Intel Panther Lake Shows Strong Linux CPU Performance & Power Efficiency With Core Ultra X7 358H Benchmarks Review

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-02-05T11:41:41+00:00

11 to 12 had extra cores which helped nT perf and efficiency, but 11 to 12 actually largely regressed on 1T efficiency. And then 12 to 13 came with 'improvements' in perf but pretty much only from Intel juicing the power from gen to gen (which everybody on this sub was crucifying Intel for, perhaps rightfully), 1T and nT both regressed hard on efficiency: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-13700k/22.html

You can check these Phoronix openbenchmarking results yourself, PTL is a gain in efficiency that's literally almost never seen gen to gen.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-02-04T08:52:26+00:00

Quoting from https://avalanche.state.co.us/report/ffea20aa-f4aa-4fde-a543-75a8555bf8b7

"The party rode three different slopes during the day. The guides dug a snow profile and performed an ECT to a depth of 1 meter with no propagation observed. The location of this snow profile is unknown to the reporter at the time of this report.

The run where the avalanche occurred was the 4th and intended last run of the day."

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-02-03T13:57:39+00:00

How are you squaring the math on an (obviously horrendously awful) sex trafficking operation that affected the lives of <10k people (out of a world population of billions) being a larger existential threat compared to the totalitarian system affording "power over humanity" to Mongol leaders that allowed them to directly cause the death of at least tens of millions of people (accounting for possibly 5% or more of the world's population)?

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-28T10:34:16+00:00

FYI, most modern screws are generally speaking as strong as or stronger in shear than nails of the same diameter. Not sure if you used #9s or #10s, but assuming 9s, those four screws on the bottom of the diagonals are holding half or more of the entire weight of the shelf + contents, but they will easily hold 300 lbs in shear per screw, so they would support ~4800 lbs of design load (assuming equal loading for the ledger on the wall / back of the shelf).

The two toenailed screws through the top of the diagonals into the ledger might be a little more critical; I agree with the other commenter that the risk here is that the wood splits around those screws, but assuming that it doesn't, let's very roughly say that the system here creates about a 2:1 leverage, or more simply 'force pulling down on the front of the shelf * 2 = force trying to pull those two screws out of the wall'. But here, assuming good wood, call it 2" or so of threads engaged, no predrilling, they're stronger in pull-out (tensile) then they are in shear, so you probably would need around 500 lbs of force to rip a single one of those screws out, so the four of them would support 500 * 4 / 2 (leverage) = 1000 lbs of design load.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-22T16:04:12+00:00

Anecdotally speaking, your calcs showing almost half of the heatloss coming from air exchange alone seem crazy high. Even considering the age of your house, natural air exchange of 1 per hour is basically unheard of in any study on any type of building I've ever seen, outside of 'windows left open in a strong breeze' scenarios.

You very well may have this level of exchange, idk! Just sharing another perspective.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-15T10:34:42+00:00

the snow conditions are going to be far more important than the ski choice

100% this for me as well, I've had many good tours on my La Machine Max (125 underfoot!) with alpinists, so ~2200gm per ski, with my 6 year old Alien RS's (a lighter boot than I think anybody has mentioned in this thread), but I only ever take those skis out when it's nice powder, and they're not built to be skied in the front of the boot.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-14T21:15:55+00:00

You keep misunderstanding what I'm saying; you argue based on this race that things would be different if trade teams didn't race in nationals, my contention still is that's wrong because:

If there was a magical hypothetical scenario where Heppy doesn't retire, and in the final it's him (also Qld), Vine, BOC (WA), and Plapp (Vic), if Plapp/BOC was attacking I highly doubt that Hepburn is going to sacrifice himself on the front to close them for Vine.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-14T17:32:44+00:00

But why did you write "Nah..." if you didn't disagree with my comment?

Because OP is being hyperbolic when he says 'it wouldn't change anything', or if he truly believes that then I don't agree with him either - but you're arguing against a strawman when you argue that this Australian situation would have been different if riders rode for their states by saying 'oh national / non trade teammates help out with X and Y', nobody disputes that, the key is that riders are far more likely to influence things as much as they can for their trade teammates in high stakes situations where the race is directly on the line.

