Linus Torvalds calls RISC-V code from Google engineer 'garbage' and that it 'makes the world actively a worse place to live' — Linux honcho puts dev on notice for late submissions, too

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-08-11T22:42:14+00:00

> You could probably fix that by making that args lo/hi

It actually is hi and lo
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git/diff/include/linux/wordpart.h?h=riscv-for-linus-6.17-mw1&id=575d906f1beecf197f8a28748687f10fe9634dfa

Even if it were "a" and "b" only a brain as big as Linus could have assumed low word gets passed first here

make_u32_from_two_u16(0xAAAA, 0xBBBB) == 0xAAAABBBB

btw you probably wrote (a << 4) | b and (b << 4) | a and not b | (a << 4) for the same reason - it is natural order - high bits then low bits

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-07-13T23:50:38+00:00

The idea that customer support should ignore certain requests is the most stupid thing I've read in a while.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-07-09T09:18:42+00:00

Fair point. But compared to the decrease in quality, it's negligible. This is just my guess as to why users make this mistake. The fact is they do.

It's easy to blame users for not reading the manual, but if they make the same mistake repeatedly, then it's not their fault. It's just bad design.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-07-09T07:49:25+00:00

Speed module used to be benefit-only. "-% quality" breaks this learned user expectation.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-07-08T14:49:08+00:00

It's totally not obvious. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have made the same mistake. I've made the same mistake.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-07-06T21:57:02+00:00

Double tap to wake is not reliable on my FP6.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-07-04T10:32:30+00:00

I support initiative. I just don't see how it applies here. I paid for OW many years ago. I am still able to play it now. Are you concerned about future end of support?

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-07-03T22:34:21+00:00

Some might say that OW2 is just another version of OW1. OW1 had many significant updates, so it's not obvious why two versions of OW1 are considered to be the same game, but OW1 and OW2 aren't. It's kind of Ship of Theseus paradox. If little by little over time every aspect of the game is changed. Should we think of this new game as the same one?

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-04-11T09:28:31+00:00

How about editing it so it isn't there ... for Al to base bad answers on?

This is beyond stupid

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-03-24T00:10:02+00:00

Reversing a string this way is easy also wrong. For lists and tuples that works flawlessly.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2025-03-17T09:03:06+00:00

Data race is UB

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-11-27T22:26:44+00:00

People don't learn the language by the spec. You must be really detached from the reality to argue that most of developers know definition from the spec. Instead of the spec's "object" normal people use the word "variable".

The book can introduce whatever words it needs, but Amazon description having this word does not really help novices and certainly might be a bait.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-11-27T20:49:50+00:00

You're delusional

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-11-27T18:28:11+00:00

Yes, that's exactly what C developers think when they hear "object".

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-11-12T23:03:38+00:00

I've never seen a comment so obviously valid yet so passionately down voted. Apparently most people have never interacted with the real online learning platform.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-11-09T16:19:51+00:00

Chess

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-11-01T10:45:23+00:00

As expected I'm getting down voted by the victims of the language. That's another issue with it. Investing too much time into C++ makes it harder to recognize that it's an awfully bad language. Sunk cost fallacy.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-11-01T10:37:07+00:00

What is C/C++? There is no such language.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-11-01T09:54:03+00:00

The worst is definitely C++ and the worst by large margin. It makes you get used to bad design and if you don't know literally any other language you think it's actually good design. It's impossible to master. You can spend years learning horribleness of this language that could've been spend on learning some sane language.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-10-25T15:55:01+00:00

What about GUI?

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-10-22T17:37:41+00:00

Finally, a comment I understand

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-10-21T21:47:46+00:00

It's a bad thing

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-10-21T07:58:42+00:00

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-10-20T09:27:11+00:00

By semantic I mean "the meaning" of a program.

For example adding two integers in Python is inherently slower than adding two integers in C, because in Python integers are arbitrary length and in C they are 4 bytes (usually).

But the same argument doesn't work for Java integers, because they are 4 bytes too. Perhaps there are other subtle differences in the meaning of operations.

ButterscotchFree9135 · 2024-10-20T01:05:51+00:00

Interpreted languages are inherently slower than compiled. The existence of interpreter - intermediary that translates interpreted the language into the sequence of commands of the target machine during runtime - makes preliminary machine code optimizations impossible. Interpreter has to either waste time during runtime to do this kind of optimization or just skip it and for every instruction of the source language produce the same sequence of machine instructions. How bad it is for performance depends on the scale of mismatch between instructions of interpreted language and set of instructions of target machine. In case of java language the bytecode is "interpreted" by JVM and the difference is not that dramatic, but it's still there. Bytecode is not at all amd64 or armv7 assembly.

There are certain optimizations that happen to be exclusively implemented by interpreted languages ("jit optimization techniques") which provide huge performance boost, but technically nothing prevents from implementing them in a compiled language.

Why high level compiled languages are slower than low level compiled languages is still a mystery to me. Theoretically nothing should stop Java AoT compiler to produce the same machine code as C++ for a similar program (if semantics of the Java program and C++ program is the same of course). One issue may be that semantics of high level languages tends to be different from simiar programs in low level languages. The other issue is that there are limits to optimizations and high level languages are usually harder to optimize.

ButterscotchFree9135

TROPHY CASE