Bit_Guardian

Thank God. One lawsuit down, 4 to go between Chinese, South Korean, and U.S. regulators alongside the combined Intel, Apple, Samsung lawsuit against Qualcomm in the E.U. over anti-competitive practices.
 
People keep saying Intel's still bad (and based on what happened in the mid-2000s under management long gone), but everyone seems to forget Qualcomm's been led by the same corrupt chief executives for nearly fifteen years.

For HBM1? What planet do you live on?

I'm the son of a top U.S. actuary working for Munich Re and am myself data scientist software engineer for a bank and insurance company spanning two countries and offering pretty much every insurance product under the sun other than reinsurance. I don't need the repeat lecture on material I've successfully applied using real, noisy, inconsistent, incomplete data from multiple sources. And I was referring to the piracy data, which you can buy from Google. We know because we bought market analysis metadata from them last year well worth what we paid for it.

Same as Google Pixel 2. Honestly people these SOCs are already hella speedy. You're not going to notice the difference outside benchmarks.

It's the best solution for now when the goal is maximizing profit made from game sales.
 
I work for a bank and insurance company. I understand the justifications. If you piss off your investors, your funding dries up. It's a delicate balance to maintain. Quality of DLC is a matter of opinion. See again the Dragon Age games.
 
No, sorry, wrong. Adding in all those side stories and trying to make it coherent to the campaign and manage all of the ripple effects and balancing is no small task. As I said: you're delusional. As a software engineer myself who has to also do the macroscopic architectonic work for solutions in my team, I'm sorry but making modular software is no easy feat, and game stories are some of the most tightly coupled scenarios you're ever going to come across. It is not a simple matter of the writer spending a week to fit something in. You have to account for motivation to go there in the story Arc. You have to get the devs to rebalance all the levels that come after to account for experience gain and scaling. You have to properly play test from that point forward too. DLCs get started a couple months prior to launch because the game is in its polishing stages. Mainline developers get some free time. Social circles come together on a mini project they envisioned sometime prior, and they do it if they have enough time. That's nowhere near the resourcing required to properly stitch the DLC into the main story. Your methodology would demand no DLC whatsoever, and games would never be finished.
 
Please stop being an armchair warrior for consumers. You don't understand the half of the equation that actually produces consumable results. You just want results your way. Go start a game company if you're so sure you can do it better. Good damn luck.
 
I've committed close to 8000 lines of code to UE4 since it converted to DX 12. Yes, the code has blown up exactly as much as I said in the last 6 years.
 
Nope, consoles are the big sellers, not PCs. Again, you're idealising the situation. Shareholder interests come first. Consumers are dead last in the chain of being catered to at the macro decision level.
 
And much of the console port problem was fixed when consoles moved to x86 architecture. Now there's a lot of perfectly valid 1:1 copy/paste. We're no longer in the days of having to convert from Big-Endian pseudo-PowerPC in the PS3 and XBox and Wii to Little-Endian x86, sometimes via an emulation later. You don't have to change the system API calls because now all the consoles run a standard Linux kernel and the engines use cross-platform system libraries to account for both Windows and Linux.
 
The calculus has changed so much around you I don't think you know which era you're in. Take a breather, actually look at the problem, and come back.

And plenty of people would pirate a quality game when it costs $70 to buy. Sorry but DRM is a necessary evil because a few (tens of thousands) bad apples spoil the bunch. These companies know for a fact that the DRM investments they make pay for themselves. Successful companies are not run by fools. They don't waste time on increasing costs if they don't have to.
 
thank-YOU!

@SC2Mitch They're not wasting their money at all. The majority of piracy happens in the first month or two after release, with much more following many years later when the game is "retro" and not really in circulation. The protection only has to last a month or two for it to completely pay for itself. That's why the studios keep using it and will continue to use it.

Please do not cite AdoredTV as fact on this issue. He's woefully misinformed. This is a one-time deal. Intel's moving forward with their own dGPUs under their own IP umbrella after this. There will be selective patents they'll have to buy licenses for, but Intel's been at this for 10 years. They most certainly can strike out on their own at this point.

Never thought I'd say this, but Intel can't launch a gaming dGPU fast enough.

It's not just you who's unconvinced, and with good reason. There's mathematical proof in the expanded form of Amdahl's Law that bigger is only better up to a point. For Agile Software Development with the minimal ceremonies in a 9-5 5-day work week, the optimal number is around 26 (the proof for that specific number is not in here, but I'll see if I can find the article for it before I hop on my plane to the U.S. today).
 
 

It's not just you who's unconvinced, and with good reason. There's mathematical proof in the expanded form of Amdahl's Law that bigger is only better up to a point. For Agile Software Development with the minimal ceremonies in a 9-5 5-day work week, the optimal number is around 26 (the proof for that specific number is not in here, but I'll see if I can find the article for it before I hop on my plane to the U.S. today).
 
