Club Penguin Goes Down After Disney Fails To Renew Domain Name - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/06/20/club-penguin-offline/

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of when Microsoft forgot to renew passport.com so someone just made their own payment to get it back online. They they did it again with hotmail.co.uk

Just do 10 year registrations for $100 and get it over with.

<comment><USER3> someone payed for use the mail, or to hijack the domain?

<comment><USER2> In the first situation someone paid $35 to get passport.com renewed for microsoft (before it completely dropped). This was back in 1999 when the internet was a tad more well behaved.

Hotmail.co.uk went through a complete drop and was simply re-registered by someone before Microsoft even cared.

In neither case was the domain hijacked though. The drop cycle is nearly 60 days and the domain would be dead for at least 45 of those.

<comment><USER4> There was a time when you could volunteer to pay for anyone's domain simply by using Verisign. Even further back and anyone who could fill in a form could get a domain for free.

<comment><USER5> I've been anonymously paying for the domain name of a local charity for almost a decade. The registrar they use doesn't care who renews a domain, anyone can mail in the form with payment and a domain they control written in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's humorous how the Club Penguin blog describes what happened:

"As some of you heard, Club Penguin's domain name (clubpenguin.com) had a technical glitch this weekend. The technical glitch has been fixed, but it will take some time for the site to appear as it should around the world."

Really it was a billing glitch, but a technical glitch sounds so much more forgivable.

</comment><comment><USER7> Anyone know how much it cost ClubPenguin to get the domain name back?

<comment><USER8> Not much. Typically there is a 60 day vesting period (I am not sure if that is the correct length or name) when the domain is still in the control of the registrar and the owner can pay them a fee (it was $100 for my previous registrar) to get the domain back.

<http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/gtld-lifecycle.htm>

<comment><USER9> I've been involved in trying to rectify this sort of mistake before...

At least with .com.au domains, there's not a lot of risk of losing a recently expired domain, what you do suffer is a ~$100 vig for the registrar to "expedite the re-registration"...

<comment><USER10> Some companies will squeeze money out of everything when they get the chance, this reminds me of a €13 'administrative processing' surcharge I recently got on a €7.50 invoice I forgot to pay.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Nature of Code by Daniel Shiffman (free eBook) - <AUTHOR> http://natureofcode.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> The complete book is available as HTML with interactive Processing.js examples here: [http://natureofcode.com/book/](http://natureofcode.com/book/)</comment>


"Not invented here" syndrome is not unique to the IT world - <AUTHOR> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2559901

<comment><USER2> I'm baffled by the idea that anyone was ever deluded that it was.</comment>


Ask HN: What open source project, in your opinion, has the highest code quality? - <AUTHOR> I'm planning to study a number of these codebases to gain insight and inspiration. Maybe even write an article about their commonalities... <comment><USER2> Prior discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18037613](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18037613)

</comment><comment><USER3> The test suite for SQLite is very impressive.

> The reliability and robustness of SQLite is achieved in part by thorough and > careful testing. As of version 3.23.0 (2018-04-02), the SQLite library > consists of approximately 128.9 KSLOC of C code. (KSLOC means thousands of > "Source Lines Of Code" or, in other words, lines of code excluding blank > lines and comments.) By comparison, the project has 711 times as much test > code and test scripts - 91772.0 KSLOC.

Plus they have a whole page on their site about testing [1]. Which is more then you can say about a lot of open source projects.

[1] [https://www.sqlite.org/testing.html](https://www.sqlite.org/testing.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Laravel is incredibly well crafted and documented, one of the highest quality OSS projects ever, IMHO.

<comment><USER5> The sad part about this truth is that because it is PHP, the vast majority of people will dismiss it out of hand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While I wouldn't suggest that his code is meant to be read for beauty/inspiration, djb's code is of incredibly high quality.

I would suggest starting with qmail and looking at the (very mainstream) patches that people are running on top of it.

tinydns is also worth a look.

</comment><comment><USER6> There are a lot of ways to judge this, but obvious candidates would be GNU Emacs, the GNU coreutils packages, etc., and the Linux kernel itself. (Probably also the BSDs, though I don't know these.)

</comment><comment><USER7> If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: Redis and SQLite (in my opinion) have some of the highest code qualities.

</comment><comment><USER8> PostgreSQL. It's awesome, welcoming and well documented.

</comment><comment><USER9> requests, the python package for HTTP/S

<comment><USER5> One of the most dumbfounding things I've encountered throughout my career is the python community's dogged persistence at avoiding using libcurl.

<comment><USER10> Getting a resource in requests:

        import requests
        body = requests.get('http://pycurl.io/')

Getting a resource with libcurl:

        import pycurl
        from io import BytesIO

        buffer = BytesIO()
        c = pycurl.Curl()
        c.setopt(c.URL, 'http://pycurl.io/')
        c.setopt(c.WRITEDATA, buffer)
        c.perform()
        c.close()

        body = buffer.getvalue()

<comment><USER11> Doesn't answer the question why nobody has build an interface like the first example over the low-level libcurl bindings, or if someone has done so, why it hasn't been more popular.

I'd guess: because distributing packages with native dependencies is sort of a a pain, and was way worse in the past, especially cross-platform, and thus python-only packages are preferred. Leaves open why libcurl bindings weren't choosen for stdlib.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> SQLite++</comment>


Apple Apparently Discontinues iPod Nano and iPod Shuffle - <AUTHOR> https://www.macrumors.com/2017/07/27/apple-removes-ipod-nano-ipod-shuffle/ <comment><USER2> Not updated since 2010 or 2012, and declining sales? I wonder if there is any possibility that these two facts were related?

The shuffle in particular seems to still have a place as a super portable player you use while jogging or biking or whatever, but was hampered in recent years by lack of support for Airpods. I get that the usage model is "just use your phone", but phones are not always a great size for this.

<comment><USER3> My wife loves them for running. She told me to order 2 immediately before they run out of stock.

<comment><USER4> Same here. I have a very old Nano for hiking and running. Using a phone is not a replacement for this. Can the Apple Watch be used as player?

<comment><USER5> Yes, only with bluetooth earphones, 64K stereo only, just a single playlist that's synced with Music on the phone (last time I tried, at least).

<comment><USER4> Single playlist is not good. Time to buy another Nano 4th gen just in case....

<comment><USER6> watchOS 4 adds more playlists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The iPod Shuffle is the perfect form factor for my specific use case: I plug a second generation model into the gym's sound system (I work out at 3 am, I'm the only one there at the time), leaving my phone to run the fitness app and heart rate monitor. It recharges as fast as my bike blinkies when I get back, and because I listen to the exact same workout playlist every time, I don't have to fidget with the tracks on it.

There are still scads of these units on eBay after a quick check, so I'll probably scoop up a couple, because the Apple UI to load the simple playlist is what I use for all my other music devices, so switching to a different UI would just be more overhead for me at this point.

With some re-branding, these could be re-positioned as children's first music devices. They can be priced cheap enough to give to really young children without stressing over losing them, say $30 USD. It would still suck, but not in the same way as if a child lost an iPhone 7. And it gets children into Apple's ecosystem early, and the children can even use the UI themselves because the constrained environment makes drastically simplifying the UI possible. I think Apple is giving up an opportunity here to create an advertising platform for their ecosystem that is paid by their own customers.

