top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 132 points 2 months ago (8 children)

And once upon a time there were more than three PC graphics card makers. The paranoid schizo US really fucked up scientific and technological progress.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    They rose to the top because they were the only country that could still build things after the rest of the world got flattened in World War II. Then the rest of the world rebuilt itself so the only asset the US had left was economic inertia. They then proceeded to spend decades doing everything they could to increase the value of that inertia by using their influence to encourage policies that resulted the rich getting richer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    And when the Eastern Bloc dissolved, government owned corporations got sold off to western ones, for pennies, all to be shut down in a few weeks. If not, usually they got boycotted, because the kids finally could buy western brands, which made you look cool among your peers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Eastern Europe sold its stuff away mainly because of local corruption. Local factories would get sold as scrap by one wise guy and a couple of his friends in the budding government fresh after a revolution because they could make a quick buck and set themselves up for more similar opportunities. Also "scrap" claim would take a long time to be investigated and never amount to anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago

    There also were more than two PC platforms (and we barely have two now; Apple was pretty close to going away too). I miss being the Atari ST guy in a circle of people who all had different types of computers. It didn’t last very long but it was way more fun.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    have you heard of Macintosh? you've heard of Mac's right.

    little company called Apple? lol sheeeesh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 109 points 2 months ago (28 children)

    Something similar happened to Slovene Iskra Triglav computer which was quite advanced for the time (capable of running three different CPUs) but then caught in between US-Soviet cold war/embargo while trying to sell them to Soviet Union.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 79 points 2 months ago (20 children)

    Three CPUs with different architectures on one device sounds crazy. That's amazing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 2 months ago (19 children)

    PS3 comes to mind

    Though in embedded, thats fairly normal.

    I've got a $1 linux embedded SoC that has a 64 bit riscv core, a 32 bit riscv core for running realtime stuff and a low power embedded 6502 on it too because why not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, RP2350 in Raspberry Pi Pico 2 also has 2 ARM cores and 2 RISC-V cores.

    Which reminds me, I purchased one a month ago to play around with as it has good documentation, yet I haven't used it once so far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Its actually not seperate cores, they're RISCV or ARM, based on a switch. MilkV does that too with one of its chips. They're mostly the same architecturally, theres something like 10% that gets enabled/disabled with each ISA selection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    But you can still run both at once. RP2350 datasheet

    From section 3.9 Arm/RISC-V architecture switching:

    There are two processor sockets on RP2350, referred to as core 0 and core 1 throughout this document. Each socket can be occupied either by a Cortex-M33 processor (implementing the Armv8-M Main architecture, plus extensions) or by a Hazard3 processor (implementing the RV32IMAC architecture, plus extensions).

    From section 3.9.2. Mixed architecture combinations:

    The ARCHSEL register has one bit for each processor socket, so it is possible to request mixed combinations of Arm and RISC-V processors: either Arm core 0 and RISC-V core 1, or RISC-V core 0 and Arm core 1.

    Practical applications for this are limited, since this requires two separate program images. The two cores interoperate normally, including shared exclusives via the global monitor: a shared variable can be safely, concurrently accessed by an Arm processor performing ldrex, strex instructions and a RISC-V processor performing amoadd.w instructions, for example

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Original Nintendo DS had two different ARM CPUs for DS games and the same CPU the GBA had for direct compatibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The second CPU is the GBA CPU, but at twice the clockspeed (which can then downclock for GBA games). You're double-counting it and making it sound like the system had three.

    The 3DS is the real funny one, adding its own new CPU alongside both the DS and GBA CPUs. So that's actually three.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    OSX (now MacOS) was built and running on PowerPC and Intel for years before Intel Macs were released. I assume the same was true before they released the Apple silicon chips.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Yeah but they weren't running both in the same device at the same time.

    PPC -> Intel they just recompiled their OS and fixed it up for the x86 platform, then the same for Intel -> ARM

    They did not have a laptop with an x86 processor and a PPC at the same time.. though there are some hillariously bespoke accellerator cards from back in the day to do all sorts of strange things.

    That said, laptops are full of microcontrollers with firmware, lots of those will be atmega, st32, 6502 and the like. Things like a WLAN or WAN card will be a little ARM soc of some flavour.

    So it really depends on where you draw the line. If its executing the main workload, I'd say thats the CPU, everything else is a microcontroller enabling it to do that

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Haha look at this dumbass, he thinks being stupid is aspirational.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Soviets did a lot to harm Eastern Block tech. Bulgarian Pravetz was a clone of Apple ][. Nothing impressive but cheap, functional, domestically produced. Can't really be exported towards west due to blatant IP violations, but the production capabilities were good enough to produce and export hard drives.

    Except the trade deal with Britain was blocked by Soviets because it was seen as a security threat, and an industry died in its infancy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    There's another future where Yugoslavia is the birthplace of a free software movement, and homebuilt PCs lower the barrier of entry to anybody with some time on their hands, with software distributed by radio and powerline until the advent of internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 54 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    It’s time for other countries to create their own operating systems again

    Make other countries create other operating systems again

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 94 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

    That tracks.

