the threat was more effective than the trigger pull. trust the orange idiot to show the world our bare ass.

global cooperation is the answer, but no… assuming a zero sum game (a game america is ill prepared to “win”) is the mantra of decades of psychotic us leadership. so tired of this planet sized madhouse.

ok, this is offiically the best thing I have seen all day.

“obviously more than she would see in you.”

idk, man. that gravitational sigularity over there would like to have a word with you.

someone reach out! I feel a house lawyer in the making.

how about an ad tailored precisely by your recent history - graphics/audio/content and all, delivered to you in different ways depending on how you are feeling at any given moment? an instant and dynamic money extraction machine shaping and shaped by your second by second stream of clicks and queries, completing the transformation of everyone into lab monkeys.

ai is already your online sig-o, friend, assistant, whatever, so…?

personally, I prefer the good ol double bang (!!), but whatever floats yer boat, and all that.

nope, and I loved reading it! 11/10 for an enjoyable read.

deleted by creator

anyone else felt the impending finger slice in that photo? case looks pissed and out for flesh.

great answer. thanks so much.

meh. its only the third-worst in the Universe. you gotta go for the good stuff!

everyone is too stupid to participate

if they are anything like us, its probably for the best.

omni-directional free range cookie awareness.

what the hell is this trash post?! user is clearly a sleeper ad bot.

wow! self-reflection is something we all need more of (especially me). agree or disagree, converstaions are always better when everyone considers things for a moment. nice comment. :-)

I am sure you already know, but the objection here is going after kids. literally profiling and then abusing their vulnerabilities for profit. this isnt your standard cereal box advertising, I think this is something much darker and more disgusting.

edit: added word

ok. my apologizes.

there really are tons of things to consider with that question. RISC has historically allowed for faster clocking and fewer cycles per instruction, so thats a win. RISC also requires more instructions per useful operation and also blows up the binary size, so… :-(

all things being equal (hahaha) RISC has more headroom and legroom for future improvements that dont complecate the silicon to extreme degrees. the vast majority of CISC designs are now pretty RISC-like at their cores, but the software interface remains CISC and, I think, complicates and limits variety and advancement.

imho, a properly spec’d RISC processor and a carefully designed compiler, cycle for cycle, macro for macro and watt for watt outperforms a CISC design (even with a RISC-like core). major computing holy wars are been waged over this for decades.

all I currently have access to are older studies that show mixed general purpose results on RISC vs CISC (performance, not power efficiency), but if I had to make a choice about what my future ideal processor would be, it would be RISC core and RISC instruction set architecture simply due to less complexity, more efficient use of wafer space and lower power requirements. then we start talking about massively parallel RISC in tiny spaces and, for many (but not all) workloads, thats a big win.

this is so deliciously and disappointingly true. :-/

CPI per CPI… RISC, but thats a trap of a question and you know it ;-)

tons of variables in that question, but there should be more headroom in RISC designs and thats why, internally, most things are RISC-y.