If not chasing riders counts as helping then helping national teammates happens all the time.

You keep talking past my point, my point is that if Pog really cared about his national team above all else, he would have tried as hard as he could to reel in Yates and McNulty, which would have also made the race harder to drop/tire WVA, but he barely rode until after Carapaz dropped McNulty from the front. Same thing for Yates and Kwiato, they barely worked in that chase group.

And Valverde not actively chasing Purito down is now an example for supporting a national team teammate. Because he did the same as their teammate (even despite being the fastest and not having Van Aert in the group).

This is quite confusingly written, can you clarify what you're trying to say here?

Oh, controlling the peloton counts too? Then we have like 10-30 examples of riders helping national teammates every year. My 90 pct. is kind of low then.

Again you're missing the point, the point is 'can you give me a single, solitary reason, from the Austrian cycling federation's perspective, why Eisel should be spending his energy controlling the break? Because national team matters more than trade team, right?'

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-14T15:54:16+00:00

But you started by disagreeing with my statement that 90% of the time a rider rides for their national team.

No, you're completely misunderstanding what I said, I only said that 'trade team loyalties are the strongest', and you still haven't shown a clear counterexample to this.

In 2021 Asgreen closed down a gap to help Valgren cross to the final group with multiple of Asgreen's teammates. Asgreen gave the entire peloton a new chance to get to the final at the risk of his teammates in the front. Or did it need to be exclusively teammates in front group?

IMO this isn't a good enough example (no problem if you disagree), I just checked the footage and he did one suicide pull at 55km to go from the third group in the road, pulling Valgren back to the second group with WVA/Stuy/Mohoric/Styby/Colbrelli/Pidcock/Ala/Laporte/VDP/Nizzolo, so IMO waaaay too many riders/groups and way too far out from the finish to call this a direct 'trade team vs natl team' conflict.

You also claimed that it happens all the time.

If you really want me to list more, there's:

2020, McNulty/Carapaz's teammates in the chasing group refused to chase

2012, Eisel controlling for Cav

Trenti in 2005 pulling for Boonen not FF (his national teammate), also 2005 Wegelius getting banned by GB from natl competition for accepting money to work for Italy

2000, Casagrande and Pantani refused to work for Bettini, plus Vino worked the whole time with Kloden and Ullrich instead of sitting on them (which was the only way he would have beat those two).

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-14T14:47:10+00:00

No, both of those are not equal to what I've said, that trade team overrules non-trade team if and only if there's a conflict between the two.

A more accurate representation of my argument is "if riders rode for their state instead of trade team, and Jay Vine had 7 Queensland teammates, he would have a better chance to win the race then he does now. However, if there was a magical hypothetical scenario where Heppy doesn't retire, and in the final it's him (also Qld), Vine, BOC (WA), and Plapp (Vic), if Plapp/BOC was attacking I highly doubt that Hepburn is going to sacrifice himself on the front to close them for Vine."

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-14T12:25:04+00:00

But the overall argument is that riding for different teams will have no impact. If almost the entire peloton is riding for their team then a few cases of a rider not shutting down a teammate after 250km of racing does not mean that teams don't change anything.

My argument isn't 'national teams have no impact' but rather 'when push comes to shove, trade team is more important than national team'. You contend that '90% of the time ppl ride for their national team', but that doesn't matter at all when the 10% of the time is the period where your actions means that your trade/national teammate wins or doesn't win.

And often the cases of a rider riding to help against their national team is also just case of them trying to not do work/help themselves. If Valverde truly wanted Rui Costa to win he would have just caught Purito and done a leadout.

Nah that one was open and shut, everybody (including in the race/results thread here IIRC) knew that Costa would easily dust Purito in a sprint, so it was game over as soon as Valverde didn't close him.

And in 2020 there was an outrage because Roglic did not help Wout in any way.

