I guess a vibrating unit is an electric motor fundamentally. And an electric motor is also a generator when run in reverse. Maybe the Taptic Engine can also sense vibrations too.
I don't agree that they serve the same purpose; shorting is not the same as buying a put and the two only behave similarly in a very narrow and limited sense that isn't particularly practical. Yes in some circumstances money is gained if the price of a stock decreases with both a short and a put, but the risk profile, timing and cost are quite distinct.
Furthermore it's absolutely possible and in many circumstances likely that the price of a put decreases even if the underlying stock's price decreases, for example if the volatility also decreases.
I don't think many informed individuals treat shorting stock the same way they treat buying puts nor do they attempt to accomplish the same purpose.
I didn't say they were the same, but they serve the same purpose. Buying a put is a long volatility and short underlying position. You can mitigate the effect of volatility with spreads. But the directionality of the position is what you're buying with a put, you're buying delta within a certain time frame. And as I said, the risk profile of put or well constructed spread is better than plain shorting which has unlimited downside.
Once they were sold to SoftBank ARM had no more control over its destiny. You're saying that they're repeating the pattern, but they had no choice in this today. This was SoftBank's decision as the owner of ARM.
Buying a stake in AAPL,FB, or any tech company would have netted higher returns for less effort than buying ARM. If anything, a 25% ROI in 4 years is quite poor.
Hang on. Who the hell is having to do more work than before because of parents? Projects get pushed back, scoped down. Childless engineers don't have to be doing 100 hour weeks to compensate.
What's the solution? Allow non parents to take 10 weeks off for health issues?
What if then a parent has a baby and then has some other health issues. Can they take 20 weeks off? Or would that be unfair because as parents they can take 20 weeks vs 10 for the single person?
Isn't that a bit like asking what if the parent is given 10 weeks off and then has another kid. Do they get another 10 weeks off or is it unfair that they get 20 while the person having a single kid gets 10?
There is also not a need to immediately jump to 10 weeks over in comparison for mental issues. Improvements can be much more minor, such as not frowning on people using sick days. Not even granting any more time off, just less judgment for using what is already granted.
> Isn't that a bit like asking what if the parent is given 10 weeks off and then has another kid. Do they get another 10 weeks off or is it unfair that they get 20 while the person having a single kid gets 10?
Yes, that's exactly right. It's absurd to complain about parents getting 10 weeks off.
Is it too much to ask that everyone be treated equally?
Family status is a protected class, unless you are childfree. If we said everyone except Hispanics gets an extra 10 weeks paid time off, HN would be losing its collective minds.
Every time a policy suggestion is made there is always that person who will try to find “loopholes”.
If a parent has a baby and then has health issues, yes they should take 20 weeks off. People should be treated as human adults and be trusted with the time they need to take off.
Yes, There will be those who abuse the system. These would be the outliers; even if they get “away”, we should still be generous with these benefits.
Kids are not a choice in aggregate. Kids are fundamental to the survival of our species, the only intelligent life we know if in our universe. How myopic.
In that case you have to go to the tax office and file out some documents and then you pay the taxes for the investments separately.
There is a single income tax rate, 10%, so it doesn't matter how much you earn. If your investments make more than the annual minimum wage, you also have to pay the health insurance tax and "social security" tax.
Not really. No one outside of specialized applications like HPC will use Intel's compiler for their software. The general public seeing SPEC benchmark figures between gcc AMD and icc Intel may be surprised when they that Intel CPU doesn't perform as well as expected vs AMD when running generic code.
5-10 years ago the Intel C compiler produced significantly faster code than gcc (and clang was even worse back then), so there was a bigger reason to use it back then.
That was the story 10 years ago as well, yet I have never managed to find an open source program where the Intel compiler has produced faster code than gcc back then, too.
gcc has always produced faster code for at least 15 years. In fact, it is the Intel compiler which has caught up in the most recent version.
I got faster (10-20%) results with icc on an abstract game minimax AI bot back then (i.e. something similar to a chess engine). Even more so when taking advantage of PGO. Over time GCC caught up.
By nature, this code had no usage of floating point in its critical path.
For what sort of application? I ran benchmarks of my own scientific code for doing particle-particle calculations and with -march=native I could get 2.5x better performance with Intel vs GCC.
One thing I found that you do have to be careful with though is ensuring that Intel uses IEEE floating point precision, because by default it's less accurate than GCC. This causes issues in Eigen sometimes, we ran into an issue recently after upgrading compiler where suddenly the results changed and it was because someone had forgotten to set 'fp-model' to 'strict'
If Intel is using floating point math shortcuts you can replicate it with -Ofast when using gcc.
It goes without saying that you should use -O3 (or -O2 for some rare cases) otherwise. I am mentioning it just in case because 2.5x slower sounds so exotic to me that the first intuition is that you're omitting important optimization flags when using GCC. GCC was faster than Intel on everything I tried in the past.
Once upon a time, Oracle used Intel C Compiler (ICC) to compile Oracle RDBMS on some platforms [1].
I don't know if Oracle is still using ICC for that or not. (If you download Oracle RDBMS, and check the binaries, you will be able to work it out. I can't be bothered.)
There can be various traces left in strings, the symbol table, etc
Many compilers statically link implementations of various built-in functions into the resulting executable, and that can result in different symbol table entries
...and that despite not being anywhere near as aggressive with exploiting UB as gcc or clang, which shows that backend-based optimisations like instruction selection, scheduling, and register allocation are far more valuable (and predictable).
I don't think anyone disputes that? Most optimizing compiler literature doesn't even mention language semantics, the gains there are very much last-ditch rather than necessary.
I can't even find benchmarks of ICC vs a current GCC but they were pretty even the best part of a decade ago. GCC is a mess compared to LLVM but it's quick.
I've never used Unity, but Unreal Engine is heavily tied into the Visual Studio (proper, not Code) workflow, including the Microsoft C++ Compiler toolchain and all 30GB+ of it's friends.
Unreal uses the native compiler for the target platform. Windows this is msvc. Modern consoles are all clang forks. Linux is the only exception where I think they depend on clang not gcc.
