I see hacspec using secret-integers: "wrapper around integer types for constant-timedness". Does Hacspec/Bertie have assurances about constant-timedness too?
> It is perfectly good enough for the error code enumeration to be statically randomized into hard coded constants.
A comment points out that they aren't randomized:
> The values used were chosen such that it takes a large number of bit flips to change from allowed to denied. Using random values doesn't really protect against this attack.
The 608.5 mm² 4090 with 76.3 B transistors isn't too far off from the 814 mm² H100 w 80 B transistors. Seems like mostly more area for memory interfacing?
Assuming they're not selling the 4090 at a loss and being generous that the whole cost is the chip cost, that makes for a $1600 chip. Scaled to the H100 we get $2140. That's a pretty minuscule fraction of a $35k card.
> 5nm dies are the most expensive part of the whole solution, meaning there is also a 65% pricing advantage (though some of this advantage is offset by more complex packaging and other cheaper dies that go into mi300x as well as more HBM chips).
That doesn't say anything about the fraction of the cost on the finished product though? Those numbers just say it could be something like 2% vs 6% of the cost of the card.
Checking nvidia-smi it stalls at ~130W (out of ~470 W max) power usage, ~25% GPU usage and ~10% memory bandwidth usage. There's fairly much traffic on the pci-bus though, and the python process is stable at 100% usage of one core. GPU possibly limited by some thing handled in python?
Pausing the GPU-accelerated video-decoding of a twitch stream it get a surprisingly large boost:
Coming back home and checking 2.2.1 out zfs instantly started spewing write & checksum errors due to #15533. Both this and #15526 seem to have underlying issues from <2.2 that are just more easily triggered now.
First one also confirmed on FreeBSD now.
Holding off on 2.2 seems recommended, and if you're keeping critical data on OpenZFS it might be a good idea to give the issues a glance. The 2nd one might have the same underlying solution as an issue that has given me system freezes when closing in on ~90% pool usage using 2.1 on top of LUKS.
> If you're going to sanction somebody, keep at least some screenshots around.
That might not've been a consideration when the offending posts were removed. The ones doing the removal might not even be the same people handling suspensions.
> I could find nothing even questionable the banned person did.
That might be an issue of legitimacy. I'm involved in some discord modding, and we got admin-only channels mirroring the others to keep logs of everything. I have no idea how suspensions are handled in the NixOS community though, maybe moderators are picked to handle things in their own discretion.
> The fact that you don't agree with some person on an issue is no grounds for a ban.
That's not what's happening here though, it's the intentionally provocative behaviour?
Say some person argues that Israel is a nazi state dehumanizingly enough to get a warning, and gets told to stop derailing everything into a discussion about that since it's a detriment to a community that in itself has no connection to the issue. Agreeing to this they instead start sporting a green flag, or a little image with a free country between a river and a sea - maybe with a green flag on it - while linking to a page about how Israel is a nazi state. Then the issue the moderators have to consider isn't whether they agree on how to describe Israel, but if the actions of the warned person are still acting inflammatory and derailing the community.
A bit over the top example to make it clearer, if you find it an incomparable situation just tone down the actions in it accordingly.
> Several posts have been hidden/deleted because they also contained inflammatory speech. Several community members have reported their discomfort with Srid. In that context, his Discourse profile was seen as yet another provocation.
Not sure you can link to them then?
Considering the contents of the page seem to support their conclusion that the image was just another way to intentionally provoke others in the community I guess they figured the banned member had no intention of following the intention of the warning, but skirting it as close as possible. And now when that failed and they got banned they're instead trying to get people to rally to their support.
Not sure if that's a good argument, my father loves the smell of diesel exhaust for some reason, doesn't make it right to try to coax 'em into breathing it.
https://www.servethehome.com/micron-cz120-cxl-memory-module-...