All of this is basically the full of shitty planning. Further continuation of the war will likely only fracture the IRGC and make further peace deals even more unreachable.

Now if we actually had competent leadership who could make wartime decisions that actually lead to our benefit, the calculus would be different. But as it stands now, further war only strengthens the worst of the worst actors in Iran.

---------

Like seriously, it's like people didn't study WW2 and our decision to keep the Japanese Emperor alive/protected (why our nukes and firebombings were so far away from the Emperor). We used to think ahead and figure out the correct people worth negotiating with as part of our wartime strategy.

Use nc or this TCP Bash technique if you really want to ensure decent compatibility when doing hacky solutions, otherwise a random 0xFF somewhere from a terminal console color change (or other control character) might really screw you over.

EDIT or ya know, use the correct tool like Curl.

But I will perpetually trust and hope in the peace process.

Not much to do but offer my support for the end of this war. No matter how unlikely it is.

--------

No one here knows how bad the peace deal is. It's not even published yet (and it's not even a real*(edit) peace deal but instead only a Memorandum of Understanding). I guess I do reserve the right to grow disgusted at whatever was negotiated as the details come out.

The Iranian civilians would never back a US / Israeli backed coup of their government. They distrust us because of the Shah / 1960s.

This is as unified as Iran is going to get in the near future. So we gotta work with what we have.

It's very difficult for me to think of such a terrible peace agreement that I'd personally reject it.

Switching from maybe 70% efficient linear to 80% efficient switcher means only a 30% reduction to copper or transformers.

-------

Today, a switcher is maybe 95% to 99% efficient. So switching from 70% efficient linear to 97% efficient switcher is a 90% reduction in coils/heat sinks.

We are entering the age of forced AI usage or quit the field entirely.

The bosses are out to force people like you to use AI. And have been for months.

Maybe not your boss yet, but it swept through my office dramatically. Maybe two or three months from limited tests to now today FORCED usage of AI (people going around the office asking constantly if there's any AI that can help today).

----------

This has a few toxic effects.

1. You are not allowed to complain about code quality issues anymore. Any complaints are met with okay, we will get the AI to fix it.

No discussion, no elaboration. No one in the office is even interested anymore. AI solves everything.

2. You are basically in a position where you are forced to use AI, whether you want it or not.

3. I expect code quality at my office to drop dramatically as fewer and fewer office mates give a shit

Ingo Wegener's "Branching Programs and Binary Decision Diagrams" copyright year 2000, is considered the introductory work on all BDD related matters. On the front cover are two BDDs: BOTH of these implement the hidden weighted bit function (HWB-4) introduced in the first chapter, and is basically the main example used throughout the whole book.

Please locate a copy of the front cover ASAP, before continuing with my post.

-----------

Now that you've found the book cover, look at it carefully and understand the HWB-4 function. (Just traverse it by hand, dotted lines represent "x1 == 0", while solid lines represent "x1 == 1").

Both BDDs fail to be ROBDDs: the left diagram explores the variables in this order: x1, x2, x3, x4, and then (depending on path), x1/x2/x3. That is, the variables x1/x2/x3 are explored _TWICE_ (breaking the rule for ROBDDs).

The example on the right also fails to be a ROBDD. The variable orderings are seemingly random: one branch covers x4, x1, x2, x3. The other branch is x4, x3, x1, x2. This fails the "ordered" property as the different branches cover different orderings.

BOTH are BDDs however. Both clearly implement the HWB-4 function efficiently (less than EXP-space. Indeed, its a very small graph for the front cover of a book). If these were actually ROBDDs, they'd be ridiculously large and unable to fit.

-------

ROBDDs are again, studied due to the unique property (and proof), that for any given function, there can only be one ROBDD ever generated (!!!!). For the verification problem of circuits, this is extremely useful. Different circuits might implement the same function, despite one circuit being smaller or using less power (or other useful properties).

To "prove" that the circuits output the same function, you simply create an ROBDD. Because functions ALWAYS result with the same ROBDD, you can ALWAYS use this process to prove circuit equivalence.

ROBDDs aren't succinct. No: their usefulness is the opposite. Exactly one ROBDD to ever find for any binary function that has ever existed or will ever exist.

Reduced Ordered BDDs are likely not as succinct as an arbitrary BDD.

The famous Hidden Weight Bit problem can be more succinctly expressed in arbitrary BDDs (changing the order and revisiting nodes), but are provably EXPSPACE in ROBDDs.

-------

We study ROBDDs because they uniquely reduce to a canonical form. All functions have exactly one (!!!!) ROBDD.

BDDs in general however are really arbitrary, as arbitrary as any codebase can basically get. That makes BDDs in general to difficult to study or do math upon.

Results based on the studies of arbitrary BDDs do NOT apply to the simpler, easier to understand world of ROBDDs. And vice versa.

It must have failed because I never heard of an update to this GPU. But AMD definitely made a GPU with 4x NVMe SSDs attached to the GPU.

Well, GPUs also have stupid amounts of compute on them. I have to imagine that there is some kind of database format that's useful with GPU compute attached.

Since the data is already in VRAM, the GPU can sort, join, or otherwise manipulate data as needed.

Robber Barrons existed from like 1860 through 1915 and extracted the wealth of many people, including Native American tribe lands.

Like this shit can keep going until we decide enough is enough and actually change our society.

All in all, it IMO just sets up the importance of the Council of Nicaea as well as the development of the Nicene creed.

Like seriously, every creationist who goes with this argument really compromises on the benevolence leg of our understanding of God. Like God is some kind of trickster being who leads atheists astray on purpose or something.

Again: we are talking about rsync here. This new methodology being used this year seems to be associated with a regression (ie: Data loss since this is rsync after all....) that likely wouldn't have happened any other year.

Or at least: the regressions at play are consisting of thousands of lines of changes that was only navigated by Claude later down in the discussion.

We are reaching the point of AI developed code that requires AI itself to analyze. One step at a time. It's right for the open source customers who are used to understanding changes and smaller patches than this.