achieve safe driving.
- Virtually all of the Chinese car infotainment were basically a 1:1 copy of Tesla's. I couldn't find any that genuinely tried something unique lol
If you just look at the past 20 years, the US has had exceptional returns compared to the rest of the world.
The thing is, historically, high PE ratios like what we're seeing in the US do not correlate with short term returns that are as high. Expected future returns decrease as the PE ratios go up in a pretty linear fashion.
You could just buy deep out of money SP500 puts expiring in 1+ year. That way you would be "insured" against the bubble popping.
The thing is, every dollar you spend on insurance is a dollar (and its interest) you lose. Furthermore, we don't know when it will pop. 1 year? 5 years?
The more reasonable solution is probably gradually reduce exposure to US markets by selling SP500 shares and turning to Europe and emerging markets ETFs. No need to cash out 401k.
This feels like a thought exercise rather than an argument.
By your logic, it's impossible to prove that a car is driving at 60mph. There could be an error in the speedometer which makes it impossible to verify that said car is going at the speed. You can get asymptomatically close to being sure that you're driving at 60 mph but you can never be 100% sure.
For me it's the opposite. I am a bit surprised that inflation halved buying power since 2000.
In my mind those level of interest usually come from the stock market or house appreciation, but I guess those are much faster (I seem to recall doubling every 8 years in the stock market and housing being a bit slower).
> Web apps work everywhere. The web has grown increasingly powerful and capable. Why would I invest in a technology that can only run on a single OS? Doesn't make sense.
For me, I see these following advantages:
- Performance; Native & compiled is king.
- Ram usage; Kilobytes vs Mega(giga?)bytes.
- UI control which integrates with the rest of the OS (and updates when the underlying OS tweaks the UI)
From a business standpoint, I get your point that these points don't really matter. Users have shown to not care in the slightest at the bloat in programs.
However for code I write in my spare time, I would much rather write my native Linux program in compiled code than to ship a subpar experience to the few who will interact with it.
> I feel like the complaints here are…not really Samsung's fault?
I don't know man, the last time I uninstalled an app on macOS, all I had to do was drag it to the trash. If you find this procedure sane, then I don't know what to tell you.
Samsung is responsible of how users interact with their app, including its install and removal.
But then its credibility would be abysmally low, which makes it undesirable for the authors.