<comment><USER8> If you're not carrying it while you run how is the tiny iPod Shuffle perfect form factor? You're just "plugging it into the sound system"?

I personally leave my big Nexus 6P on the ground on top of my towel next to machines while I work out, connecting to headphones via bluetooth with a $40 headphone amp that clips onto to my shirt or shorts:

[https://www.amazon.com/Creative-Headphone-Amplifier- Integrat...](https://www.amazon.com/Creative-Headphone-Amplifier-Integrated- Smartphones/dp/B00J2JATL0)

Works well for me and the sound is great (despite the fact it's made by Creative and not overpriced autophile-ware).

Now that Bluetooth headphones are a thing I don't see the utility in the shuffle anymore.

I bet Apple views bluetooth headphones as the portable iPod killer more than anything...

<comment><USER7> When I go early enough, there is no one there. They let me plug my iPod Shuffle into the sound system via the headphone jack, and enjoy the experience of working out with my playlist going out over the speakers. It's not the same as when I have headphones on; not better, just different, and I like the change.

When I work out with other gym customers present, I use my headphones.

I agree that with Bluetooth headphones going in the $20-30 range, the use of headphone jack-based devices will go down over time. But there are _a lot_ of those jacks out there in the world, so it will take a long time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder when enough of the relevant patents for the iPod Classics expire that someone can use the tech to create their own take on it? I have to think there are profits available for someone who takes the old chassis and builds on the form factor.

EDIT: Just looked over the Fiio line. Are they using the same tech as Apple? Does the scroll wheel feel pretty similar?

</comment><comment><USER10> Who's making good portable digital music players nowadays? In particular, looking for a replacement for the iPod classic.

<comment><USER11> > Who's making good portable digital music players nowadays?

Flash-based? Sandisk's Sansa (Fuze, E and C-series, Clip, Clip sport, et.al.) line has been around for a while and is good. I have a Fuze that is approaching eight years old and has been battered until the paint flaked off but it still works. They are supported by the Rockbox ([https://www.rockbox.org/](https://www.rockbox.org/)) firmware.

That said, I don't use it much any more as I usually have my phone with me.

<comment><USER12> I can also vouch for the sandisk clip line, they are simple and work perfectly, and support lossless formats out of the box.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have some very fond memories of my iPods Nano (is that really how we have to say it?). Farewell, old friend.

<comment><USER14> >(is that really how we have to say it?)

I can't imagine why. Most formally it would be "iPod Nano devices", but most people would say "iPod Nanos".

You only pluralize the words that there are actually multiple of. You may talk about a Member of Parliament, but you wouldn't have Member of Parliaments because you're not talking about multiple Parliaments. You're talking about multiple members and a singular Parliament, so it's Members of Parliament. Your city has a Chamber of Commerce, but your state has many Chambers of Commerce.

But with the iPod Nano, it's not multiple iPods and a singular Nano. It's multiple "iPod Nano" devices. So you'd just say "iPod Nanos".

<comment><USER13> The Whopper Jr. would like to have a word with you. I did have multiple iPods because the iPod is the name of the device and the "Nano" piece is a descriptive adjective of which iPod it is.

<comment><USER14> If you had multiple iPods including the Nano, you would say "multiple iPods including the Nano". iPod is the brand name, Nano is the model. You can have multiple iPods and multiple iPod Nanos but multiple iPods Nano is, at best, heavily archaic use of the language.

I've owned two Corolla cars in my life. It doesn't make sense for me to say "I've owned two Toyotas Corolla", does it? If I cloned this site, would I say "there are two Hackers News"?

<comment><USER13> No... Apple is the brand name, iPod is the product, and Nano is the descriptor for which model of iPod. As mentioned in my last reply, it's not 2 Whopper Jr.'s, it's 2 Whoppers Jr. Since Nano is an adjective, you pluralize the noun which, in this case, is iPod.

<comment><USER14> So I should be saying "Macbooks Pro", "Surfaces RT", or "iPads Pro". If I have a Toyota Corolla S and then bought another, it should be "I have two Toyota Corollas S". Would I also have multiple "Telsa Models S"?

Or you can end the ridiculous destruction of the English language and realize that "Nano" isn't really an adjective in this case, but rather "iPod Nano" is the entire noun and is pluralized as such. "Red iPods" has a noun and an adjective and the noun is pluralized. If you dropped the word "iPod" from the statement you'd still have a valid sentence "I have two Nano..." what? "Two Nanos", or "Two Nano", since Nano is an adjective and can't be pluralized?

You asked "is that really how we have to say it?" and the answer is no. That is decidedly not how you _have_ to say it. It may be how you _choose_ to say it, but you don't have to, and most people would find it very odd phrasing indeed. If you ask Apple, brand names cannot be pluralized, so their recommendation is "iPod Nano mobile digital devices": [https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual- property/trademark/...](https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual- property/trademark/appletmlist.html)

I do want to point out that no matter what Burger King says, The Onion has an article specifically mocking that line of thinking: [http://www.theonion.com/article/william-safire-orders-two- wh...](http://www.theonion.com/article/william-safire-orders-two-whoppers- junior-3351)

<comment><USER13> Every single one of your examples in the first statement is grammatically correct. You can call it ridiculous, if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's grammatically correct to phrase it with the noun being pluralized. In your other example, it doesn't apply because "Red" comes before the noun and a "Nano" isn't a thing so it's not a noun either. If you want to say "I have two Nanos", then you're using a colloquial description that turns "Nano" into a noun.

Mocking rules of grammar doesn't make them incorrect. It is a weird rule, but it is the proper way to write and speak the language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What is a good shuffle alternative?

</comment><comment><USER16> Disappointing but expected as these devices haven't been updated in forever.

It's clear that Apple wants the Watch to be the new small scale iPod for fitness use, but I really don't need all that fancy tech and the corresponding high price of the Watch.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have a 6G Nano. It has a great UI but the physical buttons are really fragile. It cost me less to get a new dumb phone plus a SD card than is would have done to get the Nano repaired.

</comment><comment><USER18> iPod Shuffle is the best there is for running, buuuut I suppose it endangers Apple's business model and profitability so it needs to be sent to a farm upstate.

<comment><USER19> I think the part of the model it endangers is selling sufficient volume of product to make money. I have been surprised to see it still on the shelf in recent years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> One step closer to ditching the iTunes app on the Mac?</comment>


3 simple things GitHub can do for science - <AUTHOR> http://juretriglav.si/3-simple-things-github-can-do-for-science/

<comment><USER2> Another suggestion would be for Github to offer more generous academic accounts. Currently it looks like they offer free micro accounts (5 private repos) for students, but I think scientists would be more apt to use Github if they offered unlimited private repositories to any academic users. This would match Bitbuckets current academic offerings.</comment>


FriendFeed's Real Opportunity: Reassembling the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.livedigitally.com/2008/09/12/friendfeeds-real-opportunity-reassembling-the-internet/

<comment><USER2> Is it just me, or was this a real nothing of an article? I'm pretty sure it's not just me.