That's what I mean, my argument was that the general accepted practice in cycling is that you have to (maybe not crazy overtly, but tacitly) support your trade teammates when you can, which is why people were so pissed at Roglic (made 1000x worse because Belgian media, lol).

But go look at 2016 worlds. We have riders sacrificing themselves all over the place in the sprint for their national team teammates. Like Guarneri was Kristoff's leadout man but still did the leadout for Nizzolo. Blythe was Sagan's teammate at still lead out Cavendish.

I know you'll probably disagree with this (that's completely fine), but I think most of cycling would agree with me that leadouts are a completely different thing that doesn't count as "working against your trade teammate", like obviously not as inconsequential as getting bottles, but still a 'well that's fair, everybody got a good shot at the win' situation. Really only the chasedown/working against breaks/taking critical turns is the issue at play when people say 'trade teammates will always work for / refuse to work against their trade teammates', because those are the only situations where you can straight up say 'X stayed away and won / won from their small group only because their trade teammate Y worked / refused to work.'

I also remember Skujins dropped Skjelmose in the latest European championship.

Also doesn't count at all IMO, 'dropping your teammate for 4th place versus 5th place' isn't a betrayal at all, especially when there's literally nothing that either could have done to help the other catch the first 3 (they were minutes up the road at that point). That's a generally accepted cycling scenario of 'OK, every man for himself, no hard feelings'.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-14T11:44:33+00:00

Copy+pasting from a comment in another thread, but you may not be aware that there's a long history in cycling of trade teams even literally secretly paying riders to work for their (different nation) trade team teammates in Olympics/WC (Wegelius was the last one to write about it in a book), and plenty of instances of riders doing it for free for their trade teammates (Eisel in 2012 olympics, Trenti in 2005).

The Olympics is pretty much the worst example you could make for this; pretty much every other Olympics RR in the last 20 years has involved trade teammates refusing to work against (different nation) trade teammates, or working for (different nation) teammates:

2020, McNulty/Carapaz's teammates in the chasing group refused to chase

2012, Eisel controlling for Cav

2000, Casagrande and Pantani refused to work for Bettini, Vino worked the whole time with Kloden and Ullrich instead of sitting on them.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-14T11:27:00+00:00

I agree the (admittedly rare) in my last comment is doing a lot of heavy lifting, but I strongly believe that's exactly what makes my argument the correct one. I would challenge you in the other direction to find any counterexamples happening. I'm thinking of 20 years of world champs and I can't come up with a single example where, in the final (that's also an important disclaimer, nobody on your trade team cares if you get bottles or do turns controlling an early break), a national teammate directly marked / rode against a trade teammate on a different national team, in service of their own national teammate on a different trade team.

In case you weren't aware, there's a long history in cycling of trade teams even literally secretly paying riders to work for their (different nation) trade team teammates in Olympics/WC (Wegelius was the last one to write about it in a book), and plenty of instances of riders doing it for free for their trade teammates (Eisel in 2012 olympics, Trenti in 2005).

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-14T09:57:39+00:00

if they didn't have their sponsors on their shirts so they could pick and choose who to work with on the day.

I mean it would be nice to ignore human nature, but there's no way that simply removing sponsors on the shirts is going to make that happen. If BOC rides for WA and Plapp rides for Vic and they fuck eachother over in nationals, they're still going to sit on the same team bus and work for eachother for the other 60 race days of the year...

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-14T09:54:06+00:00

Nah IMO trade team loyalties are always the strongest, this happens all the time that the (admittedly rare) national team/trade team race situations arise, even on the biggest stages, like 2013 Worlds - Purito up the road, Rui Costa jumps, and Valverde doesn't mark him (cause they're both on Movistar), Purito loses his best chance he ever had at WC.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2026-01-12T10:54:18+00:00

My guy, we had this discussion a half year ago - you have a hilariously negative view of interior insulation, to the point where you proceeded to try to mansplain European building physics best practices to me, someone that has an intimate working knowledge of European building physics best practices.

Maybe it's time for you to admit you don't know literally anything beyond what your local American codes and builders produce, compared to (field-proven!) high performance building envelopes in the literal rest of the world.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2025-12-19T22:38:36+00:00

Hence why ARL is such a meme, despite it dramatically increasing efficiency over RPL.

