I'm not sure focusing on just 3 processors is enough to claim that Ryzen got 50% faster. There were already other, faster Ryzen processors available without the additional cache. The extra cache was a very new thing (and very temperature sensitive), so it makes sense that they start carefully and then get a lot of improvement quickly). And the 5800x3d was for an older chipset, with all the limitations that come with that.
It's not that temperature sensitive, 90C is plenty. If you can't keep the non-x3d processors underneath that you're just throwing away performance anyways
Are you? I'm pretty sure when I bought my 7800x3d, everybody was saying you had to be very careful about heat, because these damage more easily from high temperatures than regular CPUs. I just checked, and they do throttle at a lower temperature than others: 89 vs 95 degrees C.
For performance reasons you need to be careful with heat on the X3Ds because it will throttle quicker (partially because of the lower limit, partially because the extra cache sits between the CPU and the cooler on that model making it harder to cool) but you don't have to worry about it from a damage perspective for the same reason: the limit is the point at which it'll drop performance to protect itself.
I feel the same way, and yet I'm also guilty of this. I'm trying to reach out to an expert, and because of the stakes, I want to write it exactly right. I'm using Claude to write it, but I don't like how Claude writes, so I rewrite it in my own words, and I still don't like it. I've iterated over this for several days. Finally I talk to my wife, she gives me some pointers, and I just write it down perfectly.
And yet, every person high up in business that I talk to, including my wife, advises me to use Claude for this sort of thing. I don't get it. Claude text sucks, and it hurts my eyes when I'm forced to read it.
As someone who is usually on the other side of this interaction (software engineer at a company receiving bug reports), it's much easier when people write in their own words (even if they sometimes use the wrong terms or say something which can't be true) than when they use an LLM to make things clear and correct. I want to know what you're trying to do, what you expected to happen, and what actually happened - that doesn't benefit from having an LLM rewrite it.
Sure, I use precise and technical language, but I'm still a human and I can understand what people are getting at when they use imprecise terms. But if the text passes through an LLM I can't tell whether the result actually matches the original problem or whether the LLM has made guesses or filled in blanks.
Bug reports aren't so high-stakes (although poorly written bug reports can often be useless). I've got something to sell, and I want this expert to confirm that what I've built is better than what's currently available. That's a much harder approach. You want people to send bug reports. You don't want everybody to try to sell something to you. But I really think that I've solved the problem that she identified, so I want her to take a look at it instead of dismissing it as most people would probably do when a random nobody claims to have solved something. It doesn't help that this entire issue is way out of my comfort zone.
Sounds like solid advice. Those typical Claude turns of phrase are really grating on me. And I now see them everywhere. Many YouTube channels that are presented by a real human, still sound fake because their script is blatantly written by AI. I hate it.
And yet, I'm stuck having to write an important message to someone that has real stakes riding on it, so I use Claude to refine it, and I see myself succumbing to Claude's pressure to use its words instead of my own. I hate it, but my words aren't very good.
And finally Claude proclaims the message perfect and I let my wife take a look at it, and she rejects the entire thing, restoring some semblance of sanity again.
It's still a complex and more abstract function than map or filter. Those do a single thing that's easy to grasp. reduce/fold can be easily abused to duplicate the effect of most other collection functions, at the cost of making the code less readable. Although for slightly-too-clever people, that could mean you only need to know one function instead of all of them.
But it hurts readability. If you're going to do it, at least don't use it anonymously, but give it a name that clearly describes what's going on.
But even then, there can be hidden performance traps. I've often seen javascript that used reduce and created the new accumulator by using a spread on the old accumulator and adding the new one: `[...acc, newValue]`. But that spread is another iteration inside a loop, turning it from O(n) to O(n^2). A for loop where you append it is much faster.
I would expect it's not caused by genes themselves, but by control DNA. That's where a lot of the subtle structural stuff happens. But that's also hard to test for. It's like how you can't test how tall someone is going to be.
I've also read ages ago in Scientific American that the difference between our brains and chimp brains is almost entirely in control DNA, not in genes. It matters a lot, but is often overlooked. (It used to be called "junk DNA", before people realised how important it was.)
And that hurts the free market. A free market should be transparent, have low barriers to entry, and not be dominated by monopolies or cartels. There's nothing free about American capitalism.
I'd like to take a closer look at what exactly Canada is exporting to the US, and what exactly the EU is importing from elsewhere, to see if there's a match. I'd rather buy from Canada than from Russia. Or China. Or the US.
You know how despite climate change being very real, in day to day discussions with other level headed people, they still very regularly say stuff like
"We ran the numbers for an EV, and right now gas is still cheaper, so we are holding off on the switch until it makes financial sense"
Canadian oil would need to be shipped halfway around the world. It would be more expensive. Price is always the top factor for everyone.
Fair point. What we really need of course is more renewables, and that is happening, but not fast enough, so we still need oil. And I'd rather get our oil in a way that doesn't fuel the Russian war machine, even if it does cost a bit more.
The politically-important Alberta oil mostly goes to the mountain states down here. Coincidentally, those same states rely heaviest on coal for electricity. So, the choice is recharge an EV on coal (think arsenic and mercury accumulating somewhere nearby) or good ol gasoline (which is piped from Canada).
I think what you’re wondering is: can residential electricity schedules promote off-peak rates for EV charging. I’ve seen that and I think it takes the edge off.
But we’re in a drought right now. I think hydro is down at least 20%. Wyoming wind power alone totally makes up for that.
I’m sure China would, too. I wonder what’s harder: diverting that oil to the northwest passage, or diverting Persian Gulf oil around the strait of Hormuz?
reply