Historically, code names were chosen specifically to give up no information and it seems like that tradition continues, perhaps unintentionally.

I don't see the problem, I work with naming scheme like XYZ1530 and for knowing which server is which or what is installed we have documentation, name is only reference to find information in docs.

So if you work daily with server you know by heart what is on it, if not any "descriptive" name would only mislead you, because probably stuff changed a lot since naming.

I think the same for hw components, you have to look it up anyway in documentation, because some dimension could be changed after a year.

But names like XYZ1530 are harder to recall and these are name for a class of server

I work here (FB) and I completely agree. I can never keep the names straight.

100℅ agreed, drives me crazy with Ubuntu, I have to google the names to get the versions.

Never understood what was wrong with 16.04.2 vs Xenial Xerus (had go google the xerus part just now).

The Ubuntu names are chronologically in alphabetical order.

That doesn't really make it any better. Eclipse does the same thing (well they have since they ran out of Galilean moons), and I always end up needing to consult a chart to parse its version scheme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_(software)#Releases

We already have a well developed and widely understood system for naming items in a sequence, it's called "numbers." I suggest people stop trying to be clever and use it.

Is writing ℅ instead of % some kind of meme? I'm seeing it everywhere all of a sudden, but I can't imagine you can type such an obscure character by accident and so frequently. Wondering if I'm not getting the joke, or if it's some kind of obtuse political or technical statement about something.

At least some Android keyboards (Gboard) put % and ℅ near each other on the same symbol page, and it's easy to mistake one for the other if you don't look closely.

They are on opposite sides of the keyboard, but on the same symbol page. But yeah, if you aren't looking closely, it's very easy to hit the wrong one. Surprised this hasn't been noticed by the Gboard team yet.

I can't understand why the c/o sign would be considered important enough to go on a phone keyboard, let alone on the same page as percent. Do people often write c/o? I might write it on a physical letter once or twice a year. Is it a cultural thing somewhere?

And then again, if people need to write c/o they could actually write... c/o.

Exactly that, I posted from my phone.

On my keyboard at least, if I long press % it uses the other one, and it's hard to notice when proofreading.

The idea is to avoid people assigning bias: I.E. If something is said to be Mk 1 and Mk 2 people are likely to desire the Mk 2 despite having no practical basis for that.

The whole point of refreshing the hardware fleet from Mk 1 to Mk 2 is that it has a practical basis that they will benefit from.

> Big Basin can train models that are 30 percent larger because of the availability of greater arithmetic throughput and a memory size increase from 12 GB to 16 GB. In tests with popular image classification models like ResNet-50, we were able to reach almost 100 percent improvement in throughput compared with Big Sur

Mk 2 is better than the Mk 1 in several important ways. They're not creating Mk 2 for no reason!

One of those reasons could be cost or speed of production. Mk1 could be better the mk2, but mk2 is easier to make.

Is there since information in Intel codenames I'm perhaps unaware of?

I haven't been able to keep those straight for years. Maybe this is just me getting old, but I miss the old days, when you could easily tell that a Pentium is faster than an 80486, and that a Pentium 133 is faster than a Pentium 100.

These days, CPU speed matters less than it did back then, but there still are CPU-hungry applications (I'm looking at you, Autodesk Inventor!), and if I had to put together a PC from scratch (which I think I'll actually sometime this year), I would be kind of lost.

Part of the issue here, I think, is that cpu's are much more complex than they were then. You have a number of different cpu lines with different models on the market at any time.

That is true.

But that does make the decision what CPU is best for a given use case and budget much more complex, too.

(Like I said, the impact of the CPU on overall system performance is less today than twenty years ago for many use cases, so it is not that much of a problem.)

Intel probably intentionally advertises with their weirdo socket names (1156 -> 1155 -> 1150 -> 1151) just to confuse people more. Heck, they probably choose the pin counts in such a strange order just to be more confusing. It's not like they have usable names (Socket H, H2, ...).

A long time ago Intel CPU core codenames were geographic features in or near Oregon.

I remember reading that they choose locations because their names aren't trademark-able. So if you try calling your product SuperCPU, then a competitor rushes to trademark the same name, they could force you to rename it, thus tactically interfere with your marketing plan. But if you call it "Chicago" they can't trademark it because its a place.

The naming conventions seem like a way more fun variant of US Intelligence Community naming conventions. But even there there's some scheme for terms that reveal a little about its classification and originating agency unintentionally.