    The more I learn about American history the more frustrated I become with our species in general. Our country could be so much more livable now, but for a handful of vulgarly wealthy people who only ever cared about number going up at any cost.

    And to make it worse I'm reading a biography of John D. Rockefeller, so I'm about to hate our species just a tiny bit more.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    All of our lives could be so much better. We should stop making dystopian futuristic movies, and start making hopeful ones that help people imagine how much BETTER things could be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 152 points 2 months ago (22 children)

    "Capitalism breeds innovation."

    Also capitalism:

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 2 months ago

    One of the biggest lie to keep the current system in place.

    Private corporations parasite themselves into R&D paid for by the government and act like they invented the fire again.

    The Internet is built on FOSS and got captured to be sold back to us.

    Capitalism breeds innovation just like people leave their partner when they finally have enough to be abused.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -24 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    lemmings blaming everything on capitalism

    also lemmings: scrolling on their apple iphone that also had a gui decades ahead of its time in the 80s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -33 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    No this was capitalism in action. Capitalism bred the innovation in TRON.

    Governments getting involved and putting their thumb on the scales to control the economy is the opposite of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Government getting involved and putting their thumb on the economy is as capitalist as it gets.

    South Sea Trading bubble, East India Company, Lake Eyrie Canal, trans continental railroad. Teapot Dome.

    The government has ALLWAYS had its thumb on the scale for big business interests and if you think that's not true I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

    Right next to some beachfront property in Arizona.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I don't understand your comment.

    You're listing things and going "BAD" so Capitalism is bad.

    A trading bubble is really just economics. Can't really say Capitalism causes that. The East India Trading Company is mercantilism which as evil as that specific company was the idea of trading goods from one country to another is like the core of our entire economic trade system today. Teapot Dome was flagrant corruption which happens in any economic system, the Canal and the railroad are more examples of labor exploitation which you can easily argue was less bad than the labor exploitation that came before it and led to better labor laws in the country.

    It's like you're pointing at a gun and saying "FIRE MADE GUN, FIRE BAD!" because guns kill people. It's pretty caveman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, capitalist do the same thing with socialism every day. It takes a lot of propaganda to get people to believe that caring for your neighbors = bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    As someone who supports socialist movements I 100% agree. But I really think the big problem in the world right now is the misunderstanding of capital basically. People think capital or money or anything that involves government is capitalism? Or something? I don't really understand.

    But just because people we might call capitalists pearl clutch about socialism doesn't give someone the space to do the same back, or really just lie/be ignorant. We can definitely discuss the flaws of economic systems or the system we live under and some solutions. But stamping "CAPITALISM BAD" or "SOCIALISM BAD" literally gets us nowhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Hard dissagree, the average American reads at a 5th grade level.

    If you want to have a higher level coveraation, sure, but for general messaging: CAPITALISM BAD is the only thing that will get through.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Say the line!!

    "That isn't REAL captialism"

    Lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Just like the dumbasses say "the Soviet Union wasn't REAL communism"?

    Except I'm correct. A government implementing protectionist policies to control economic sectors is not capitalist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Yes it is - capitalism demands that in fact. You're thinking of free-markets. Capitalism inevitably destroys free markets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    Yes it is - capitalism demands that in fact. You’re thinking of free-markets. Capitalism inevitably destroys free markets.

    Lets see if we can agree on some definitions.

    What you're describing as "free-markets" I know as laissez-faire capitalism. This definition came from, unsurprisingly, the French in the 18th century and was used heavily by Adam Smith in the book The Wealth of Nations. I think we all agree there are very few, if any, true large scale laissez-faire capitalism in operation today.

    What have in most places is regulated capitalism where there are government rules that change the outcome to a different outcome (sometimes better/sometimes worse) that would have occurred under laissez-faire capitalism.

    Are we in agreement with these definitions or do we still have discussion needed to arrive at the same place?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    OK sure - if we're being strict and academic about this - perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn't really exist, and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn’t really exist,

    I agree with this without any reservations.

    and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.

    I take exception with "always". In the USA for example, there have been many notable exceptions where state capitalism implemented protections from abuses that pure laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed. The National Labor Relations Act was a state action that allowed for collective bargaining of workers. More recently the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau acted as an agent against uncheck capitalist forcing a fair playing field.

    I'd probably agree if you changed your word to "frequently" though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Wealth concentration is problematic.

    Capitalism on its own doesn't have any guaranteed and deliberate, measured, studied, tested and understood anti-concentrationist dynamics.

    What we get from the cappies instead is a head fake like this: "Check out this example of a corporation losing wealth and its competitor gaining wealth. Now add the magical invisible hand. Therefore, capitalism magically balances itself out."

    But while there is always a rags to richies story to be found, and also an occasional redistribution from one cappie to the next, at the macro level we see a totally different picture.

    At the macro level property/wealth holdings concentrate. Reliably. If left alone. More and more is owned by fewer and fewer hands.

    And ownership isn't just about the balance sheet. The owners tell nonowners how to live. It's about power and dominance.

