This is myopic. In many cases it takes time, and sometimes considerable programming effort, to enter and exit low power modes. So you don't do it willy-nilly; you do it when you believe the system has quiesced. That means, on a purely interrupt driven system that is not yet ready to sleep, the code may very well be spinning in an empty infinite loop somewhere.
There's no need to inform the "user" because there's nothing wrong with the system. Its simply waiting until the benefit of sleeping outweighs the cost of getting there.
It may take 100s of instructions to enter a deep sleep state, and 100s to 1000s more to exit it. If you anticipate having to service an event sooner than that, you don't enter sleep at all (especially since there's likely a point at which you're committed to sleep, and have to go all the way down in order to come right back out again). Instead, you hang around twiddling your thumbs until the event comes along.
Now if your processor has a halt/wait-for-interrupt instruction (most do but some don't) you can escape into assembly and use that. But it probably makes little to no difference to energy utilization, and of course its not portable. A nice while (true); would seem obvious, except that the C++ committee insisted that it wasn't.
Just one example of where the committee lost sight of the fact that it was defining an imperative
programming language.
And where to you think all that "wasted" energy/cycles would go otherwise? Why do you presume there's some other, more efficient way the CPU could be spending its time while waiting for an event to process?
I, the programmer, will decide what cycles are wasted or not. That the C++ committee thought they knew better is hubris.
If the CPU halts it isn't used at all. If the CPU does an infinite loop then it all goes to heat.
If the loop is doing anything then it cannot be optimized away. Only loops with no side effects meaning they are just turning the CPU into a heater count.
For some reason I read this in James Burke's voice and I could swear I was teleported back to the 80's watching a hitherto unseen episode of Connections.
> I am of the school of thought that even if Broadcom gives VMware Standard away free for a year, it would be hard to convince customers that they need to stick with the platform
Yep. They're building the cage around you. Why would you stick around?
The idiom "added color to" as an expression of adding detail or nuance to something goes back much further than the AI era. I've certainly used it at various times in my career spanning 4 decades now.
"Load-bearing" is fine to me. I've heard it regularly pre-Claude. It has a specific meaning that conveys in one stock phrase.
"Adds color to" says nothing that "Adds detail to" doesn't already say, and the latter is more straightforward English that is quickly readable and understandable by even relatively weak English speakers.
I get wanting to use big words or metaphorical phrasing; I'm guilty of saying "ameliorate" too much. I'm ok if it adds meaning. But when it's just a more colorful word (note that this use of "color" doesn't match the one I originally brought up, which is also a huge problem) and doesn't add any utility or detail, then it's best to avoid it, imo
Yes, it is fun to play with different turns of phrase, even in a stale work environment. I do it to combat the banality, but not so much to sound pretentious hopefully ;)
The problem is once a fun phrase is, uh, coloured by "Claude" or some other LLM, it just turns to AI slop.
I flag and hide every single Twitter post that I see. HN’s code seems to be stuck in the 2000s, so there’s no easy way to automatically block or filter beyond that. To be honest, I just end up coming to this site less than I used to.
Yeah, I just wish seccomp worked per user. So you could define a policy of which users can do which syscalls, and then that follows them no matter which application they start.
As I understand it, the current watermarking methods rely on a secret key, making the detection schemes a black box to anyone not in possession of the key. This means organizations like Anthropic are free to make any claim about authorship they want, true or not, and no one can call them on it.
> If they had no useful purpose, why did we think about them for years?
I don't see a 'we' here. By your own admission you didn't spend years thinking about complicated math topics. So maybe you simply don't see the "purpose". Or maybe no one sees the purpose yet because for some math practical applications take years to discover.
There's no need to inform the "user" because there's nothing wrong with the system. Its simply waiting until the benefit of sleeping outweighs the cost of getting there.
reply