Basically, it's explaining how FriendFeed works and pretending like that means he's making a decent point. Really, his only slightly interesting quote is this one -

"Sooner or later the 'Internet's middleman' must emerge."

\- and he's wrong about that. Reason being, most people don't obsess over the Internet like that. Most people manage one or two sites, and as the Internet gets bigger that'll change to three or four, five if they're feeling ambitious. Because beyond "put stuff online" and "communicate with people," there's no reason to use the Internet. And some people care about using Flickr and Vimeo and Twitter and Tumblr and staying connected in every network at once because they like pretending they'll be John Gruber one day... but the average Internet user uses one application for each of those two things, and those two things are Facebook and Facebook.

I think that we as hackers ought to spend a lot of time outside the narrow bubble of people who are as neurotic as we are. It helps to give a LOT of perspective.

</comment><comment><USER3> Article in two sentences:

"I believe the Internet today is highly fragmented and disassembled... Sooner or later the "Internet's middleman" must emerge." [FriendFeed, it could be you!]

I feel like this is something else everyone knows, but I don't have a canonical document explaining it (like I do for why DRM is bad, <http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt>). Can anyone suggest one? Maybe Google's written up some stuff like this for OpenSocial?

There is a very interesting incentive system for social networks and complete data transparency. Facebook et. al. only make ad money when you visit them, so it doesn't make financial sense for them to open up unless they expect to get more traffic from doing so then they lose. You might think that this means there's a market opportunity for a totally open social network, but to be useful it would first have to achieve critical mass in a crowded space.

This makes me idly wonder whether the real solution is a social networking nonprofit (in the spirit of Wikipedia) where you store the canonical version of your data.</comment>


The Ruby Thought Police Are Watching - <AUTHOR> http://rubythoughtpolice.com/ <comment><USER2> What's with all those women liking Ruby?!

</comment><comment><USER3> looks like it's down?

</comment><comment><USER3> what was it about?</comment>


Superheroes a 'cultural catastrophe', says comics guru Alan Moore (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/21/superheroes-cultural-catastrophe-alan-moore-comics-watchmen <comment><USER2> I've noticed a similar trend - I am now in my 40s, and we played games, read comic books, watched TV and movies growing up... but we never made them part of our self-identity. But recently, people's media consumption is part of their identity. From Whovians to Bronies, people are starting to treat their entertainment as core pieces of who they are.

I find it odd. But maybe that is just part of getting old... that you don't quite understand the youth of today.

<comment><USER3> Same as it ever was. Trekkies. Yankees fans. Smiths fans. Goths. Deadheads. Beatlemania. Hippies. The Beats. Greasers. Flappers. Oscar Wilde fans. We didn't invent popular culture this generation.

<comment><USER4> The difference is, we have the Internet to actually create large communities centered around these interests. This makes it look like more people are involved, when in fact all the separate islands of fans have simply been bridged together.

<comment><USER5> And the internet has enabled those fans to be continuously engaged in their interests.

Where trekkies/ham operators/beatlemaniacs might have assembled once in a while or yearly at a convention, now they can stay with their tribe all the time. What's the cultural impact when that happens?

<comment><USER3> Didn't ham operators talk to each other all night long over random and often amazing distances? That was kind of the point.

<comment><USER5> Okay, yeah, bad example. I was trying to think of groups that actually met F2F in the days before the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Simon Pegg expressed a similar sentiment in May of this year [http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-05-19/simon-pegg- critici...](http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-05-19/simon-pegg-criticises- science-fiction-and-genre-films-for-dumbing-down-cinema)

 _" part of me looks at society as it is now and just thinks we've been infantilised by our own taste... Now we're essentially all consuming very childish things – comic books, superheroes... Adults are watching this stuff, and taking it seriously!"_

<comment><USER7> "Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." \- C.S. Lewis

People who go on about others not growing up perhaps need to look at themselves. Positioning themselves as better because they're 'adults' because everyone else is acting like 'children', they may find they never actually left high school and are trying desperatly to be the cool kids.

<comment><USER8> A personal take is that adults are children that are better at hiding their asshole behavior.

<comment><USER9> I think there is some truth to this. Children can be extraordinarily vicious and unempathetic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A counter-example to the following point is that the recent "Avengers: Age of Ultron" movie included debate on contemporary transhumanism, although that could be Joss Whedon's writing influence:

 _"..a significant section of the public, having given up on attempting to understand the reality they are actually living in, have instead reasoned that they might at least be able to comprehend the sprawling, meaningless, but at- least-still-finite 'universes' presented by DC or Marvel Comics.._"

Another reason for shorter copyright terms:

 _"..it is, potentially, culturally catastrophic to have the ephemera of a previous century squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant and sufficient to its times.."_

</comment><comment><USER11> For centuries the cultural touchstones were all retellings of classical Greek or Roman myths, or Bible stories. Modern media's exploration of Marvel's canon or the expansion of the Star Wars mythos is no different than Shakespeare rebooting Cleopatra and updating her with analogs to contemporary politics.

<comment><USER12> Human thinking and reasoning gets short-circuited by too much vividness. The difference between those previous eras and now is that our fiction _may_ have become dangerously vivid.

<comment><USER13> Nonsense. Media vividness isn't a quality of the media -- it's attributed by the viewers. People will perceive the media of their day at the same level of vividness that they would have, in the past, perceived the media of the past. It's self-adjusting.

<comment><USER12> By vividness, I'm talking about the relative powers of various _kinds_ media to impress us; e.g. that television is more vivid than radio, which is more vivid than writing. I wasn't talking about the impressiveness of special effects specific to visual media. The idea is that since live-action media is more vivid than cartoons and comic books, it might be the case that either it is displacing better media for dealing with complex topics (e.g. books), or monopolizing a particular media that could be put to "better" uses (i.e. more art films and historical dramas)[1]. But, this isn't a new argument, Neil Postman devoted an entire book to it 30 years ago [2].

Also, the word "nonsense" really wasn't an appropriate rejoinder because I wasn't making a deductive argument in the first place. Rather I was suggesting that there _might_ be evidence that using increasingly more vivid media for ever more trivial things is a net harm to society.

[1] I say this as someone who is guilty of watching superhero movies almost exclusively (I even paid to see Iron Man 2 in the theater five times).

[2] [https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#s...](https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#search_plus_one=form)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think he's dead on about the relative proportion of violence/murder versus rape in popular media, particularly the US. Part of it might be the puritanical history of the US. Why is it more acceptable (gauged by PG-13 rating systems) to show killing and violence than even show a breast or two people making love? You'd almost think the latter was a crime instead of the former. The general squeamishness of media on these issues completely distorts the real-world statistics of murder versus domestic violence and rape. So calling Moore out on it is more a statement of current US norms and is very different than other cultures like Japan.

<comment><USER15> Rape is very different from showing a breast or two, or two people making love.

There are many illustrations of murder which include the psychological impact on the victims. I really haven't found any material that empathizes with me, as a rape victim. Instead, every rape and sexual assault scene in Hollywood is 1-5 minutes long and triggers me into wanting to cry and rock back and forth.

