I know I know the US totally compares well in terms of police violence and prisoners per capita. To North Korea. It also compares well in terms of gang violence – to Haiti or Mexico.

Meanwhile, Germans consider it a national embarrassment that the Swiss and Japanese have better train systems. All a matter of perspective.

We get like that around Americans, trying to teach you how to complain about your own country. For some reason, you’re not receptive to that kindness.

the germanic honor-culture has survived here and we value doing the right/honorable thing more than anything else.

If you were the Swedish kind of neutral I’d accept that, but you’re the Swiss kind of neutral. You may have stopped selling weapons to both sides of a conflict, you may have even stopped providing offshore accounts for both sides of the conflict, but the overall attitude of “eh it’s not in Switzerland it doesn’t matter” is still around. Heck, you still harbour Nestle. At least you had the sense to go after Steinmetz, though.

They have to be hotter than the temperature of the Sun

Well they don’t strictly speaking have to but to get fusion you need a combination of pressure and temperature and increasing temperature is way easier than increasing pressure if you don’t happen to have the gravity of the sun to help you out. Compressing things with magnetic fields isn’t exactly easy.

Efficiency in a fusion reactor would be how much of the fusion energy is captured, then how much of it you need to keep the fusion going, everything from plasma heating to cooling down the coils. Fuel costs are very small in comparison to everything else so being a bit wasteful isn’t actually that bad if it doesn’t make the reactor otherwise more expensive.

What’s much more important is to be economical: All the currently-existing reactors are research reactors, they don’t care about operating costs, what the Max Planck people are currently figuring out is exactly that kind of stuff, “do we use a cheap material for the diverters and exchange them regularly, or do we use something fancy and service the reactor less often”: That’s an economical question, one that makes the reactor cheaper to operate so the overall price per kWh is lower. They’re planning on having the first commercial prototype up and running in the early 2030s. If they can achieve per kWh fuel and operating costs lower than gas they’ve won, even though levelised costs (that is, including construction of the plant amortised over time) will definitely still need lowering. Can’t exactly buy superconducting coils off the shelf right now, least of all in those odd shapes that stellerators use.

The ISA does include sse2 though which is 128 bit, already more than the pointer width. They also doubled the number of xmm registers compared to 32-bit sse2.

Back in the days using those instructions often gained you nothing as the CPUs didn’t come with enough APUs to actually do operations on the whole vector in parallel.

You said something about “choosing”. Cyprus never chose to have the base there, the British chose to keep some land for themselves when they gave Cyprus independence.

In certain areas it has practical know-how we don’t. CATL is a good example. Not just their sodium-ion batteries, but their production processes in general. We might be able to readily reproduce their battery chemistries in a lab but that’s not the same as having an industrial production process and the experience from ironing out all the kinks that feed back into basic research. With a joint venture, you can tap into that stuff.

If we had invested as heavily in the tech as they did we probably would be ahead right now but we didn’t so we aren’t. If they had invested as much into fusion as we did – oh wait they did. They’re behind, Max Planck is currently looking into the details of building a commercially viable reactor in the early 2030s, they’re confident to have the plasma physics down now it’s about stuff like “do we use a cheap material for the diverters and replace them often or do we develop/use something fancy”, that is, about actual operational costs.

graphics, video, neural-net acceleration.

All three are kinda at least half-covered by the vector instructions which absolutely and utterly kills any BLAS workload dead. 3d workloads use fancy indexing schemes for texture mapping that aren’t included, video I guess you’d want some special APU sauce for wavelets or whatever (don’t know the first thing about codecs), neural nets should run fine as they are provided you have a GPU-like memory architecture, the vector extension certainly has gather/scatter opcodes. Oh, you’d want reduced precision but that’s in the pipeline.

Especially with stuff like NNs though the microarch is going to matter a lot. Even if a say convolution kernel from one manufacturers uses instructions a chip from another manufacturer understands, it’s probably not going to perform at an optimal level.

VPUs AFAIU are usually architected like DSPs: A bunch of APUs stitched together with a VLIW insn encoder very much not intended to run code that is in any way general-purpose, because the only thing it’ll ever run is hand-written assembly, anyway. Can’t find the numbers right now but IIRC my rk3399 comes with a VPU that out-flops both the six arm cores and the Mali GPU, combined, but it’s also hopeless to use for anything that can’t be streamed linearly from and to memory.

