There's one example given where either the result of a simple or complex calculation is picked depending on eccentricity mentioning it's faster to just always calculate both and picking with a mask.
If you calculate both, wouldn't it be even faster to just always do the complex calculation? (presumably that's more precise?)
> If you calculate both, wouldn't it be even faster to just always do the complex calculation? (presumably that's more precise?)
The naming does imply that, but maybe they are simple vs complex, but also they're calculating different things? Seems like a stretch though.
Also the paragraph covering that part doesn't make much sense to me:
> This felt wasteful at first. Why compute both paths? But modern CPUs are so fast at arithmetic that computing both and selecting is often faster than branch misprediction. Plus, for SGP4, most satellites take the same path anyway, so we're rarely doing truly "wasted" work.
I'm always skeptical of claims about branch misprediction penalties without actual benchmarking (branch prediction is often very good!), and it also seems potentially undermined by the next sentence that "most satellites take the same path anyway", ie easily predictable.
But I don't understand at all what it means that because most satellites take the same path, the SIMD code is rarely doing wasted work, since the masking seems to be wasting part of the work by construction? (you could maybe handwave at pipelining or speculative execution making it irrelevant or wasted regardless, but no sign of those arguments).
The library seems good and always extremely nice when people produce write ups like this, but it might just be they're out over their skis when it comes to what was actually important about their optimizations.
I wonder if there is more fp drift from extra math that makes it LESS accurate in the case where the simple equation suffices? I'm impressed that satellites even have eccentricities so close to 1.0 that this makes sense, but I guess from, generically, an orbital planning perspective this make sense.
Yes, but then you might conceivably still measure temperature in degrees Réaumur, if it's a rather traditional brewer. Or so I was told by a Reliable Source(tm).
Because its not in the interest of the US that EU think that way. Thats what a lot of the trade deals that the US has imposed on the rest of the world.
Because we have lost pragmatism over the last 40 years more or less. The leading politicians like to treat people in a way as if these didn't understand what's going on. So instead of saying energy independent, they call it CO2 tax. Their fake morality is what is actually causing all this.
Radical ideology has taken over, rather than pragmatic ideas. I don't know how that happened, but I know we are paying the price for it, although EU is rich enough to do exactly what China is doing. That alone would put us in a better position.
Fantasy price for your personal usage or the personal usage of most average consumers/ software engineers, sure. It bears repeating: you're not the target audience.
They've been in the display game a long time. For people that need the product capabilities for their specific job, like color grading, they seem to price them quite well, given everywhere I used to see $30,000-$50,000 reference monitors, I see Studio Displays now.
Other manufacturers are likely to use the same panel as the new XDR and Studio display. The peak display tech this year will be the same glossy, high refresh rate mini LED used in the Apple displays, sold by third parties for a more reasonable price. You have to compromise a bit on the design, but in return you get a sensible price, much greater input connectivity and 'dual mode' which is useful if you want to also use it for gaming.
Basically what he just said, last week I put in a ton of time researching and came to the same exact conclusion.
But of course, you read that. So, I’ll take a hack at guessing what’s on your mind past that.
I bet it won’t be much more expensive than the LG list price, $2000. LG seems hellbent on making margins on this panel in their 1st party monitor. Ex. You can get the same panel but better quality in Asus Proart for $1300.
The key thing to watch here is, is Apple’s also 6K? If so, are they getting better panels than LG gives itself or Asus? (likely)
Regardless, it’s a shitshow with this panel, I’d rather get a used UltraFine 5K than get one of LGs. I’d try Asus if it was easy for me to return. Only new option that’s better than a 10 year old UltraFine 5K with my fellow HiDPI nerds is…the $6K XDR display :/
(n.b. I’m not being precious either, this an extremely painful conclusion I have every incentive to avoid, tl;dr I abandoned an UltraFine 5K to the trash heap because I didn’t have time to figure out how to move it 3,000 miles and assumed _surely_ there was a good option between 24-32” in hidpi…)
> I would think they want to decouple from ARM and the west in general as a dependency.
Why would you think that? ARM is not like x86 CPUs where you get the completed devices as a black box. Chinese silicon customers have access to the full design. I guess it's not completely impossible to hide backdoors at that level but it'd be extremely hard and would be a huge reputational risk if they were found.
They also can't really be locked out of ARM since if push comes to shove, Chinese silicon makers would just keep making chips without a license.
I did catch one vendor using a HAL across a whole SoC product line, a very low-level HAL that sat between SoC hardware registers and kernel drivers. It effectively made the drivers use scrambled register locations on the AHB etc, but if you resolved what the HAL did, the registers matched ARM's UART etc IP. So I figured they were ducking license fees for ARM peripherals.
I used to be a gas snob for ages but after moving, first to a place with an induction stove, then to one with a regular electric one, I have to say the supposed advantages are overblown. You can cook perfectly well on either. Induction/gas are slightly nicer if you want to use very high heat but even my current electric stove puts out a lot of power on the highest setting.
And then there's the downsides of gas:
They're a complete mess to clean. Tons of nooks and crannies where stuff might get into.
They suck for low heat simmering. There's iron plates you can put below the pot to distribute the heat but that's cumbersome. Low heat flames also go out more easily if there's a draft.
Not even talking about air quality and fire risks.
So I'm never going back to gas if I can help it. If I have a choice I'll probably get an induction stove next time around.
I was about to suggest Xfce as an example where window resizing is effortless due to the <super>+<right click> behavior. You can just grab the rough sector of a window to resize it.
I don't think the same geometric approach could be taken in a town established somewhere in the Alps or modern day Norway for instance.
reply