not disagreeing with you - I find performative “wrestle drama” absolutely, mind numbingly pointless. my preference is to participate in (and ocassionally watch) unscripted combat sport.

however… I have trained competitive martial arts for decades (muay thai, bjj, others) and most of these “wrestling” participants are pretty skilled athletes. it takes training to turn combinations of techniques designed to injure into something reasonably harmless. there is a pretty fine line separating sparring from a fight.

I know you know this, but its still useful to remember that these players are actors as well as athletes and that can obviously be pretty inviting for a lot of viewers.

in typical trump fashion - take a dump on the desk and walk out of the room. shart of the deal!

deleted by creator

he brings live shakespearean actor mojo to the small screen and makes zero fucking apologies for it. its like watching a honda civic do a quarter mile with a corvette engine.

best. captain. eva.

anyone else felt the impending finger slice in that photo? case looks pissed and out for flesh.

great answer. thanks so much.

lets not forget Greenland. if you ever wondered what NATO on NATO violence might look like, boy do I have a timeline for you!

just gonna point out that there is a fair amount of right wing, Hawley-esque batshit insanity in this video (my ivermectin beliefs are as good as your reviewed and reproducible research) - but on the important point (meta is globally dangerous and zuckerberg is pathologically sociopathic), I can agree.

seize the means of tariffication!

what the hell is this trash post?! user is clearly a sleeper ad bot.

wow! self-reflection is something we all need more of (especially me). agree or disagree, converstaions are always better when everyone considers things for a moment. nice comment. :-)

I am sure you already know, but the objection here is going after kids. literally profiling and then abusing their vulnerabilities for profit. this isnt your standard cereal box advertising, I think this is something much darker and more disgusting.

edit: added word

a problem that will go away

oh, god - I now have anticipatory… stirrings. thanks, obama.

to be fair, perhaps we are not in the worst of all multiverses. I would say my heart goes out to him, but… you know.

Head over to Reddit

yeah, no.

Biden Depression

I am in awe of the shear size of the stupid. trump has redirected the “soft landing” directly into the meat grinder.

ok. my apologizes.

there really are tons of things to consider with that question. RISC has historically allowed for faster clocking and fewer cycles per instruction, so thats a win. RISC also requires more instructions per useful operation and also blows up the binary size, so… :-(

all things being equal (hahaha) RISC has more headroom and legroom for future improvements that dont complecate the silicon to extreme degrees. the vast majority of CISC designs are now pretty RISC-like at their cores, but the software interface remains CISC and, I think, complicates and limits variety and advancement.

imho, a properly spec’d RISC processor and a carefully designed compiler, cycle for cycle, macro for macro and watt for watt outperforms a CISC design (even with a RISC-like core). major computing holy wars are been waged over this for decades.

all I currently have access to are older studies that show mixed general purpose results on RISC vs CISC (performance, not power efficiency), but if I had to make a choice about what my future ideal processor would be, it would be RISC core and RISC instruction set architecture simply due to less complexity, more efficient use of wafer space and lower power requirements. then we start talking about massively parallel RISC in tiny spaces and, for many (but not all) workloads, thats a big win.

this is so deliciously and disappointingly true. :-/

CPI per CPI… RISC, but thats a trap of a question and you know it ;-)

tons of variables in that question, but there should be more headroom in RISC designs and thats why, internally, most things are RISC-y.

meh (not dismissive - just cute), ecosystem mootness is overrated. at the heart of every CISC beats a RISC. strip away the mask and lets poke the nuclear core.

great reply. I am not saying RISC is the panecea, what I am saying is that there are more options for workload optimization further up the stack and rebalancing of the intelligence from the silicon to the software is an advantage.

some time ago most CISC core design become more RISC-y and, to indulge in some ISA snobbery, I just want to slash and burn the CISC presentation to the software layer. memory is cheap, bus bandwidth is insane - simplification on the ISA just seems like a hardware complexity win all around and I am willing to pay for that in compiler complexity that incorporates changes more easily than hardware or CISC microcode.

RISC-V’s challenge is can they standardise the software ecosystem enough[…]

agreed. this is why I say my wait may be coming to an end.

personally, I think RISC is the more flexible design in almost every usecase. cycle for cycle, RISC hits the right buttons for me across the widest number of situations once we get above the “magic hardware” layer. willing to flog the CISC vs RiSC horse convo if you have recent information, and thanks for the response.