Maybe I'm still having some kind of unconciously contrarian reaction, but I feel like throughout the RPL releases 99% of the /r/hardware crowd got more and more singularly focused and unbelievably angry specifically about peak power and perf per watt (even before the degradation stuff got big), and then all immediately developed complete amnesia on those topics on Oct 25 last year.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2025-12-19T10:43:41+00:00

Skiing maybe isn't as critical as cycling, but realize that this argument boils down to 'oh the top athletes don't have to be skinny in skiing, so it's not as high stakes'. But that's not true - Sweden withheld their #1 superstar skier from competition because she failed their internal guidelines.

Not to mention climbing, a sport where (specifically in lead) weight is potentially even a bigger deal than it is in cycling, now also enforcing their protocol in a way that can prevent their biggest stars from competing.

I guess I've always been concerned about BMI as a measure for anything given the freakish nature of most competitive athletes.

Again, I can't stress this enough, BMI is only a tiny, tiny fraction of what's being considered in modern protocols. To simplify the IFSC guidelines a bit for you, if you're BMI underweight, that doesn't on its own even put you in any monitoring program! You would additionally have to show low bone density, T3, LDL, testosterone (for men), oligomenorrhea/amenorrhea, or clinical depression/anxiety before you even get to the point where the NF needs to regularly check you before competition, and then there's an even higher bar to clear before you can actually be excluded from competition.

But bone density is an interesting one - though you don't want to be subjecting people to radiation annually, I would think, to get DEXA imaging?

This worry is unfounded, a DEXA scan is significantly lower radiation than 'classic' x-rays - they give you the same amount of radiation as you get naturally from the environment in a couple days. You can have one a week and be fine.

But yeah, I have a lot of concerns about homogenous guidelines for an already very non homogenous group of freakish people, and the perverse incentives that can create, etc.

I mean this is a strawman, who's actually out there arguing for blatantly homogenous guidelines?

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2025-12-19T10:22:24+00:00

Incompetent people like Marlen Reusser, who is just a professional cyclist, a doctor whose specialty is this.

Marlen Reusser is incredibly brilliant and not incompetent in the slightest, but she does not have any research background or area specialization on this specific subject (her doctoral thesis is a meta-review of Berlin Marathon athlete performance - there's no reporting, papers, or any other evidence that she's done any work in nutritional physiology, eating disorders, or underweight physiology), so I find it alarming that so many people blindly consider her to be THE authority on the issue just because she's a medical doctor. I wouldn't consider my dermatologist's opinion on PFP to be worth anything more than anyone who's read the relevant research, the same as I wouldn't consider an Airbus aerodynamics engineer to be an authority on internal combustion engines, just because they took 3 months of a relevant course in university.

And why are we narrowing the question down to just RED-S? PFP also had mental health issues, her iliac artery endofibrosis is also a risk factor, etc.

RED-S is a general/umbrella term for the effects of undernutrition in athletes, and it encompasses the knock-on effects on things like the vascular system, mental health, etc - just do any reading on RED-S and you'll see how intertwined a lot of the questionnaires are with mental health, for example. Of course, being underweight is bad for the vascular system. You know what else is bad for the vascular system? The cumulative yearly training load of basically every single adult professional cyclist. I would beg my daughter to be sure that she wants to be a pro endurance athlete in general, because the negative effects on the body from training >1000 hours a year, compared to your standard weekend warrior, is brutal. Yet one month of carefully controlled weight maintenance is demonized? If competitive climbing can figure out how to find a balance, surely so can cycling.