Graphics is the by far most interesting one in my view. That is, it’s a lot general purpose stuff (for GPGPU values of “general purpose”) with only a couple of bits and pieces domain-specific.

Hooking up a BananaPi to a keyboard+monitor is going to be quite a bit cheaper, and unlike with the framework laptop you can’t re-use case, monitor, etc. with an upgraded board.

You can develop using it as an SBC, then put it into the laptop when you go to a conference to present your stuff. Or if you really want to code in the park it’s not like it’d be a microcontroller, it is fast enough to run an editor and compiler.

But granted it’s a hassle to switch out the mainboard. OTOH you can also use the x86 board as an SBC so when you’re at home it doesn’t really matter which board happens to be inside.

I guess from framework’s POV there’s not much of an argument, it’s less “do people want potato laptops” but “do we want to get our feet wet with RISC-V and the SBC market”. Nobody actually needs to use it in a laptop for the whole thing to make sense to them.

You don’t need a laptop to use a framework mainboard, they run without battery and display and everything. So if you have a Framework 13 or are in the market for one this might actually be a very nice thing, especially if the price is comparable to other boards.

ARM prominently has an instruction to deal with Javascript. And RISC-V will have those kinds of instructions, too, they’re too useful, saving a massive amount of instructions and cycles and the CPU itself doesn’t really need any logic added, the insn decoder just has to be taught a bit pattern and which microops to emit, the APUs already can do it.

What that instruction will never do in a RISC CPU though is read from memory.

On the flipside, some RISC-V macroops are CISC, fusing memory access and arithmetic. That’s an architecture detail, though, only affecting code to the degree of "if you want to do this stuff, and want it to run faster on some cores, put those instructions in this exact sequence so the core can spot and fuse them).

have variable width instructions,

compressed instruction set /= variable-width. x86 instructions are anything from one to a gazillion bytes, while RISC-V is four bytes or optionally (very commonly supported) two bytes. Much easier to handle.

vector instructions,

RISC-V is (as far as I’m aware) the first ISA since Cray to use vector instructions. Certainly the only one that actually made a splash. SIMD isn’t vector instructions, most crucially with vector insns the ISA doesn’t care about vector length on an opcode level. That’s like if you wrote MMX code back in the days and if you run the same code now on a modern CPU it’s using just as wide registers as SSE3.

But you’re right the old definitions are a bit wonky nowadays, I’d say the main differentiating factor nowadays is having a load/store architecture and disciplined instruction widths. Modern out-of-order CPUs with half a gazillion instructions of a single thread in flight at any time of course don’t really care about the load/store thing but both things simplify insn decoding to ludicrous degrees, saving die space and heat. For simpler cores it very much does matter, and “simpler core” here can also could mean barely superscalar, but with insane vector width, like one of 1024 GPU cores consisting mostly of APUs, no fancy branch prediction silicon, supporting enough hardware threads to hide latency and keep those APUs saturated. (Yes the RISC-V vector extension has opcodes for gather/scatter in case you’re wondering).

Then, last but not least: RISC-V absolutely deserves the name it has because the whole thing started out at Berkeley. RISC I and II were the originals, II is what all the other RISC architectures were inspired by, III was a Smalltalk machine, IV Lisp. Then a long time nothing, then lecturers noticed that teaching modern microarches with old or ad-hoc insn sets is not a good idea, x86 is out of the question because full of hysterical raisins, ARM is actually quite clean but ARM demands a lot, and I mean a lot of money for the right to implement their ISA in custom silicon, so they started rolling their own in 2010. Calling it RISC V was a no-brainer.

I can talk about how France, a white, French ethnostate, is mistreating Muslims without being a racist bigot

Oh boy with the French it doesn’t start with Muslims. It starts with the French, it goes back to at least 1500 with the 1900s being particularly nasty regarding language laws, their education policies eradicated a number of regional languages. And, crucially, they still haven’t reversed course. They got rid of the most damaging policies but still haven’t ratified the ECRML. As a European nation they’re supposed to protect minority and regional language against the onslaught of the Dachsprache.

