ghettoimp
"Penalties in this section do not apply to users of tiktok"
What possible nefarious motive are you implying?
Any two-ANE design would have a lot of control logic that has to be right, e.g., to manage which work gets sent to which ANE, which cache lines get loaded, etc. It's easy to imagine bugs in this logic which would only show up when both ANEs are enabled. So it's likely that there is a chicken bit that you could use to disable one of the ANEs and run in single-ANE mode.
I worked for several years at a world class company verifying CPU designs. Even into the late 2010s, designers were afraid to use basic features like structs because who knows what tool might not support it correctly. They emulated structures using piles of defines that set all the bit offsets. I wouldn't know how to begin to estimate the amount of senseless work that this led to during debugging. The lack of any type safety was appalling. If you were lucky, you could catch gross type confusion by having a linting tool notice a size mismatch. These tools found hundreds of real errors that should never have compiled in the first place. I could go on and on...
But there's no escaping it. There are so many amazing tools built around it. The vendors love the moat the complexity gives them. The IP developers have huge investments in legacy code bases. Compatibility is worth too much.
Today, ongoing, CakeML[2] extends these techniques to an ML language and is just generally super awesome.
[1] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mom22/jitawa/ [2] https://cakeml.org/
That's what they beat, and God willing will beat again.
On the other hand, the incentives seem pretty well aligned. TSMC presumably makes a lot of money when Apple is successful and sells a lot of chips. Having a customer that is demanding and willing to pay for huge volumes of bleeding edge parts helps TSMC build on their lead. Having early access to the best process helps Apple differentiate, and their business model gives them the margins to afford all of this.
Anyway, I don't see why either side would want to really change this setup.
I mean, what would the market be for a super-fast ARM laptop/desktop machine? It would run Windows RT, I guess?
How much better than Intel/AMD would the ARM machine need to be to justify buying it and running that? It seems like the M1's "magic" is not just the chip, but very much also the Rosetta thing.
How do you know the machine is running the program whose source code you're looking at, instead of some other program that looks superficially like it?
If a machine produces convincing evidence of what it has done, e.g., a print-out that (1) the voter can meaningfully check before depositing, and that (2) is audited with at least spot checks or formal recounts later, why does it matter whether it is open or closed source?
I heard (discussions with folks online) that in other parts of the state they are still using the older machines, which the voter just has to trust to record their selections correctly. I think I've heard they are transitioning away from these.
The individual goals are set in this year's review, evaluated in next year's review.
- Write up self review. 1-2 pages to highlight what you worked on and accomplished, who you helped, why it matters. Score yourself on various dimensions of how good of a job you are doing (working with others, getting stuff done, etc.)
- Nominate 3-4 people to give you peer reviews. Best to pick people who can speak to your work, ideally with some folks from outside your particular group, and ideally with some seniority.
- Managers decide who to ask for peer review about whom. You'll get asked by various managers for feedback about their reports. Write and submit this feedback -- could be as short as a paragraph, more typically 2 or 3 paragraphs: what did you work on with them, what did they do achieve, what could have gone better? I've probably given feedback for 5-10 people on average.
- Manager synthesizes all of this into a report, score you on the same dimensions.
- Manager meets with you, gives you their report, goes over it with you. There's a lot to this meeting. It's a review of how they see your work, a comparison of your self-scores and their scores to get on the same page, a discussion of noteworthy feedback from others (positive and negative), a chance to defend yourself against any negative feedback, and a discussion of ideas for addressing any concerns. Typically there is also a lot of goal-setting for the upcoming year, and more generally a discussion of how things are going, how happy you are, and so on.
- Formally acknowledge that you discussed the report with your manager (checkbox in some system). This also gives you a chance to formally comment on the report, I imagine in case of some dispute.
- Followup meeting, some time later, deals with compensation adjustments, promotions, etc. This is kept separate from the review itself.
Effort level has been perhaps 2-3 days per year for writing up all the reviews. I'm sure it's worse for managers.
That said, I once worked for many years at a small company with no formal review process at all. At this place, there was practically no communication from upper management about how they thought you were doing, whether they understood or valued your work, what they wanted you to focus on, etc. After years of this, I left feeling rather bitter and unappreciated.
For all its flaws, the review process at forces a conversation where you get to summarize to higher management what you have accomplished and why it is important. Peer-review at least gives you a chance to call out outstanding work from your co-workers. And the review itself at least gives you a venue to hear what management thinks of what you have done.
Anyway, I'd do a lot differently now, if I were back at the old place. But on the whole, I think the review process is actually a good thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEKDGNjqsk
I'm not sure he's entirely right, but I found it pretty compelling, overall.
Somewhere in the middle things would get iffy and ethically interesting. The front-line medical worker is probably well-compensated. The essential workers at the grocery stores and warehouses are not.
Hopefully the vaccines are safe and effective and all of this remains a hypothetical.