Pedantic nit: At 60 fps the per frame time is 16.66... ms, not 30 ms. Having said that a lot of games run at 30 fps, or run different parts of their logic at different frequencies, or do other tricks that mean there isn't exactly one FPS rate that the thing is running at.
The CPU part happens on one frame, the GPU part happens on the next frame. If you want to talk about the total time for a game to render a frame, it needs to count two frames.
Computers are fast. Why do you accept a frame of lag? The average game for a PC from the 1980s ran with less lag than that. Super Mario Bros had less than a frame between controller input and character movement on the screen. (Technically, it could be more than a frame, but only if there were enough objects in play that the processor couldn't handle all the physics updates in time and missed the v-blank interval.)
If Vsync is on which was my assumption from my previous comment, then if your computer is fast enough, you might be able to run CPU and GPU work entirely in a single frame if you use Reflex to delay when simulation starts to lower latency, but regardless, you still have a total time budget of 1/30th of a second to do all your combined CPU and GPU work to get to 60fps.
Ignoring the silly vulnerability Marketing Name, the part I found shocking here is that apparently URL-based dependencies in package.json (deps that just point to an arbitrary URL rather than pointing to another NPM package name) are ignored by a lot of tools that are supposed to scan or give information about dependencies.
This means deps that are possibly the most concerning and deserve extra caution might be hiding in plain sight, not showing up in basic checks.
> Any modern home build likely has an ERV as part of the design
Sounds very country dependent. I really doubt it's true here in the UK. But then, UK housing is just garbage all around unless you build something custom and put a lot of money and attention into it.
Yes, I meant in the US. Apologies for not making that clearer. I don't think ERVs are uncommon in new construction outside the US, but I don't know as much about that.
How much of the Mac's impressive battery life is due purely to CPU efficiency, and how much is due to great vertical integration and the OS being tuned for power efficiency?
It's a genuine question; I'm sure both factors make a difference but I don't know their relative importance.
I just searched for the asahi linux (Linux for M Series Macs) battery life, and found this blog post [0].
> During active development with virtual machines running, a few calls, and an external keyboard and mouse attached, my laptop running Asahi Linux lasts about 5 hours before the battery drops to 10%. Under the same usage, macOS lasts a little more than 6.5 hours. Asahi Linux reports my battery health at 94%.
The overwhelming majority is due to the power management software, yes. Other ARM laptops do not get anywhere close to the same battery life. The MNT Reform with 8x 18650s (24000mAh, 3x what you get an MBP) gets about 5h of battery life with light usage.
The MNT Reform does not use Li-Ion batteries, resulting in much poorer energy density. It's going to depend on the cells being used but this is what I could see from the Reform Next detail page: 8× LiFePO4 cells (16000 mAh total). Assuming 2200mah cells, I think this nets you around 56 Wh in a 4S2P configuration, Li-Ion cells would be closer to 65 Wh.
According to Apple's website it seems a 14 inch macbook pro has a 70 Wh battery.
As someone else posted elsewhere in this thread, Asahi nets about 6.5 hours on a Macbook. Apples to apples the story is the same. It's really not that shocking. The effect of power management (or rather, when it's lacking) is very apparent when you do bare metal programming. The first thing you do when you finally get something booting is kill a battery in less than an hour with a while(true).
I think you may have misread that post. It said Linux was 5 hours, MacOS was 6.5 hours. There's a gap (Linux gets 77% the life of MacOS), but it's apparently not that significant.
I had a summer job working at a print software company and they had a large format printer with, if I remember correctly, 12 different ink colours. These weren't spot colours - though that's also an example of going outside CMYK - but meant the printer supported a very wide colour gamut and subtle colour grading.
Anyway, yes, professional printing can go beyond just CMYK in various ways.
That doesn't seem like a full explanation. Sure, prices are tied to supply and demand. But demand is tied to how much money people have, so that just brings you right back to the original question.
Housing supply and demand isn't static. With UBI the need to live close to employment opportunities decreases, opening up more supply in areas that are currently less attractive and decreasing demand in other areas.
Furthermore we still don't know how people will react to UBI once they feel it is universal and permanent. If you're busting your ass to take home $1500 a month today, and then you get $1500 a month UBI, will you keep working just as much and take home $3000 a month, will you cut down on work and aim for $2200 a month, or will you keep living on $1500 a month and just chill all day. Depending on what choices people make, most people might not end up with that much more money.
Your own description of your work seems self-contradictory?
You have a paragraph that says you could work much faster than others and still "finish them with accuracy, attention to detail" and then in the very next paragraph you note that going so fast meant you were making mistakes and overlooking things.
This is only to say that I'm not sure how to interpret your own description.
It also sounds like the KPIs that had been set did not match the stated goals of your supervisors. KPIs focused on speed of output while your supervisors are telling you that quality and attention to your work is more important. I see this as a classic example of an organisation falling into the trap of just measuring what's easy to measure because they can't measure what they actually care about.
The KPIs weren't focused on speed at all; don't know how you came to that conclusion. Their KPIs were in-line with their spoken criteria and they were always calibrating for best outcomes.
The only time speed or volume was at issue was when we had a backlog. Sometimes we would begin to miss deadlines/time frames and sometimes there was priority work to be picked up. And AFAIK, KPIs weren't looking at those as a negative. It was just one of those productivity issues we encountered in staffing vs. amount of work vs. deadlines.
Basically my work was excellent by all objective criteria and I was receiving fantastic performance reviews. But I still had room for improvement, don't you see? Simply because of the high rate of speed, I could personally tell that it could've been better, more, nicer, with some TLC and some better pacing. That doesn't mean that anyone else noticed or cared. It was mostly my personal assessments of how I was doing.
But they did drop hints -- once or twice, an issue was raised and my mentor said "It's easy to miss if you're going quickly lol". It was just a hint and hardly even criticism, just a reminder that slowing down wouldn't hurt.
And it's true that the rewards weren't there. If I finished everything then everything was finished and sometimes I was forced to clock out without work to do. That was the drawback of hourly wages for, essentially, piecework.
Slowing down was fraught with complications. I type 100wpm, my thoughts operate at a certain pace, and I would get into a groove like playing a video game. Would you slow down in a video game to do a better job? If I slowed down, would I do better or would the artificial pace cause trouble? I often tried playing ambient, tempo-less or downtempo music to slow my pace, but I would typically just find a rhythm and go with it, rather than artificially slow down. Honestly, due to physical issues and the whole WFH distraction, it was often difficult for me to stay at my desk for a stretch.
Likewise. And, yet, I've thought about this for a while now and looked up a bunch of articles and I still think that "thing" is completely - if not more - appropriate.
I fully understand and use "think" as a noun - eg have a think - but when I say "you have another thing coming", there's no expectation or implication that they're going to rethink anything in the future. People often don't do that. Instead, I'm simply implying that reality is going to turn out to be very different (and probably negative/unfavourable for them) than they think/expect.
It's the equivalent of saying "watch out - youve got something else/other than you expect coming to you".
In fact, it even shifts the rethink from sometime in the future to now - "rethink this now, as it's not going to turn out how you expect" And, moreover, it's often said as a final warning "I'm doing you a favour right now by warning you - it's the only generosity you're going to get from me in this matter".
reply