Also French at least on paper is not a white ethnostate. It’s a French ethnostate. They don’t care about the colour of your skin as long as you carry baguettes under your arm, have an accent at least less grating than the Qubecois, your religion doesn’t matter as long as you’re hardcore secular, and you also need to choose a team in the butter vs. olive oil civil war.

Western Germany recognized the border between Poland - the Oder-Neisse line in 1970.

There was no final settlement until 1990. Because you cannot give up claims on territory you don’t actually control, the ROC is in a similar situation with Mongolia. In Germany’s case there’s the additional complication that until 1990, occupation statutes still applied.

This implied there was only one Germany, in area and population greater than just Western Germany.

No, it didn’t. First off, the preamble isn’t actually part of the constitution, secondly, it did not in any way or form claim rule or sovereignty over the Eastern states. “We’d like to re-absorb those territories” is a different thing than “those territories remain ours”.

Also, German public broadcast used the upper left map for weather reporting up until the 70s, when they switched to the one on the top right without any borders.

Until the early 60s, both sides claimed to be the successor state to the German Empire, the GDR dropped that claim with the construction of the wall. After literally a decade of discussion the West changed to the Neue Ostpolitik in the early 70s and recognised the GDR as a separate state in its territory but did not change its own self-conception as successor state of the Empire. With that it also stopped applying the Hallstein doctrine, stopped to consider other states recognising the GDR as sovereign to be a hostile act.

Then came the two-state period, then there was a revolution in the GDR and while we call it reunification, legally it was the absorption of federal states which happen to be on the territory of the now-former GDR into the constitutional framework of the FRG. Nothing special, happened before with Saarland. If you want to draw a parallel to China I guess you can make one: To the until 1960 situation, with the PRC saying “There’s going to be trouble, ROC, if you move to any other position, it’s the status quo or proper unification no alternative”.

Also, German public broadcast

…is not controlled by the government, least of all the federal government which is responsible, or at least co-responsible, for all foreign policy (but religion and culture because there the federal states are completely sovereign). It does reflect the political attitude back then: That the status quo borders were “arbitrary” and until there’s a better set, the old ones still somehow apply even if it doesn’t match the situation on the ground. The switch in 1970 was the broadcasters throwing their hands up in the air.

And you know what I think the map until 1970 is missing the border to Denmark if I’m not mistaken.

The one China policy is first and foremost about the principle that there is only one China. Hence the name: That the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are still locked in a civil war, that neither declared independence from the other. There is no “reuniting” because you cannot unite what is not split, they’re still one.

Which is a rather different situation from divided Germany: The East declared independence as a new state, and the West accepted it. The West still considered Eastern citizens who made their way across the border her own citizens, but there was no “you can’t have your own sovereign state” stuff going on, from either side. Upon reunification the East re-introduced its federal states, which then jointly but individually joined the West, leaving the East without territory and people which thus vanished in a puff of how international law defines the concept of a state.

The Mainland could pull an East Germany and declare independence at any time, Taipei would accept it. Some old-guard Kuomintang would gripe but they’d get over it. Taipei declaring independence makes no sense… independence from whom? Imperial China? They won that struggle before the PRC even existed. It’s the PRC which is rebel faction in the civil war, you don’t declare independence from rebels if then you grant them independence and, well, the rebels don’t want independence.

I mean China can’t really do anything about the autonomous mainland provinces steadfastly refusing to declare independence, even if you can find precedent of a sovereign state kicking out its provinces unilaterally it’d still be a dick move.

Nah phishing is a 90s term though probably coined in reference to phreaking. That started up in the 60s and by the 80s even the US had mostly switched to out of band signalling for their telephone system so none of the stuff worked any more.

I am aware of the limitations of my own perspective,

Then be aware of the average attitude of Palestinians towards stoking the bear, will you, instead of coming here with an attitude of “The PLO is invalid because they’re not fighting they’re complicit in their own genocide”, as you very much insinuated.

Because, you know, being aware of the limitations of your own perspective includes not running your mouth when you haven’t done your research.

No. Which doesn’t have to do with anything. I also didn’t ask you to move there to have an opinion, all I asked you to do was reading up a bit on Palestinian politics. Was that so unthinkable a suggestion that you need to get all defensive now and attempt to deflect.