I haven't seen any of his work regarding sexual violence, but there is a lot more depth to it than just the illustration of it. People who write about it who have never experienced it nor researched it sufficiently will not portray rape in a way that demonstrates the impact it has on the victim. It is often exaggerated and minimized as 'part of the life' of the character that endures it. The reality is that it is like your life was made of glass and rape is the bullet that was shot through it, creating cracks that continue to crack in everything that is connected to it, and sometimes the whole thing shatters and you can't ever imagine how to go back to the person you were before you were raped. You don't know how to put the pieces back together and neither does anyone else. But yet you are expected to keep on going. Happiness without sadness is a thing you don't understand, and you acknowledge that you may never understand. Fear is your best friend and your worst enemy. You might become repulsed by your own body. Your identity may fracture and your sense of reasoning and rationality may twist and warp. Labels follow you everywhere. It is a violation of life.

<comment><USER16> That sounds awful. How long has it been? Does it get any better over time?

<comment><USER15> It's been 10 years. I have objectively gotten better, I take better care of myself. Even when I feel like I can not go on, I still get out of bed and I do my daily routine, whether it is going to work or going to the gym and doing my chores. I've hidden in the bathroom at work to cry, and I've had many nights where I've gone to sleep wishing I would not wake up in the morning.

I have had some wonderful conversations with people online, and that gives me hope that I will be able to feel happy and be able to recognize it when I feel it. I make art, I make music, and I take great care in learning about computer science and code, and making improvements in it. I have an interest in philosophy and a love of knowledge in general, and I often think it is amusing to me that I use abstract maths to distract myself from traumatic memories, a bit of a quirk that I like about myself. I have my moments where I feel like I think I might love myself and I know who I am, few and far apart they may sometimes be. The last 5 or 6 years have been like a hurricane for me. I still struggle with a lot of things, but I think it has gotten better.

<comment><USER16> That's rough. No one deserves this much anguish and suffering.

You mentioned lack of relatable narratives in the media, I think I know one you might find close: "CSI: special victims unit". I only watched one episode, but I found it touching so there is hope the rest of it is close too.

Perhaps more importantly, there must be a way for you to have your feelings acknowledged by real, live people. Is there a sex crime victim support group where you live? If there is, I encourage you to attend it, both for you own sake and for the sake of the other people there - they need to be understood in their pain as much you need it. More broadly, what you describe sounds close to PTSD, and anyone who's gone through that hell will readily relate to your story.

<comment><USER15> I know I should, but for right now talking on the internet about it (with the ignorance about whether I am truly anonymous blanketing me) is the most I can do. I have had bad experiences in group therapy, I did not find it helpful.

I have been diagnosed with PTSD, I know I show many symptoms of it. It makes me upset that it may have held me back in achieving goals in my life, but I just know that regardless, I need to take things slowly. I have too many emotions that distract and cloud my ability to think clearly about things I consider very difficult (mostly stuff in computer science and math).

So I just go really slow, as slow as I need to, and I wait for things to click, and then they do. I just try to forget that the rest of the world is still rushing by, and I remind myself that none of that matters to my own personal understanding about the things I want to learn about. I get discouraged a lot, and sometimes my mind can really feel completely clouded, and nothing I do seems to help it, and I can become very afraid that I will be lost in confusion forever. That I am either past my prime, or that I never really was smart, or that I'm too damaged to really persist and actually see the fruits of my labor. Sometimes I think it is good enough to be convinced into persisting despite knowing that I never will actualize, but that thought saddens me in an exceptionally destructive way.

I know I am strong and that if there's anything that really keeps me wanting to live day to day, it's being able to experience learning in the right way, and I consider myself lucky that I get to do that even though I work.

<comment><USER17> Individual therapy? It's hard to find a good match, so just keep trying people until you find someone you like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Moore has been preaching this since forever. I think his position could be divided to two, slightly different points. I am not sure if he agrees, but this is my take on what Moore is saying:

>1\. (Superhero) comics were originally children's entertainment, almost a century ago. It is an unhealthy sign that not only we're still stuck with them, they are now deemed acceptable for adult consumption.

Interesting thing is that this isn't limited to capestories. The whole genre of YA fiction seems to be focused on this kind of "entertainment literature", with similar (on meta level) formulaic characters and stories.

And maybe he has a point; even the "realistic takes" on the genre, "grown-up post-modern deconstructions of inherent sillyness of common assumptions and tropes of caped vigilantes" and that kind of stuff ...it was already done decades ago (people like Moore himself). Yet still Marvel and DC go on and on with the same old stuff, maybe with some "adult" twist or to (like a debate on transhumanism, or making a the protagonist troubled anti-hero, or something), while re-hashing the same 'kiddie' storylines and action. Maybe we are just more self-conscious about this (TVtropes is a thing).

However, I think Moore is making a mistake assuming that in the "golden olden days" any more significant majority of people 'graduated' to a more serious (whatever that means) forms of fiction.

Even if it's "unhealthy" (I don't agree), it's not like this kind of fiction is anything fundamentally _new_. As soon as there was the physical possibility of pulp fiction, pulp fiction appeared, and most of that stuff was utter rubbish. (And even before 1920's pulp, there was 1800s cheap literature; most of it was similar melodramatic rubbish, too.) And best of them remain in public consciousness even today. Is popularity of Sherlock Holmes that different thing, on a fundamental level, than popularity of Batman or Superman? Good grief, Moore himself did Extraordinary Gentlemen!

2\. (Superhero) comics are not original _form_ for entertainment of our time; we should come up with something new of our own that reflects our time, not just repeat the same and old and tired. For example, instead of trying to come up with a totally new idea, movie industry just makes yet another superhero movie for their next blockbluster candidate. Or DC/Marvel makes yet another 'new' superhero (exactly like the old ones, just different powers and costume which is just 'make-up'), or comes up another variation of old plots for old ones. The Spider Man or Batman aren't going anywhere on any fundamental level, and there isn't new and innovative replacements.

Well, I think this is a more valid point, but it has more to do with the current (unhealthy) economical logic of Western mass entertainment industry than with something 'deeper' in our culture.

</comment><comment><USER19> I love _Watchmen_ , but I went straight to /r/nottheonion with this [https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/3du90o/superhe...](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/3du90o/superheroes_a_cultural_catastrophe_says_comics/) .

</comment><comment><USER20> slightly off-topic: if you didn't watch it yet, you should rush to see this documentary about Alan Moore. They mind of this guy is a fascinating universe.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mindscape_of_Alan_Moore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mindscape_of_Alan_Moore)

</comment><comment><USER21> (2014)

</comment><comment><USER22> Alan Moore pops up every so often just to bum everybody out. Superheroes are a fun, stupid and occasionally brilliant genre. They're the Westerns of the 21st century.

Lighten up Al.

<comment><USER23> You might like to read deeper on why mainstream superhero plots follow such a peculiar formula... Are they trying to teach adolescent boys something?

> "These "heroes" are purely reactionary, in the literal sense. They have no > projects of their own, at least not in their role as heroes: as Clark Kent, > Superman may be constantly trying, and failing, to get into Lois Lane's > pants, but as Superman, he is purely reactive. In fact, superheroes seem > almost utterly lacking in imagination: like Bruce Wayne, who with all the > money in the world can't seem to think of anything to do with it other than > to indulge in the occasional act of charity; it never seems to occur to > Superman that he could easily carve free magic cities out of mountains.

