> In modern days, most cars have an anti-theft feature that restricts the turning of the steering wheel if the key is not inserted in the ignition
This needs updating:
> In the past, most cars had an anti-theft feature that restricted the turning of the steering wheel if the key was not inserted in the ignition. These days, for convenience, is enough that the key has been in the vicinity of the car in the recent past.
It’s a lemon market, as a car buyer there are no outward telling features whether the keyless entry system is susceptible to repeater attacks (most new cars still are), whether just anyone briefly inside the car can register new keys, whether it uses strong crypto, or whether a couple grand buy you a master key that unlocks and puts into drive most cars of a brand (famously Kia/Hyundai to this day, who also have all of the other vulnerabilities). Car reviews don’t mention any of these things, even when they are definitely known and tested (rarely) by some third parties. Strangely, not even the OEMs who have secure systems use them for advertising.
Are there any car brands which don't do this fancy-useless-tech kind of thing? I have never driven a car, but a motorcycle with handle-lock would never be unlocked without the physical key.
In UK, consumer protection for Credit Cards is guaranteed by law (Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act), but not for Debit Cards (that's contractual).
“ If, for example, the payment was made by credit card and the product has not been delivered, the consumer can contact their credit card company directly and request a refund.
Credit card firms can usually refund the money quickly, Beurling-Pomoell noted, whereas consumers who paid by debit card must try to claim their money back from the bankruptcy estate.
"Unfortunately, [reclaiming money from a bankruptcy estate] is usually a very long and difficult process. Consumers are generally in a relatively weak position when a company goes bankrupt," he said.
Beurling-Pomoell added that consumers should always consider using a credit card when purchasing a product that they do not immediately receive.”
I think some examples are in order - where has the UK, having recently left the EU, changed its laws so that it was completely out of step with consumer protection? Or is this one thing that made it necessary for them to leave the union, perhaps?
The "consumer protections" of the EU basically amount to communism (i.e., state interference in private matters). So no, that's not a thing the U.K. should emulate.
> It doesn't really make much sense to compare per-cycle performance across microarchitectures as there are multiple valid trade-offs.
That's true in principle, but IMHO a little too evasive. In point of fact Apple 100% won this round. Their wider architecture is actually faster than the competition in an absolute sense even at the deployed clock rates. There's really no significant market where you'd want to use anything different for CPU compute anywhere. Datacenters would absolutely buy M5 racks if they were offered. M5 efficiency cores are better than Intel's or Zen 5c every time they're measured too.
Just about the only spaces where Apple is behind[1] are die size and packaging: their cores take a little more area per benchmark point, and they're still shipping big single dies. And they finance both of those shortcomings with much higher per-part margins.
Intel and AMD have moved hard into tiled architectures and it seems to be working out for them. I'd expect Apple to do the same soon.
[1] Well, except the big elephant in the room that "CPU Performance Doesn't Matter Much Anymore". Consumer CPUs are fast enough and have been for years now, and the stuff that feels slow is on the GPU or the cloud these days. Apple's in critical danger of being commoditized out of its market space, but then that's true of every premium vendor throughout history.
Oh. Apple won this and the last few rounds for sure. They definitely picked the right microarchitecture and delivered masterfully.
Early on personally I had doubts they could scale their CPU to high end desktop performance, but obviously it hasn't been an issue.
My nitpick was purely about using clock per cycle as a performance metric, which is as much nonsense as comparing GHz: AFAIK Apple cpus still top at 4.5 GHz, while the AMD/Intel reach 6Ghz, so obviously the architectures are optimized for different target frequencies (which makes sense: the power costs of a high GHz design are astronomical).
And as an microarchitecture nerd I'm definitely interested in how they can implement such a wide architecture, but wide-ness per-se is not a target.
I don't get your first line. When people talk about Apple's core speeds they're not talking about cycles per instruction or something, they're talking about single-thread performance on a benchmark like Geekbench. Geekbench runs various real-world code and it's the gross throughput that is measured, and it's there that Apple cores shine.
If a company wants to sell you something, but wants to block access to information, the default position for everyone should be "it's probably because it's bad".
If I have an investment fund and I refuse to tell you about the current performance, I hope you would be sceptical.
If I try to sell you medicine and redact the information about whether it does what I claim, and block you from seeing how many people were poisoned from taking it, I hope that everyone would refuse to take it.
The insanity I'm seeing here from Tesla defenders is amazing. I can only assume they've fully bought in to the vision and tied assets to it and refuse to acknowledge that they might lose everything.
I was going to reply to grandparent that only flat prices are coming down because of rising service charge costs, and being hard to mortgage because of cladding issues.
But after some research it is indeed true that house prices are, to a lesser extent, also going down, at least in real terms, if not nominal.
so 'mov rcx, rsp' is simply storing the address of dummy (at this point stored at top of stack) into rcx (which has been chosen to match the 'r' constraint) to pass it to the inline asm. The address doesn't change and rcx is not clobbered, so it is loop invariant can be hoisted out of the loop.
But the mov cannot be removed totally, because the compiler doesn't look inside the asm, and as far as the compiler is knows, the rcx might be used by the asm body. As far as the compiler is concerned, the address of dummy has escaped, so stores into it cannot be optimized either, hence 'mov dword ptr [rsp], 3 ' appears in the final generated code.
If the compiler knew that the address was not used, then it would also be able to remove the store to dummy, as it would be able to prove that it is never read from.
This needs updating:
> In the past, most cars had an anti-theft feature that restricted the turning of the steering wheel if the key was not inserted in the ignition. These days, for convenience, is enough that the key has been in the vicinity of the car in the recent past.
reply