HIP was such a self-own and clear demonstration of AMD software capabilities... well, the lack of software capabilities. HIP was hard-coded for one GPU architecture. CUDA did it right, it has a intermediate virtual assembly PTX and driver compiles it to whatever actual instruction set card actually uses.
Imagine a meeting where they signed off on that. So each developer will have to provide a different binary for each of our architectures? Yep. And once we release the new architecture, developer will have to recompile his program for the new architecture? Yep. Sounds good to me.
Exactly. You want others to change to fulfill your needs. Their priorities and needs are different. In this case, it was evaluated and found not to be useful (cost > benefits).
It faces criticism, but still held true. "sacrificing profit for moral reasons" is not acting in best interest of shareholders. That doesn't mean maximizing value at all times btw, e.g. assessing potential reputational damage and sacrificing some profit by not doing something can be acting in best interest of shareholders (or not, depending on circumstances).
That was basically what Ford vs Dodge was about. Ford lost and had to change direction. If C-suite does not operate in that direction, they can sue and will win. There is no point in going in different direction, courts already quite clearly said you will lose.
> My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business.
> A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of men to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
Azure is not the best, but it mostly works. GitHub gets only 98% reliability for git operation component, reading and committing. This is the most basic component. The fact they are not on this 24/7 and it isn't fixed is the result of a culture (=what is prioritized, what quality is accepted).
Compare costs, monetary risk and TTM to renewables with battery backup. Nuclear is dead as a doornail.
Look at the nuclear buildup. Vogtle in US 10 years. Hinckley Point C is estimated to be 13 years. Flamanville 3 took 17 years. All these years you put money in and get nothing out. It's a disaster for balance sheet. Instead, you can build renewables plus batteries and have it connected within a year, generating revenue.
Signal to noise ratio is getting *lower (EDIT: was higher) than ever. I don't see a way out of this other than "human certified" digitally signed authorship (e.g. by using eIDAS in EU). There could be a proxy to at least retain pseudo-anonymity, but trackable to a human. Tragedy of commons strikes again.
Open source is not open contribution. There are many examples of open source, but closed contribution, e.g. SQLite.
What you are listing is a business strategy of a company (free labor and advertising). Desires of a company are very different from an unpaid volunteer.
In projects that leave PRs unanswered, the maintainer is already unpaid labor, but contributor want him to work on the contribution. That might not align with what maintainer wants.
Edit: Personally, I find reviewing least pleasant part of dev work. Thanks to LLMs, that now also significantly more of my paid work. My desire to do code reviews in my free time is massively lower. I would rather do it myself.
My country is going to require a recyclable plastic bottles. That means bringing empty plastic bottles full of air into a shop, so a machine can squash them and send somewhere.
This will bring down marketshare significantly. It's incredibly hassle, which is likely the point.
I am looking for good and cheap sodastream cola syrup, but they are very expensive.
> Saying this as a German, where the economy is the worst it’s been in decades and our federal government acts incapable at changing this so far.
That's not true. Germany has a 200-points plan on reducing the bureaucracy. At first it sounds like a joke, but actual points would be transformative if all points were done... I don't see it happening.
As an example, automatic approvals if a response is done within a deadline would be huge. I don't see that happening.
Or possibly happening, then there will be a scandal, and it will be rolled back.
Another funny trick is a "We are looking at it" response, or "The EIA doesn't use standardized language in ground water section, rework it" (EIA was made by company that specializes in that).
Anyone who bought DVD player immediately had the benefits of better quality. The same applies to all other examples.
The problem with IPv6 is that you don't get benefits. If the designed protocol needs an equivalent of big bang, it's doomed. ASCII->UTF8 didn't need big bang. x86 to Itanium needed big bang.
Disagree. We are trained on numbers from kindergarten. It's used everywhere (e.g. see a number, store it in short-term memory and input it into calculator). Hex digits are completely different and we don't have developer neural paths for that. They are also unpronounceable.
Imagine a meeting where they signed off on that. So each developer will have to provide a different binary for each of our architectures? Yep. And once we release the new architecture, developer will have to recompile his program for the new architecture? Yep. Sounds good to me.