> "Almost never do superheroes make, create, or build anything. The villains, > in contrast, are endlessly creative. They are full of plans and projects and > ideas. Clearly, we are supposed to first, without consciously realizing it, > identify with the villains. After all, they're having all the fun. Then of > course we feel guilty for it, re-identify with the hero, and have even more > fun watching the superego clubbing the errant Id back into submission."

> "It's in this sense that the logic of the superhero plot is profoundly, > deeply conservative." ([http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/super- > position/](http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/super-position/))

<comment><USER24> _Almost never do superheroes make, create, or build anything. The villains, in contrast, are endlessly creative. They are full of plans and projects and ideas._

Interestingly, Metropolitan Man touches on this. At a certain point in the plot, Superman approaches a villain and asks him to identify the most productive things he can do with his superpowers, recognizing that stopping robberies isn't it.

It's actually a fantastic work of fiction, I highly recommend it.

[https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10360716/1/The-Metropolitan- Man](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10360716/1/The-Metropolitan-Man)

<comment><USER13> [http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2305](http://www.smbc- comics.com/index.php?id=2305)

> seems... a bit monotonous...

> Oh, that reminds me. Keep your speed constant at all times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am annoyed by people who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read comics and watch Marvel movies, but who are amazingly ignorant about science. Just the other day, I met one: Thought the solar system was around _10 million_ years old, and that the prediction of the Sun going red giant in 4.5 billion years was some kind of BS guess. He was ready to render judgement on the entire discipline of astronomy but had basically no idea about the findings and methods of astronomers, other than vague notions that there are stars and planets up there.

<comment><USER26> I'm sure there are people who are annoyed by folks who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read science articles and memorize scientific facts, but who are amazingly ignorant about culture.

<comment><USER25> _I 'm sure there are people who are annoyed by folks who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read science articles and memorize scientific facts, but who are amazingly ignorant about culture._

Summary: "Geek" used to mean "has real knowledge." Not so much anymore.

It used to be that the appellation of "geek" would indicate a good working knowledge of science, and a healthy attitude towards knowledge of all kinds. It's more a workable epistemology that I miss in today's "geek" set than science. Really, the guy I describe above is hardly better than a young earth creationist -- his ignorance of highly relevant science is just as large. The chief difference is only that his preferred mythology get a better movie directors and bigger box office returns. I love Marvel movies and read comics myself, but I know enough real-world knowledge to place them into the realm of "sheer awesome/entertaining nonsense." A world full of people who lack the pieces of their high-school education to do just that is kinda a scary place.

The "geeks" have taken over the world, but huge swathes of them are now effectively the "Idiocracy" with different cultural trappings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Dude sounds like he's stuck in his own head.

<comment><USER28> He seems lucid enough.

His points about rape are on mark. It seems to tie in into general pattern of squeamishness when it comes to sex.

His point about superheroes being detractors from reality is an interesting one. Not sure if it's as bad as he claims, but it makes sense.</comment></comment>


What do You think is the Future of Computing Technology? - <AUTHOR> http://linuxhive.blogspot.com/2012/06/future-of-computing-technology.html Experts have been telling us about how we'll soon 'approach the limits of' silicon's 'usefulness in computing' for years. Where are we now, and what do YOU think is "The Future of Computing Technology"? <comment><USER2> The future of computing is in computers that aren't autistic pedantic literalists when it comes to computing.

Day in and day out, I have to write in a special, blitheringly patronizing language to this machine in order to get it to do anything I want it to do.

Technology is finally reaching the point where we don't have to care so much about our cycles. I would gladly give up 50% efficiency if it meant I could talk shop with my computer in a meaningful way.</comment>


AMD Reveals Threadripper 2: Up to 32 Cores, 250W, X399 Refresh - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/show/12906/amd-reveals-threadripper-2-up-to-32-cores-250w-x399-refresh <comment><USER2> Just put together a first gen Threadripper build for work a few months ago where out-of-the-box ECC support was too good to pass up for a box with >= 64GiB DRAM. If it's possible to do a drop-in upgrade (cooling solution not withstanding) then this will be a big deal as we have basically not seen backwards compatibility, especially with such a compelling upgrade, in this part of the market in over a decade from Intel.

But 16 to 32 cores is a leap (250W TDP!!!!!), so I wonder what cooling solutions will remain viable (e.g., what about the TR4 edition Noctua cooler made just for TR?)

<comment><USER3> Cooling Threadripper has been my issue with adopting it as well. The only pre- assembled cooler I've seen is an Enermax AIO block. Otherwise, you have to loop it on your own.

<comment><USER2> Do you mean for liquid-cooled solutions only? We've been using this Noctua U14S TR4-SP3 ([https://noctua.at/en/nh-u14s-tr4-sp3](https://noctua.at/en/nh-u14s-tr4-sp3)) on a 1950X (no overclock though) without issues.

<comment><USER4> Oh man, I love that fan. But I misread the height specs on it and I couldn't fit everything into my case any longer, but my old fan had died. I Ordered a replacement on amazon and the sent out the wrong item twice, so for about 3 weeks I just ran it open and yelled at the cats if they came in my office. Amazon finally gave up on trying to send the right case, and just told me to by it somewhere else, and eventually gave me a refund. I wanted to not take any chances, and the cats were getting terrified of me, so I ordered a ThermalTake core X9. The thing is insane. You could reasonably fit two motherboards and 8 hard drives in it. Don't try to fit it on a desk. It could almost be a desk. But it is all worth it because I love that fan so much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What does this mean compared to say a 2011 i7?

I'm frankly amazed my first post-college desktop is soldiering on as a high- end gaming system with gpu, ssd and dram updates

<comment><USER6> Generally speaking gaming is single thread intensive on the CPU side, and all parallel task are offloaded to the GPU.

This is really more of a workstation or server cpu than a gaming cpu.

Edit: Tons of comments are pointing out exceptions. I was hoping to cover that with "generally speaking".

<comment><USER7> Game studios are already taking advantage of all the cores they can get.

This guys go all the way up to 6 hardware ones, depending on availability.

[https://youtu.be/ptakmFGcIRU](https://youtu.be/ptakmFGcIRU)

<comment><USER8> Fun fact: A friend has a first-gen Ryzen with 8 cores (16 hyperthreads), and wondered why Civilization V was always crashing on his system. Turns out that Civ V runs into weird race conditions with that many threads. When he pinned the game to 8 or less hyperthreads, it started working properly.

<comment><USER9> Writing code on top of legacy single threaded frameworks / content interfaces, under an insane holiday release deadline, while trying to enable multithreading... is pretty much my definition of hell.

I feel bad for the poor programmers who got that job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was just telling myself today that I wasn't going to build a new desktop for a while. Now I'm thinking current desktop might become the new VM server and I get a new gaming/dev box!

<comment><USER11> I would not count on this being great for gaming. Already the current threadripper is slower in games than a regular Ryzen processor or Intel i5/i7, slower base and turbo clock and added memory latency won't help with that.

