If you’re from a starving country and have been told all your life that everywhere else is worse, a war zone without famine is bloody impressive.

You also need that stuff to shut up pseudo-sceptics. Like, random example, posture having an influence on mood, there were actually psychologists denying that, reason for that kind of attitude is usually either a) If there’s no study on some effect then it doesn’t exist, “literature realism” or b) some now-debunked theory of the past implied it, “incorrectness by association”. Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t mean that you should discount catholic opinions on beer brewing, they produce some good shit. And just because the alchemists talked about transmutation and the chemists made fun of it to distance themselves from their own history doesn’t mean that some nuclear physicist wasn’t about to rain on their parade, yes, you can turn lead into gold.

Nah. We actually have camps now, not bilateral agreements which form a chain that can actually cascade.

I’ve previously said that the conflict is a proxy war between NK and SK, with Russia being NK’s proxy, just to trigger vatniks. I feel vindicated.

Britain which is a much wealthier country

Eh. They joined back in the days with a completely shot economy. WWII, then the loss of the colonies, all that coal+steel industry failing on the world market and getting further gutted by Thatcher, etc. Then they joined, and their economic situation improved. Then they left, and it has reverted to its shot state.

What Portugal has less off is absurdly rich people, but don’t think for a second that the median Portuguese is worse off than the median Brit: London is a financial hub surrounded by a third-world country and it wasn’t really that different when they were still in the EU: It was EU structural funds which kept the British periphery somewhat afloat.

Thinking of it, that was probably the reason the nobs wanted to leave: Looking at the balance sheets they didn’t see “oh we’re paying in, and we’re getting stuff out”, they saw “oh, we’re paying in, and the plebs are getting stuff out”. Can’t have that.

They can’t really take them back they’ve seen the outside world.

With Deutsche Telekom, never attribute to incompetence that which can be attributed to greed.

Newsflash: T-Mobile is a big provider. They took some standard European practices, also technology, and then pretended to be a small scrappy startup in the US until they had enough of a customer base to return to their usual monopolistic ways.

The only thing that keeps them half-way in check over here is forced unbundling: If you have network infrastructure you need to let other providers use it, at regulated prices. Which is really necessary as they inherited every single landline in the country from the old state monopoly.

Be glad that the postal service got broken up into telecoms, postal/parcel and banking before getting privatised if it hadn’t it would be an absolute scourge on the world. Imagine them cross-financing such market takeovers with the additional resources from the largest logistics company in the world (DHL). Banking sector is less impressive right now Deutsche Bank doesn’t know what to do with it. I have no idea why they even bother, they don’t care about end-consumer banking there’s no money in that.

Great! Now please explain how opcodes are expressions. Also, what processor instruction a cast from one pointer type to another pointer type corresponds to.

You are way out of your depth here. Have you even implemented a compiler.

EDIT:

You don’t even have a clue, you are just talking trash.

In assembly you don’t generally talk about pointers, but address modes. Like register, immediate or memory (indirect).

Have you ever actually been programming any serious assembly? Because you sure don’t sound like it.

Oh cute edit to make to make my response look bad retroactively.

But as you wanted to get pedantic: A pointer is a value which is intended to be dereferenced, that (hopefully) corresponds to a valid memory address. “address”, “pointer”, “reference”, it’s a matter of taste which one you use. It exists “in assembly” just as “an index” exists in C: Not because it’s a language feature, but because it’s a concept you use when writing in the language. And yes I speak pretty fluent x86, at least the non-SIMD part. Did I mention that I was there, at ground zero “why is is thing not compiling in 64 bit mode” times, fixing code?

Now, back to my question:

what processor instruction does a cast from one pointer type to another pointer type corresponds to.

Figuring out the answer to that will tell you everything you need to know about where you went wrong. Where you went from talking about actual concepts to arguing semantics.

I’m sorry are we somehow assuming floating-point pointers, now, of course you need to convert there. “casting” is a specific thing you do in C which may or may not involve conversion of actual data. Processors don’t speak C. Processors don’t have a type system.

You can use 32-bit pointers in x86_64 long mode, no issue. You don’t even need to bit-fiddle: mov rax, [esi] is perfectly legal. Opcode 0x67488B06. Dereferencing rsi would be 0x488B06.

pre-special edition Star Wars movies

The despecialised editions are the real director’s cut fite me IRL.

…on film that easily costs a buck per frame nowadays, Kodak actually raised prices last year because they can’t keep up with demand. And that’s not including developing it and making prints.

Don’t get me wrong, analogue film is a great medium and the SRGB conversion you posted doesn’t even begin to do it justice. But “it’s cheaper” is in no way an argument for it.

Movies on analogue film are also a nice idea, a nice print of a nice movie for a reel-to-reel projector which are easy to build (use a white LED, please, no need even for electronics but power electronics but make it a LED) can have great quality and definitely do cinema history justice, but… VHS? Utterly atrocious quality. VHS had shoddy quality when it was new (much lower than broadcast) and it didn’t get a single bit better.