 

Boeing does build the better planes honestly, though airlines do love to cram them horribly.
 
But for federal government, I don't see THIS as ECONOMIC protectionism. The federal government isn't enough business to really be a lynchpin customer when it comes to IT. The DOD might be, but not the federal government as a whole.
 
No. Chinese now. China bought out the Tshingua group (owner of Softbank) when no one was looking and got ARM in the same swing. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-18/did-china-just-buy-most-important-company-world
 
 

I'm sorry but that is demonstrably false, plainly visible in the trades of musical instruments, jewellery, computer technology, beer/wine/spirits, and agriculture. That Joe Owner sold his small shop to a conglomerate which then profited more as it had the brand recognition is independent entirely.
 
Now "Free Trade" hasn't exactly been free and on a level field, but that doesn't change the fact the world economy is global, and nothing governments even want to do about it will be able to stop that.

Nope, responsive streams took over event-driven ages ago, as responsive apps cache the returned results of many activities and use priming functions for API post functions to provide all the security validation and such. Then all that's left is a 1-bit response to provide a yes/no, and all the heavy processing is done before you've even clicked "accept" before the service layer commits the change to database.
 
You don't even need AI for it, just vector checks over a few hundredths of a second, to be faster than event-driven could ever hope to be.

Ding ding. Someone gets it. A 40% performance loss would instantly be seen; even with the variance between units.
 
There’s only one source for this supposed result, and no one has been able to replicate it. Yet somehow some places are just running with it as news. 
 
The reddit post about it has already disappeared off the Apple front page and they love controversy.
As not a single user was able to replicate the 40% drop.

The most shady things? Do tell.
 
Chief contributor to the Linux and BSD kernels since it was informed, release of BIOS microcode patch component the day after public announcement, pretty quick diagnosis of their whole fleet of processors going clear back to the Pentium II...
 
The only thing you can remotely shake a stick at is Krzanich's share sale. Unfortunately for the tinfoil hat people, he signed an agreement to sell clear back in April, before Google informed Intel in June. So, if anyone's shady, it's the board of directors in this case, and they're not executives. They're the chief share holders for the company.

I'm sorry but that is demonstrably false, plainly visible in the trades of musical instruments, jewellery, computer technology, beer/wine/spirits, and agriculture. That Joe Owner sold his small shop to a conglomerate which then profited more as it had the brand recognition is independent entirely.
 
Now "Free Trade" hasn't exactly been free and on a level field, but that doesn't change the fact the world economy is global, and nothing governments even want to do about it will be able to stop that.

Boeing does build the better planes honestly, though airlines do love to cram them horribly.
 
But for federal government, I don't see THIS as ECONOMIC protectionism. The federal government isn't enough business to really be a lynchpin customer when it comes to IT. The DOD might be, but not the federal government as a whole.
 
No. Chinese now. China bought out the Tshingua group (owner of Softbank) when no one was looking and got ARM in the same swing. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-18/did-china-just-buy-most-important-company-world
 
 

There's also the fact Krzanich is pretty much known to be retiring, with Renduchintala as the board's favorite to replace him this year or next.

You'd have to prove he had that privileged information before he signed the agreement with the Board of Directors back in April, when Google made its disclosure in June. Sorry but there's good reason no regulatory body is going to look into this. It was above board until someone provides evidence to the contrary.

To play Devil's advocate, the way evidence is gathered in physical crimes cannot be obtained in the same conceptual way in cyber crimes when strong encryption is used to cover your tracks.
 
If you have the smoking gun in a black box, but you can't open the box, the evidence is useless.
 
I am NOT saying law enforcement should get carte blanche access to things, but if you think about it, even if you get circumstantial evidence to investigate, strong encryption with no leaked keys makes investigation fruitless.

It would help if security engineers didn't make things as difficult as possible from a programming and management perspective. Have you ever compared ASP .NET MVC's security framework against Java Spring or GoLang's? Microsoft actually makes security easy and intuitive from a webapp perspective (which is hilariously ironic).

To play Devil's advocate, the way evidence is gathered in physical crimes cannot be obtained in the same conceptual way in cyber crimes when strong encryption is used to cover your tracks.
 
If you have the smoking gun in a black box, but you can't open the box, the evidence is useless.
 
I am NOT saying law enforcement should get carte blanche access to things, but if you think about it, even if you get circumstantial evidence to investigate, strong encryption with no leaked keys makes investigation fruitless.

To play Devil's advocate, the way evidence is gathered in physical crimes cannot be obtained in the same conceptual way in cyber crimes when strong encryption is used to cover your tracks.
 
If you have the smoking gun in a black box, but you can't open the box, the evidence is useless.
 
I am NOT saying law enforcement should get carte blanche access to things, but if you think about it, even if you get circumstantial evidence to investigate, strong encryption with no leaked keys makes investigation fruitless.

Because paper cuts on your sensitive bits would suck.