This is not a GPU, this is a laptop SoC with CPU and integrated GPU, and knowing nvidia it will probably be even more closed than an intel CPU. You will own even less of your hardware
Don't know actually, it might be I they are just putting cloud-init in, installing their VM agents, and maybe like tweaking the bootloader setup and kernel cmdline or something. But equally, they might be compiling it themselves so they don't have to trust distros' build farms so much.
But anyway I don't think it matters. The hard part here is having a distro image supply chain, not compiling stuff. If they do need to start compiling loads of stuff they didn't before... They just need to add CPUs.
I though LWE and SVP were NP-hard.
Doesn't breaking them mean NP is in BQP, and thus classical computer encryption is entirely broken with quantum computers ?
How would we recover from this back to the drawing board ?
Soldering dump a ton of heat into the cell, which has chances of destroying the cell. That's why most of the cells are spot-welded: its similar to soldering, but its much quicker and is localized only on the part of the metal that need to be melted, so the heat don't have time to reach the cell itself.
3. >> I was resounding told that the absolute error in the numbers are too small to be a problem. Frankly, I did not believe this.
> I would personally also tell that to the author. But there is a much more important reason why correct rounding would be a tremendous advantage: reproducibility.
This is also what the author want from his own experiences, but failed to realize/state explicitly: "People on different machines were seeing different patterns being generated which meant that it broke an aspect of our multiplayer game."
So yes, the reasons mentioned as a rationale for more accurate functions are in fact rationale for reproducibility across hardware and platforms. For example going from 1 ulp errors to 0.6 ulp errors would not help the author at all, but having reproducible behavior would (even with an increased worst case error).
Correctly rounded functions means the rounding error is the smallest possible, and as a consequence every implementation will always return exactly the same results: this is the main reason why people (and the author) advocates for correctly rounded implementations.
ARM have been moving away from chips with small area for a long time (see server SoC which are huge beasts), and are trying to become the standard platform for everyone trying to have custom hardware.
In this space, chiplets makes a lot of sense: you can have a compute chip with standard arm cores which is reused across your products, and add an extra chiplet with custom IPs depending on the product needs. That is for example what (as far as I'm aware) Huawei is doing: they reuse the chiplet with arm cores in different product, then add for example an IO+crypto die in the SoC in their routers/firewalls products, etc.
More than the ISA, its the memory interconnect that require standardization. At SoC level, ARM is already a de-facto standard (ACE-Lite, CHI, ...), but its only a standard for communication inside a chip, to interconnect varius IPs.
I guess this standard aim to keep being a standard interconnect even in multi-chiplets system, to create/extend the whole ecosystem around ARM partners.
In addition to the other comments, the iso C23 standard added the <stdbit.h> header to the standard library with a stdc_count_ones() function, so compiler support will become standard.