It’s Chutzpah turned up to 11 and the government never, ever, lets an opportunity slide.

…“that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan”..

1/2 pound (225 g)

What kind of insanity is this a pound is 500g.

2 cups (390 g) rice

Your cups weigh 195g a piece? Reasonable for stoneware, I guess. But why are you telling me and what does it have to do with the mass of rice?

The German standard is to write out everything up to 12 and as English also doesn’t say one-teen and two-teen that’s how I always did it. (why not tenty-one btw? be consistent your numbers are all weird)

That the CPU should be called by a single aspect they can’t actually handle!!! That’s moronic.

People literally use the word “literally” to mean figuratively. It doesn’t make any sense. One might even call it moronic.

But it’s the way it’s done. Deal with it.

1. The whole article overall lacks sources.
2. That section is completely unsourced.
3. It doesn’t say what you think it says.

You were arguing the definition of “X-bit CPU”. We’re not talking about “X-bit ALU”. It’s also not up to contention that “A 64-bit integer is 64 bit wide”. So, to the statement:

Also, 64-bit central processing units (CPU) and arithmetic logic units (ALU) are those that are based on processor registers, address buses, or data buses of that size.

This does not say which of “processor register, address buses, or data buses” applies to CPU and which to ALU.

Obviously 64 bits means registers are 64 bit, the addresses are therefore also 64 bit,

Having 64 bit registers doesn’t necessitate that you have 64 bit addresses. It’s common, incredibly common, for the integer registers to match the pointer width but there’s no hard requirement in theory or practice. It’s about as arbitrary a rule as “Instruction length must be wider than the register size”, so that immediate constants fit into the instruction stream, makes sense doesn’t it… and then along come RISC architectures and split load immediate instructions into two.

otherwise it would require type casting every time you need to make calculations on them

Processors don’t typecast. Please stop talking.

As I stated it’s MORE complex today, not less, as the downvoters of my posts seem to refuse to acknowledge.

The reason you’re getting downvoted is because you’re saying that “64-bit CPU” means something different than is universally acknowledged that it means. It means pointer width.

Yes, other numbers are important. Yes, other numbers can be listed in places. No, it’s not what people mean when they say “X-bit CPU”.

claiming that new CPU architectures haven’t increased in bit width for 30 years is simply naive and false, because they have in many more significant ways than the base instruction set.

RV128 exists. It refers to pointer width. Crays existed, by your account they were gazillion-bit machines because they had quite chunky vector lengths. Your Ryzen does not have a larger “databus” than a Cray1 which had 4096 bit (you read that right) vector registers. They were never called 4096 bit machines, they Cray1 has a 64-bit architecture because that’s the pointer width.

Yes, the terminology differs when it comes to 8 vs. 16-bit microcontrollers. But just because data bus is that important there (and 8-bit pointers don’t make any practical sense) doesn’t mean that anyone is calling a Cray a 4096 bit architecture. You might call them 4096 bit vector machines, and you’re free to call anything with AVX2 a 256-bit SIMD machine (though you might actually be looking at 2x 128-bit ALUs), but neither makes them 64-bit architectures. Why? Because language is meant for communication and you don’t get to have your own private definition of terms: Unless otherwise specified, the number stated is the number of bits in a pointer.

People who don’t understand bees and think that the queen is ruling the hive – if the queen can’t swarm then they’re going to dispose of her and raise a new one. All you’re doing is weakening the hive without actually preventing it from swarming. You might even kill it off.

You let them swarm, you let them get their rocks on, and you also have a nice property ready for them to settle back into.

The Intel 80386DX did NOT have any 80 bit instructions at all, the built in math co-processor came with i486.

You’re right, I misremembered.

And in that regard, the Databus is a very significant part, that directly influence the speed and number of clocks of almost everything the CPU does.

For those old processors, yes, that’s why the 6502 was 8-bit, for modern processors, though? You don’t even see it listed on spec sheets. Instead, for the external stuff, you see number of memory controllers and PCIe lanes, while everything internal gets mushed up in IPC. “It’s wide enough to not stall the pipeline what more do you want” kind of attitude.

Go look at anything post-2000: 64 bit means that pointers take up 64 bits. 32 bits means that pointers take up 32 bits. 8-bit and 16-bit are completely relegated to microcontrollers, I think keeping the data bus terminology, and soonish they’re going to be gone because everything at that scale will be RISC-V, where “RV32I” means… pointers. So does “RV64I” and “RV128I”. RV16E was proposed as an April Fool’s joke and it’s not completely out of the question that it’ll happen. In any case there won’t be RV8 because CPUs with an 8-bit address bus are pointlessly small, and “the number refers to pointer width” is the terminology of <currentyear>. An RV16 CPU might have a 16 bit data bus, it might have an 8 bit data bus, heck it might have a 256bit data bus because it’s actually a DSP and has vector instructions. Sounds like a rare beast but not entirely nonsensical.