<comment><USER12> Is it actually slower or is it just the good old Intel compiler at work again? Binaries compiled with it have great performance on Intel chips, but perform a vendor id check and slow down on non Intel chips. As long as Intel CPUs remain dominant game developers will continue to use it.

<comment><USER11> It really is slower. In games it is slower than AMD Ryzen processors, no compiler manipulation here. It is also to be expected with a lower clock and higher memory latency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Kinda excited and can't wait for more details. Key detail from anandtech article:

"Threadripper this is still the case: the two now 'active' parts of the chip do not have direct memory access. This technically adds latency to the platform, however AMD is of the impression that for all but the most memory bound tasks, this should not be an issue"

<comment><USER13> Sounds pretty much exactly like an Epyc, but with half the memory channels disabled.

Seems kinda silly unless it's pretty cheap. After all the 7351P is $750, guarantees ECC, and has twice the memory bandwidth of the threadripper.

<comment><USER14> 7351P is the 16-core Epyc part. The comparable Epyc part is the 32-core 7551P, at $2317 (Newegg).

There is definitely differentiation between the server line of chips and the TR "HEDT" chips, other than the crippled memory channels.

The TR4 socket sacrifices half of the SP3 memory channels to use for more power.

As a result, TR models come with (much) higher stock clocks: 3.0 GHz base -> 3.4 GHz all-core turbo vs Epyc 7551P 2.0 GHz base -> 2.55 GHz all core.

So all in all, TR may be better for your workflow than Epyc even at the same core count and price (if clock matters more to you than memory bandwidth). And keep in mind, server boards aren't free.

<comment><USER13> Not sure I get the value. Unless you like motherboards with LEDs hot glued everywhere.

To compare: Epyc 7351P, 2.9GHz, 16 core, 32 threads, 8 memory channels = $799 TR 1920X, 3.5GHz, 12 core, 24 threads, 4 memory channel = $761 TR 1950X, 3.4GHz, 16 core, 32 threads, 4 memory channel = $959

Sure the 1950X is 17% faster clocked, but with half the mem bandwidth and half the mem channels (half the performance for random lookups).

So generally the 1950X will be 17% faster with no cache misses, and 50% as fast with all cache misses.

Motherboard prices are pretty close, the Epyc, Dual GigE, 3x PCI-e x16, etc = $369. I found some TR boards cheaper, but not with ECC or 3x PCI-e x16.

Sure the future thread ripper 2 will be faster... but so will the Epyc 2. Not sure I see the point in the TR.

<comment><USER14> > Not sure I get the value. Unless you like motherboards with LEDs hot glued > everywhere.

Clock and single core performance absolutely matters to some customers. This is part of why Intel can continue to dominate the home and server market despite selling lower core count chips — they are clocked a little higher and have a little higher IPC.

(Also, I totally agree about the silly LEDs, but I also think board manufacturers wouldn't do it unless it produced a return, i.e., added value on average.)

> To compare: Epyc 7351P, 2.9GHz, 16 core, 32 threads, 8 memory channels = > $799

> TR 1950X, 3.4GHz, 16 core, 32 threads, 4 memory channel = $959

7351P @2.9 GHz is the boost clock — base is 2.4.

1950x @3.4 is the _base_ clock — boost is 4.0, on up to 4 cores (not all-core like the 7351P part).

> So generally the 1950X will be 17% faster with no cache misses, and 50% as > fast with all cache misses.

Your 17% number is sort of wrong, or missing the point — yes, that's the clock difference for all-core workloads, but TR boost kicks in at 1-4 thread workloads.

4.0/2.9 is huge. That's 38% additional CPU on (very common) 1-4 thread workflows. That's worth a premium to some people.

The obvious question you might then ask me is, if your workflow is only 1-4 threads, why buy a 16 core CPU? Well, sometimes people have workflows that vary over time. Maybe some of the time you only need a few cores to manage interrupt traffic and keep the GPUs fed, and maybe other times you do want all of the cores to complete a parallelizable, CPU-bound task like compilation or h.265 compression faster.

If your workload is exclusively embarassingly parallel and you can keep all cores busy all the time, yes, a server platform like Epyc 7351P is a much better value for you than TR. Or if your workflow needs more than 80 GiB/s (TR1) or 95 GiB/s (TR2) memory throughput, a server platform like Epyc is probably a better value for you.

> Sure the future thread ripper 2 will be faster... but so will the Epyc 2. > Not sure I see the point in the TR.

Epyc 2 will almost certainly not be clocked higher than TR2, due to the additional power draw the TR socket has vs SP3 — though, the gap may shrink.

<comment><USER15> I keep my TR (1950X) running at 4.0ghz 24/7...runs like a champ.

<comment><USER14> Neat. Just curious, if you don't mind — is it overvolted, and if so, by how much? And what's your cooling solution and how well does it do (offset from ambient)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice I guess, but I wish we could get back to working on getting FASTER cores rather than more of them. Some tasks just don't multi-thread.

<comment><USER13> The laws of physics are intruding. Clock rate doubling without prohibitive cost, power, and heat have gone. At 3 GHz electrons don't go very far in 1/3rd of a NS. Chips are getting physically bigger (look at the Epyc). Easy increases in IPC are gone. There's an embarrassing number of transistors available, but few uses for them actually increase performance on things consumers care about.

Even GPUs are starting to peter out with lengthening product cycles, smaller improvements, and the increasing tendency to just rename the previous generation with a new name, as if it was actually significantly improved.

So CPUs have peaked, most of the low hanging fruit has already been taken. Most easily shown by pretty much all the popular CPUs from the previous generation maxed out at 95 watts or so (desktop or server), but are at 180 watts in the current generation. This happened years ago for desktops, but is hitting laptops (last year), and smart phones (this year or so).

GPUs are about half way there, improvements are harder. No more annual updates with 2x the performance on most common use cases. Feature improvements are getting more obscure, gaming sites are using 16x zoom to show the improvements. GTX1170 is rumored to be 50% faster than the GTX1070... from 2 years ago.

Specific use ASICs for mining, AI, and similarly narrow use cases are still early in their development. Multiple vendors are showing 2x improvements with each generation, even crazy things like including said chips in consumer devices with tiny power budgets.

So basically a core twice as fast isn't happening, it's not because anyone is lazy. There's tons of room for improvement in specific use cases where today's silicon is crazy inefficient. Things like machine learning, software device radios, vision specific processing, and related are seeing rapid improvements.

<comment><USER17> I think it is not happening because it doesn't have to. Current CPUs are more than fine for home user and HEDT market is too small to excuse huge spending for research. I think once electron apps will become more popular home users will get power hungry again and that will kick off another cpu revolution.

<comment><USER18> It's not happening because it's hard to do. Extracting instruction level parallelism is difficult(which is how CPUs gain IPC) and then also the cores have to be wider with exponential complexity. ie. At the point you have to sacrifice 50% of CPU's power efficiency for 5% IPC gain, it's no longer worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Are individual cores in this thing something nearly as powerful as in conventional quad-core desktop/server CPUs?

Also can it sleep/downclock individual cores to cool down when its full power is not needed?

<comment><USER20> Yes. Threadripper is essentially just four well-binned Ryzen 7s tied together with a creative interconnect. The memory bandwidth doesn't increase as proportionally as the core count, but each individual core should operate just as fast as in a typical desktop part.