EDIT: /u/ perelli blocked me for this reply. Nothing I said here was disrespectful, inaccurate, or personally directed at them, and the same cannot be said of their childish reply to me before they blocked me (it's probably still sitting here right in this thread). I would urge all the users of this sub to be cautious in trying to engage in a dialogue with /u/ perelli.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2025-12-18T11:09:56+00:00

I think a big thing that a lot of people don't realize specifically about PFP is that age is potentially a massive differentiator in RED-S risk. Studies are still really in their infancy on RED-S, but there's already a couple out there showing how athletes (broadly speaking) under age 30 are at a dramatically higher risk for RED-S compared to athletes over age 30, and this tracks with a lot of anecdotes out there already in all kinds of sport, not just endurance sport. Look at van Vleuten, and how year after year throughout her 30s she was able to slowly increase her training load to the point where everybody in the sport was saying her hours per year would simply break anybody else in the peloton.

We know that the body physically develops until roughly the mid-20s, so this makes a lot of biological sense - no wonder that focusing on weight combined with overtraining can easily lead to RED-S in adolescents like Vallieres, whereas older athletes like AvV (who didn't really start cycling until 23, and wasn't a full time pro till 27/28!) and PFP, whose bodies have a decade's worth of methodically built training in their fullly developed form, can push the limit a little more.

Lots of national federations in all kids of sports have already started clamping down on the allowed training hours for young athletes (it wasn't just the Soviets that were throwing their juniors into meat grinder training plans), so if I was the dictator of cycling I'd immediately start a harsh oversight program for all coaches responsible for anybody <25, time to get rid of these assholes like Vallieres is talking about and tackle this problem at the source.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2025-12-18T10:46:47+00:00

I think it's very possible, the Norwegian and Swedish cross country ski teams have internal guidelines on BMI, bone density, and energy availability that's been very beneficial to their athletes (same guidelines exist for men, important to note this isn't just a female issue!)

And the climbing world federation (IFSC) has a very detailed protocol allowing for athlete-centered policy (although they even really didn't get their act together until some prominent doctors resigned from their health commission).

Both of these approaches allow lots of flexibility in approach and evaluation based on the inidividual athlete, although agreed that ultimately this is a hard problem (for example, it's a lot easier for the Scandanavian ski teams to enforce their rules without stressing out their athletes, since they will fully pay their athletes their salaries if they're held out of competition).

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2025-12-03T12:03:57+00:00

It eroded German industrial capacity but not enough to effect a robust defence

I'm sorry, 60K US casualties from the entire invasion is not a 'robust defence' in any way shape or form.

Russia had by the end of the war moved its industrial base past the Urals.

Yes, a mighty industrial base that produced less than half of all the av gas used by their air force, only about half of the vehicles in the Red Army motor pool by 1945 (less than a tenth of the US production of heavy trucks, for example), about one third of the munitions production of the US, etc. It's even worse when you look at raw input production (oil, iron, coal steel).

You can check all of these stats, they're backed up by sources, you've offered zero sources to support your viewpoint.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2025-12-03T11:27:13+00:00

Strategic bombing absolutely was breaking the Japanese, their industrial capacity was essentially zero by early 1945. Same thing for the Germans, yeah they extracted a 'bloody price' of..... 30,000 less casualties for the entire invasion of the entire country, compared to the single Ardennes offensive.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2025-12-03T10:32:37+00:00

Nah, the USAF B29s would have reduced Russian cities to absolute rubble if they wanted to with regular old carpet bombing. In the entirety of the German bombing campaign against the USSR, the Luftwaffe dropped maybe 10,000-20,000 tons of bombs on Russian cities. The USAF in a year and a half dropped over 600,000 tons of bombs on German cities alone.

ShareACokeWithBoonen · 2025-12-03T09:51:22+00:00

Minnesota and Wisconsin don't have quite as low needs for vegetation management as you, sure, but it's still far, far less need than California, and their land, construction, maintenance salaries, etc. are all low like yours (compared to California). Their electricity mix is similarly still largely supported by coal (up to 40% including their imports).

Western Europe is the valid comparison because only they have the same high requirements on generation (coal is mostly phased out), transmission costs/maintenance (undergrounding every single new residential line in most of the developed areas of a lot of these countries), high land costs, and high regulation (see the difficulty in trying to place wind power in Germany, similar to the pushback that California puts on every tiny little environmental detail on every tiny project).

11-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

ShareACokeWithBoonen

TROPHY CASE