    The landlord tells their tenants how to cut grass, how to aqcept and not accept guests and for how long, what to keep and not keep inside the appartment/flat. Etc. The employer tells the worker how to dress, when to show up and where, what to do, how to do it, and what you can and cannot do on your time off, and it doen't stop there because there is no line where the cappie says to hirself, "ok, this is plenty of dominance for me, I am satisfied, I will stop making additional demands." So the cappies tell their workers how to vote, how to organize or not organize, how to share or not share certain information (like about their own salary), etc. Doesn't matter if it's legal or if it is enforceable. It works often enough that it makes it worth it to cappies to keep pushing the line.

    So not having the wealth is bad enough on its own, but when every aspect of life is tightly managed, including how to think and not to think, capitalism rapes your soul in addition to either keeping you poor, or forcing a neverending hassle, a neverending energy drain on you, unless and until you yourself become a cappie.

    That is criminal.

    And capitalism doesn't value anything not denominated in currency. Thus the commons get raped, science is only OK if someone somewhere is profiting, etc.

    You get cities that are dirty, dense with money making properties, and little to no space to kick back for free, etc. Anywhere it is not like that is because people pushed back! And not because the cappies prefer ample parks or open land.

    Just the fact that the accounting books are almost always the most closely guarded secret of a cappie, that alone, if you are knowledgeable about how power works, should tell you everything about what kind of relationship exists between the various people under capitalism. Workers are roped by the system into projects the details of which they aren't welcome to know. And the government is also not welcome to audit anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 76 points 2 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (18 children)

    I’d say US/USians, as America is more than just the US. America is composed of more countries like Canada, Mexico, Brazil…

    You can downvote me all you want, it doesn’t change anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    The US could mean Mexico though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Probably referring to Mexico’s official name, Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Thanks! I never knew it had a longer official name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    People who are adamant about "America is too confusing" are very rarely in agreement with "Afro-Eurasia", such that if someone says "Colombians are American", they're unlikely to say "French people are African" or even "Afro-Eurasian".

    It's a cultural/language thing, rather than an objective one. There's no reason that (most) English speakers who don't call Peruvians "Americans" are any more incorrect than Peruvians who don't say "Spanish people are Africans" are wrong. But it's become a whole thing on the internet to say that "USians are dumb and wrong" for not having the same language concepts as other cultures. There are just different numbers of continents taught in different cultures.

    But as a tourist, does anyone from outside the US say "I'm American" when they're asked where they're from? Canadians at least sure as fuck would never say that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent?useskin=vector#Number

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    I read a biography of a Brazilian guy who lived in France during the late 19th century/early 20th century. Everyone in Europe called him an American, and he referred to himself an American when he was contrasting Brazil and France. At one point he went off about how hopeful he was about new plane tech coming out, because it would help “unite Americans across our various countries.” However, I think it’s fallen out of fashion to talk this way in recent years, partially because of USA supremacy, which is I think why people are salty about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Nobody is saying it's too confusing. They're saying "stop claiming that word for yourself".

    Your examples are incorrect. The equivalent would be if France was called The United States of Europe, and used the word Europeans to refer exclusively to themselves.

    Then, naturally, Germans would stop using the word European to refer to themselves because others would think they were referring to France (The United States of Europe in this example).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    The USA is one of the few countries on earth to use a continent name as part of its country name. Yet you don't see too many people saying South Africa should refer to the entire southern part of the continent.

    People also don't seem to have a problem with using "US", which overlaps with Mexico aka EUM (or USM in English). Like I said, it's mostly a language and cultural divide. Are you advocating that Canadians or Mexicans should say they're American, even if they don't want to? In the English speaking world no one other than the USA says American.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Now why would they be referring to Mexico?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    America is not just North America you know. It’s a whole ass continent. America isn’t a country, the US is. So when you say America when you actually talk about only the US, it’s as is you were talking about Mexico, Canada, Brazil… as well as the US. Which is… dumb? False? Erroneous?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    No idea why you're getting downvoted for this very valid point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Because it's pedantry. I checked 4 dictionaries for america or american. Or just type "america" on whatever search engine First thing for 3/4 dictionaries was the US or its citizens. If anyone ever means to refer to the continent they usually say north/south America or "the Americas".

    Go to any country other than the US and ask a local "Are you american?". They're all gonna say the same thing. "No, I'm Mexican/Canadian/Chilean/etc."

    Whenever a word has multiple meanings, you're supposed to use context to figure out which one is being used. Well, the article title mentions the US government. It's also a very common phrase with a well established meaning. Check out Green day's american idiot, for example.

    Really doesn't take a genius to understand what op meant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Check every dictionary for america or american. Or just type "america" on whatever search engine. First thing is always the US or its citizens.

    Exactly! It's always the first! Let's check the renowned and proud American dictionary Merriam Webster:

    Oh. Huh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    My apologies, my fault for only checking the first 3 links that my search engine gave me, which were Cambridge, dictionary.com and Collinsdictionary.com

    And there's also this. .

    But I guess you got me there. I'll edit my comment to rectify this huge mistake.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Was it because of this guy?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    5 comments in c/programming@programming.dev view that post
    3 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
    2 comments in c/programming@lemmy.ml view that post