yaantc

That's not the right way to understand what happened. It's not as in the US with both parties in session and every vote count. It's very common in France for working sessions on technical texts to have very few deputies. Here only 35 where present, and only 21 bothered to vote. And now and then a minority party uses this for a PR coup, passing some text with no real majority while most are away. It has no consequence because it's turned down in the senate never to come back again. But there's always some politician to use such stunt for publicity. It's a nothing burger, but you need to understand how it works in France to get this I guess.

Pfff... A minority group uses a time where only few deputies are there to pass an amendment with no majority behind. This will go to the senate where it will be removed, and back to the parliament where the majority groups will be more careful.

There is no chance this is going through. It's just posturing really. Posting this just wastes people time. A more accurate title would be "11 deputies vote for ... at a time when 35 people are in session and 21 bothered to vote".

Yes, ranking requires reducing to a single dimension where all interesting things are multi-dimensions. This is a lossy process, which often tells more about the one(s) doing the ranking than what's ranked.

I'm sorry I won't share much details, I don't think much is public on Vsora architecture and don't want to breach any NDA...

From their web page Euclyd is a "many small cores" accelerator. Doing good compilation toolchains for these to get efficient results is a hard problem, see many comments on compilers for AI in this thread.

Vsora approach is much more macroscopic, and differentiated. By this I mean I don't know anything quite like it. No sea of small cores, but several more beefy units. They're programmable, but don't look like a CPU: the HW/SW interface is at a higher level. A very hand-wavy analogy with storage would be block devices vs object storage, maybe. I'm sure more details will surface when real HW arrive.

Very simplified, AI workloads need compute and communications and compute dominates inference, while communications dominate training.

Most start-ups innovate on the compute side, whereas the techno needed for state of the art communications is not common, and very low-level: plenty of analog concerns. The domain is dominated by NVidia and Broadcom today.

This is why digital start-ups tend to focus on inference. They innovate on the pure digital part, which is compute, and tend to use off-the-shelf IPs for communications, so not a differentiator and likely below the leaders.

But in most cases coupling a computation engine marketed for inference with state of the art communications would (in theory) open the way for training too. It's just that doing both together is a very high barrier. It's more practical to start with compute, and if successful there use this to improve the comms part in a second stage. All the more because everyone expects inference to be the biggest market too. So AI start-ups focus on inference first.

From Le Monde live feed, RTE (French electricity network manager) declared the issue unrelated to this fire.

"Le gestionnaire français souligne par ailleurs que cette panne n’est pas due à un incendie dans le sud de la France, entre Narbonne et Perpignan, contrairement à des informations qui circulent."

On the L/S unit impact: data movement is expensive, computation is cheap (relatively).

In "Computer Architecture, A Quantitative Approach" there are numbers for the now old TSMC 45nm process: A 32 bits FP multiplication takes 3.7 pJ, and a 32 bits SRAM read from an 8 kB SRAM takes 5 pJ. This is a basic SRAM, not a cache with its tag comparison and LRU logic (more expansive).

Then I have some 2015 numbers for Intel 22nm process, old too. A 64 bits FP multiplication takes 6.4 pJ, a 64 bits read/write from a small 8 kB SRAM 4.2 pJ, and from a larger 256 kB SRAM 16.7 pJ. Basic SRAM here too, not a more expansive cache.

The cost of a multiplication is quadratic, and it should be more linear for access, so the computation cost in the second example is much heavier (compare the mantissa sizes, that's what is multiplied).

The trend gets even worse with more advanced processes. Data movement is usually what matters the most now, expect for workloads with very high arithmetic intensity where computation will dominate (in practice: large enough matrix multiplications).

LTE total latency is 20-50 ms, and you compare this to the marketing "air link only" 5G latency of 1 ms. It's apple and oranges ;)

FYI, the air link latency for LTE was given as 4-5 ms. FDD as it's the best here. The 5G improvement to 1ms would require features (URLLC) that nobody implemented and nobody will: too expensive for too niche markets.

The latency in a cellular network is mostly from the core network, not the radio link anymore. Event in 4G.

(telecom engineer, having worked on both 4G and 5G and recently out of the field)

Emacs is in the process of moving from legacy languages modes using regexps and elisp for syntax analysis to new modes using tree sitter.

In this context, what does a name like "c-mode" should mean? Options: 1) it should stick to the old mode, cc-mode here. To use the new mode, use explicitly c-ts-mode; 2) it should move to the new tree sitter mode, c-ts-mode. To use the old mode, use explicitly cc-mode; 3) it should mean the new preferred Emacs mode, with a way for the user to take back control if they have a different preference. This preferred mode will change at some point from legacy to tree sitter.

The change is (3), with a move to tree sitter in Emacs 30 (to be released soon) IIUC. It makes sense to me. Saying that anyone own a name as generic as "c-mode" in an open source project just because they're first and have a long history as a contributor (thanks by the way!) seems excessive. Change of default is normal in an evolving project, and as long as it's clearly documented with a way to override (which is the case IIUC) it's fine to me. One can dislike the change, but it's impossible to please everyone anyway. Emacs users are used to adjust configuration based on their preferences.

I understand it can be an emotional situation for the maintainer of the legacy mode. But I don't see the need to call foul play.

See just above the map: "This has been age-standardized, assuming a constant age structure of the population for comparisons between countries and over time.". This is what you suggests IIUC?