Edit: To answer the second part of the parent question, since the dies are the same, it should have all the same power-saving features available in AMD's laptop and desktop processors.

<comment><USER13> Epyc is 4 ryzen 7's. The threadripper (at least the ones shipping today) are two Ryzen 7s.

The memory bandwidth does increase proportionally (it's 2x ryzen for threadripper and 4x ryzen for eypc).

Individual cores do tend to be lower on the threadripper and epyc because of power/heat limitations, so they tend to be lower clocked and tend to have less cache per core.

<comment><USER20> According to the linked article, Threadripper 2 uses the equivalent of 4 Ryzen 7s, however they disable the memory busses on two of them which yields only a 2x increase in memory bandwidth. You're correct that Threadripper tends to clock slightly lower, but the cache is on-die so it shouldn't be any different per-core than in a typical Ryzen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was hoping they would put a GPU and HBM2 in place of those non-functional die. Like their old EHP concept that never saw the light of day. With enough HBM you wouldn't even need regular RAM modules and could fit a monster system on an ITX board.

<comment><USER22> (1) the TR4 socket is too big for mITX, even the "hold my beer" team over at Asrock only could stuff it into mATX.

(2) TR4 mobile don't have video outputs, so a GPU would only be useful for compute.

If you can't fit a discrete GPU the Hades Canyon NUC is still the best you can do, although AMD is readying their own competitor called "Fenghuang" with a bigger+newer GPU - 28 CU Vega vs the 24 CU Polaris on the Intel (yes, despite Vega branding it's actually based on Polaris).

<comment><USER21> It would fit if the GPU and RAM were both in the module. No GFX or RAM slots needed on the board.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Problem is windows support for this many cores is still a problem. On a Linux server, sure we've been using multi-socket motherboards w/ high core count CPUs for years. But many applications (eg; Microsoft Edge) still crash w/ 16 cores.

<comment><USER17> I have Intel's 20 core CPU and never had problems.

<comment><USER24> My guess is it's a timing bug that likely exists with any number of cores, but becomes more likely the higher the parallelism.

<comment><USER25> My guess is it's something else entirely specific to that system.

Really weird to just single out many cores as the cause. It is also just one application that barely has anything to do with windows anyway. There has never been a lack of multiple-cpus nor many-cores (and 16 isn't even many) on windows as the post implies either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Intel leads in AVX/AVX2/AVX512 perf by a large factor over Ryzen CPUs. (A software that makes that manifest is Prime95 (Mersenne primality tester)). Looks like AMD did have to cut something after all.

<comment><USER13> Indeed, but the problem is that often AVX intensive code triggers intel to significantly throttle, or run out of bandwidth from cache or main memory.

A surprisingly number of codes don't seem to benefit from the AVX performance. Most notably even on the most FP intensive code don't seem to benefit much from the higher end xeons (with two AVX512 units) over the lower models with a single AVX512 unit.

So sure if you compute mercenne primes all day go for it. If you are actually doing some real world work that's vector intensive you are often better off with AMD (per $.)

Keep in mind that today's chips have more performance per memory bandwidth then previous generations. So generally memory is a bigger bottleneck and AMD's 1.33x advantage in bandwidth/memory channels is an advantage on a wider variety of codes than the previous generation.

<comment><USER22> > Indeed, but the problem is that often AVX intensive code triggers intel to > significantly throttle

Xeon-W, HEDT, and consumer processors suffer this to a much smaller extent than Skylake-SP does, and this slowdown is already baked into the benchmarks (the deviation from benchmarks only really exists for _mixed_ workloads). In most cases, AVX is still a huge speedup.

Also, on consumer+HEDT you can manually configure the AVX offset anyway. Want zero offset, and can handle the power/heat? Go hog wild...

> Most notably even on the most FP intensive code don't seem to benefit much > from the higher end xeons (with two AVX512 units) over the lower models with > a single AVX512 unit.

Intel's documentation on some of the HEDT chips was incorrect, the i7s actually have dual AVX512 as well as the i9s. If you were referring to HEDT as "Xeons" that would be why. Otherwise, it might be another documentation issue. The difference should be very clear in something like x265 encoding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 2/4 CCX's lack direct memory access. This is kind of a deal breaker. Threadripper is already memory bound, so the 2 new packages will just be waiting on RAM most the time.

Cite: [http://en.community.dell.com/cfs-file/__key/telligent- evolut...](http://en.community.dell.com/cfs-file/__key/telligent-evolution- components-attachments/13-4491-00-00-20-44-47-63/Direct-from- Development-_2D00_-PowerEdge-NUMA-Configs-with-AMD-EPYC- Processors.pdf?forcedownload=true)

It would be nice if L3 wasn't an eviction cache :/

<comment><USER14> > Threadripper is already memory bound

This depends heavily on your workflow. If you find TR memory bound, then you want a server part. TR has 4 memory controllers that will each do DDR4-3200 in TR2 per TFA. That should be able to push ~95 GiB/s.

What do you compare that against?

Intel's highest end HEDT part, i9 7980XE with 18 cores, only supports DDR4-2666 and has the same number of controllers, so it should hit ~80 GiB/s. It retails for $2000.

If you want more memory bandwidth you're either buying an even more expensive Xeon, or an AMD Epyc part.

<comment><USER27> >This depends heavily on your workflow. If you find TR memory bound, then you want a server part. TR has 4 memory controllers that will each do DDR4-3200 in TR2 per TFA. That should be able to push ~95 GiB/s.

Wrong. You neither read the OP or my citation. Eypc can push 95GiB/s with its 8 channels. TR2 isn't increasing the number of channels, so 2 CCX's (8 cores, 16hyper threads) don't have direct memory access. They have to work with in the inter-chip CCX bus to get memory access. This is going to carry a lot of performance penalties.

<comment><USER14> > Wrong.

What? Are you seriously claiming that a workflow that only uses 4 GiB/s of memory throughput is somehow memory bound on a controller that can push 95 GiB/s? Workflow matters and affects reasonable CPU choice.

> You neither read the OP or my citation. Eypc can push 95GiB/s with its 8 > channels.

Um, also not true. Your link does not include any memory throughput figures supporting your contention that TR is "memory bound." I believe you are totally mistaken about the 95 GiB/s figure for Epyc; see below:

TR, quad channel: [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/ryzen_threadripper/1950x#Me...](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/ryzen_threadripper/1950x#Memory_controller)

Epyc, octa channel: [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/epyc/7551p#Memory_controlle...](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/epyc/7551p#Memory_controller)

Epyc can push 159 GiB/s with DDR4-2666. Per socket:

> In a dual-socket configuration, the maximum supported memory doubles to 4 > TiB along with the maximum theoretical bandwidth of 317.9 GiB/s.

You said:

> TR2 isn't increasing the number of channels, so 2 CCX's (8 cores, 16hyper > threads) don't have direct memory access.

Understood. I have never said otherwise.

> This is going to carry a lot of performance penalties.

The extra cores will have higher NUMA latency than the memory-local cores, yes. But it does not somehow decrease the total memory bandwidth available across the CPU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Are there any reason, why you don't want to use Threadripper for Server?

