芯片制造工艺不可替代：GPU 和 CPU 可能采用大致相同的工艺制造，但 DRAM 则不然（闪存又是不同的工艺，电力电子、模拟电子、MEMS 等也是如此。即使在这些更广泛的类别中，也存在不同的变化）。虽然机器和技术存在一些重叠，但为一种设备建立的晶圆厂通常不能切换到另一种，并且每种工艺的经济性也可能截然不同。
>And he would have the unbridled rage of everyone in the UK who has decided that 100 years of the Tory/Labour cycle has run its course and meaningful change is needed
Binface is a better protest candidate than Farage for this purpose. Reform is worse than the status quo, hard as that can be to believe.
>He would suddenly have a serious job with real responsibilities
It would probably be worth reminding Farage of this. He has one of the worst attendance records as both an MP and an MEP, and indeed seems to have spent a lot of his time as MP outside the UK.
I think they were specifically bristling at the implication that 'high-end' was mainly relating to price as opposed to functionality. The most expensive watches are expensive for reasons of fashion while being inferior in terms of functionality.
Well, Death of the Author has been a concept for quite a while. How it's made and what the author intended is explicitly not a concern for a lot of criticism and analysis.
TBH, the whole of It Takes Two made me think 'these people are pretty terrible, I'm not sure I want to help them'. The stuffed toy bit was just the cherry on the cake. Good gameplay, not very good writing IMO (Split fiction is better but still... irritating at times)
> If the compiler can optimize a piece of code, it can also show the user what it thinks the optimal code would be so that they can rewrite it themselves, if they so choose
This is not straightforward. Apart from the mapping from a several-layers-deep optimization to the source level being very difficult, it may not be even representable in the original language. And even if it is, it may require complicating the code significantly. Part of the point of compiler optimization is so that you can write straightforward code and still have it be fast.
Compilers will often warn on dead code, but only at fairly early stages of translation where it's obvious that something is definitely dead code in all possible contexts and the fix is obvious. These rules are different to what the optimizer actually uses much later on in the pipeline.
The C++ style tends to create much larger omnibus libraries. If you're concerned about the liability and bloat extra dependencies create, you should be thinking of a) the number of people you are trusting in your supply chain, and b) the total amount of code you are importing. Neither of these correlate directly with the number of different packages that appear in your package manager, and in fact cargo-style splitting can allow you much more fine-grained control over what code appears in your application.
Probably the one security sin of most language package managers is allowing anyone to upload to the central repository without review. This is good for accessibility but bad for security. There are tools like cargo-crev, though, which can help you enforce some level of vetting if you wish.
I don't disagree, but there's a big difference between 'this is massively overinvested and valued and that's distorting the market around a useful product' and 'this is all basically a scam with no value to it whatsoever'. For some reason a lot of AI critics seem to be really hard pushing on the latter part despite it being by far the least credible take at this point. It might be overused, it might have some big negative externalities (though these are often overstated), it might have sucked up way more capital than it deserved, but it's also still very useful and valuable for quite a lot of people.
(to me it's a bit like criticising oil companies by claiming that oil doesn't actually produce any useful power after its refined. There's a lot to criticise about them but the fact that their product is very useful is in large part why it's so hard to do something about the rest of the problems they cause)
TBH, the whole thing reads like a pretty off-topic rant, its a leap from 'accesibility to blind users' to 'treatment of people with disabilities' to 'cyclists being aggressive towards the poster, who is neither but wears noise-cancelling headphones'. I'm not sure if there's a productive discussion to be had around it.
Better than that, you can get a bootstrapped rust from the Guix project, which has bootstrapped its entire system from source code from only a tiny verifiable binary.
The app can be open-source and verified to not be sharing extra info, though. Of course if no-one bothers to use the verifiable version of it, then it's all pointless, but this is true regardless (they could also just not use ZKPs).
Yeah, if the entities share data they'll share data, but ZKPs give a way to, in principle, verify that they cannot link two parts of that together by doing the verification. I'm not sure I understand your flow example though. If they ask you to enter an age, but will accept a zkp that you're over 18, then you could enter any age over 18 in the first part and they would have no way of knowing.