Price, It was built earlier, More games, More exchanges connected, More design effort, Different Roadmap, Different implementation based on protocol but not just a game
Quite the opposite is true. If you are using the PCIe bus a lot you probably aren't making good use of the GPU.
A GPU has it's own processor and RAM. If you're transferring to your system RAM and back again often enough to max out x16 PCIe lanes you should fix that.
It would be interesting to see exactly how much data is transferred across the bus during training. Of course it would be great if you could fit your whole dataset on the other side but typically a GPU during training will max out at batches of anywhere from 8 to 64 depending on image size and number of channels. So you'll be moving quite a bit of data.
If found a tool to monitor this unfortunately it only works on Xeons and not on what's in my desktop.
People who complain about a statistic without mentioning its severity in context are often only using it as rhetorical currency rather than actually caring about the issue itself. If they're accepting of the same outcome in other contexts you can safely ignore them.
Wind complements solar well in terms of peak generation. In some markets, wind + solar + hydro + existing demand pricing could already manage current consumption requirements. Hydro is perfect for base load and for peaking.
As a bridge fuel natural gas is also perfectly capable for base load and peaking, and due to pricing has already been rapidly supplanting coal and oil. Longer term, pumped hydro where available, or even technologies like syngas could be used to store peak wind/solar capacity to generate when the resource does not meet need. Along with a better long-distance grid, it takes no stretch of the imagination for renewables to meet virtually all current demand, without even accounting for huge advances in new technologies.
Peak population is coming, and with increasing energy efficiency/conservation, we can very well expect peak energy usage to precede peak population.
Apples and oranges, really. Wind/solar/gas are best suited for peak production. Nuclear is best suited for base load production. While technology can change down the road, they currently aren't directly in competition with each other.
If there's a lot of financial analysts and engineers saying "this isn't feasible" and they are being ignored then that's a bad reality distortion field.
Hyperloop One in particular comes to mind here. Some people say its feasible. Some say it isn't. Both have valid points.
I like his work. I just don't want to see Musk fail due to lack of focus on one particular part of the dream and a lack of people on his team willing to say no.
Unless he invested and I don't know about, Musk has nothing to do with any Hyperloop companies besides presenting the incomplete idea of a hyperloop and that it's worth pursuing.
This combined with the fact that they now demand access to your facebook account on entry means I'm scared to post anti trump comments online. I need to travel between my birth country and my new home in the USA regularly. If I get a pro-trump homeland security agent (and it seems many of them are) scanning my phone. I fear I might be denied re-entry despite having a valid work visa.
I guess we'll be seeing more and more of this in the near future. I and other non citizens are now silenced. A few more laws like this to silence a few other anti-trmup groups and the USA will slowly creep into totalitarianism for fear of losing everything they have.
I'm just glad my birth country is Australia and I can happily return there before it gets really bad in the USA. The biggest problem I'm having is where shall I draw the line where I pack up my life here and return.
Arrays and pointers in C already have that int. That's why sizeof() works. The issue is an extra if statement on every single array and pointer access.
They don't, sizeof is a compile-time constant. On a pointer, sizeof() just reports the size of the pointer itself (i.e. 4 or 8 bytes on most modern platforms), not the size of the data to which it points (and sizeof(*pointer) reports the size of the type to which pointer points, it doesn't know anything about how many values of that type are stored). For an array, the length is known statically (i.e. it's in the type), and so the computation can be done at compile time.
Well having one aspect related to sun position (leap seconds) living in the raw seconds counter and all other aspects related to sun position (time offset, leap years, etc.) living in the human readable date formatting functions is unacceptable imho.
We either get rid of leap seconds in UTC time and treat leap seconds as a date formatting issue or we somehow get all OSes, libraries and applications to start using TAI time as their fundamental time counter instead (this is preferred but it's a lot of work, so yeah you're right about it being laziness).
Or i guess we can just continue living with the inconsistency of some sun position stuff being in the time counter and the rest in the date formatting functions (ick! there's a reason this is causing bugs all the time!).
I say it's preferable to eliminate leap seconds from UTC time and treat them as part of the calendar. It's not lazyness, it's just sane design. If everything was measured in calendar time, there is a lot of inefficiency involved for anything which does not need calendar time like calculating intervals.