Quad Memory Channel + 32 Core + NVMe Sounds perfect to me for Sever. And it should be priced similar to the Xeon-D 16 Core.

<comment><USER13> No guarantee on ECC, half the cores and half the memory bandwidth of epyc.

<comment><USER28> TR Supports ECC, and many has it running. Of coz if you need the memory bandwidth EPYC is best fit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Sexy, but for home use I don't need a space heater, on the contrary. What's the fastest (multiple core) you can get these days inside 65 W and who wins there, AMD or Intel?

<comment><USER30> Pretty sure it is AMD with Ryzen 7 1700 or Ryzen 7 2700 both rated at 65W TDP

<comment><USER31> I have a Ryzen 1700 at home, and I am very happy with it. The fan that came with it runs very quietly even under heavy load. On workloads that utilize all cores, frequency will drop to 2-2.5 GHz after a while, but for those, the number of cores/threads tends to have a bigger impact on throughput than clock frequency / performance per core.

<comment><USER29> Aww thanks - for some reason I had forgotten there are Ryzen 7s at 65 W and was only looking at the 5s...

<comment><USER31> I was very happy to discover the 1700 back then, because I wanted an 8-core machine _really_ badly (not that I really need one, but hey, I only upgrade my desktop every ~5 years), but I did not want an electric radiator. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Oh lovely competition. How I adore you.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wish I can get threadripper on an mini-ITX motherboard

<comment><USER34> Have you seen a Threadripper socket? They're freakishly huge (78mm X 105mm). That's a huge chunk of a mini-ITX board (170mm X 170mm) all by itself. There's no way.

<comment><USER14> And even with an ordinary socket, mITX boards have anemic amounts of PCIe lanes. One of the top selling points of TR is the huge number of PCIe lanes for a non-server part. All ATX boards around launch were required to support the full complement of physical lanes. A mITX configuration would have both anemic PCIe and anemic memory.

<comment><USER33> On the other hand, I think TR can work without chipset. Am I right?

Would 4 DIMM slots should be enough to saturate all controllers?

<comment><USER14> Yeah, 4 DIMMs should be sufficient[0], and I guess some mini-ITX boards have 4 slots (e.g., ASRock X299E-ITX/ac).

I don't know about TR working without a chipset. This picture[1] suggests the X399 part isn't absolutely essential, but I don't know if there are other considerations that make it essential.

Anandtech says[2]:

> Unlike Ryzen, the base processor is not a true SoC as the term has evolved > over the years. In order to get the compliment of SATA and USB ports, each > Threadripper CPU needs to be paired with an X399 chipset. So aside from the > CPU PCIe lanes, the 'new' X399 chipset also gets some IO to play with.

So, maybe? If you are willing to forgo all the chipset-attached IO, and most PCIe lanes. That could be useful for a niche workflow or maybe a small form- factor desktop workstation that just needs CPU compute.

[0]: [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/ryzen_threadripper/1950x](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/ryzen_threadripper/1950x)

[1]: [https://en.wikichip.org/w/images/6/61/x399_platform.png](https://en.wikichip.org/w/images/6/61/x399_platform.png)

[2]: [https://www.anandtech.com/show/11685/amd- threadripper-x399-m...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/11685/amd- threadripper-x399-motherboards)

<comment><USER33> Thank you for full and informative reply!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This looks like a fun CPU for running Redis on.

At one instance per core, this ..... ok, I'm getting carried away, aren't I ?

</comment><comment><USER36> Could an admin please fix the title?

</comment><comment> dis-sys AMD will have a kill on the market if they can price this 32 core chip around $1999.

<comment><USER37> The top end Threadripper 1 16c/32t was priced at $1k. I don't think this is going to be much more than that. $1499 max is my guess. (Disclaimer: I own AMD stock so I am optimistic)

<comment><USER38> That sounds right to me. At the beginning of the year I found a TR 9150 + a nice motherboard bundled together at a local shop out the door for around $900 before rebates. I'd be a little surprised if this part came in at more than $1500, and not at all surprised to see it available for around $1200 within a couple months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Somebody told me that cpu prices are like flight prices and your best bet is to buy a bit old.

What is the best time to buy a CPU? After how many months does the biggest drop occur?

<comment><USER40> If you are shopping for a bit of a CPU than newer models, make sure that the motherboard that fits your requirements is also available. Motherboards tend to get more expensive 2nd hand once they stop being manufactured, as opposed to CPUs.

<comment><USER39> I will keep this in mind, good info, thanks</comment></comment></comment>


Three words we are all afraid to say, but will make our work better - <AUTHOR> https://antonsten.com/better-uxdesigner/ <comment><USER2> ""I don't know, it depends" is what makes you a professional."

I would say a professional can say "I don't know" but he knows what to do and the process to answer his problem.</comment>


MSDN Magazine will publish its last issue, ending a Microsoft developer era - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/08/microsofts-msdn-magazine-for-developers-will-end-its-decades-long-run/ <comment><USER2> They are nice to see some new things MSFT is doing, but literally 50% ads, including a glued on fake cover ad.</comment>


Google deletes millions of negative TikTok reviews - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52808177 <comment><USER2> To be clear, they had a good reason for removing the reviews.

> The video-sharing platform was inundated with one-star reviews after an > Indian creator posted a spoof video of an acid attack.

> But Google intervened after it determined that critics had set up fake > accounts to amplify their protests.

> After TikTok became embroiled in the backlash, Google removed more than 5 > million of its recent one-star reviews but left many others active.

> "When we learn of incidents of spam abuse, we review and take corrective > action to remove inappropriate ratings and comments," he added.

<comment><USER3> As an example of the sort of manipulation that appears to be going on, there's currently a one-star review with over 25,000 thumbs-ups pinned to the app store page with the text:

> Tiktok is a bad app. I have become nervous, never sleep on the video. Hi, > how hard can I work together but never even 100 out of 50, I am installing > Tiktok if you have the answer to this thing. Fix as soon as possible. We are > not crazy who make videos. I have made 600 videos on this, but till today, > not a single viral video has been made or their videos are also going viral. > I'm not installing Tic Tok so I don't

This is clearly not a human-written review -- it jumps between ideas at random and breaks off in the middle of a sentence. It was almost certainly generated based on segments of other negative reviews.

Nor is the number of votes on the review normal. It's remarkable for a single recent review, even on a popular app like TikTok, to have even one thousand thumbs-ups. (Compare the reviews on the Facebook app, for instance.) 25,000 is absurd.

<comment><USER4> > This is clearly not a human-written review

It could be a real review. I've seen far worse text from prominent engineers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23305064](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23305064)

<comment><USER5> Details of the story from anonymous "insider": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23306781](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23306781)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Rating is back to 4.7 at this moment

<comment><USER3> 2.9 here. I suspect the (probably fake) 1-star ratings are still pouring in.</comment></comment>


How to turn small talk into smart conversation - <AUTHOR> http://ideas.ted.com/how-to-turn-small-talk-into-smart-conversation/ <comment><USER2> Wow a lot of those are personal to the point of creepy. Keep it neutral; that's why small talk is there - its not personal.</comment>