ekky43

Right, apologies for dumping it down so far, I find it hard to properly gauge the knowledge of others on the internet, and just try and play safe.

I wasn't aware that one could serial program gate arrays, as, as far as I know, the definition of serial programming is code that is governed by a processor, and which prohibits anything but serial execution of commands. So it's new to me that gate arrays can run serial code without any governance or serialization process, since gate arrays by themselves are anything but serial. Or rather, you need to synchronize anything and everything that is supposed to be serial by yourself, or use pre-built and pre-synced blocks, I guess.

Anyway, going by the definition that serial programming can only be performed using some kind of governance or synchronizing authority, that alone would be another layer of security.

As serial implies, it rid us, or lessened the burden, of those timing related issues, some of which included:

• All the problems of accessing in-use resources that multi-cored serial "parallel" programming reintroduced.
• Making a block and not properly timing it resulting in the clock changing while it's still flipping gates and produce unexpected behavior.
• As the above, just generally having to time everything, as having too many clock blocks or sync checks results in unnecessary speed loss, and having too few checks might result in unexpected behavior.
• Over/underclocking and other slight power and clock variations.
• Uninitialized gates producing random behavior.
• And by extension: the power up process not being exactly the same every time, resulting in more unexpected behavior. Very annoying to debug when it looks all right to start with.
• Reading through seconds of timing diagrams (that's a lot of reading with a clock time of nano seconds).
• Block placement and connection problems.
• Using gate array layouts/code with differing transistor specs.

And the list goes on, but you know.

Serial also has a lot of pitfalls, and you can definitely screw things up bad, but at least you don't have to think much about clock or timing, or memory placement, unless communicating between devices or cores, and those sync problems tend to be rather tame and simple compared to intra-processor problems.

At least from my experience.

I think you are misunderstanding me. Are you perhaps thinking about multithreading or multi core? Because some people have also started calling that "parallel", even if it is nothing like low-level parallel.

A CPU does not build upon a CPU, a CPU builds upon transistors which are collected into gates, and which can be assembled into the correct order using parallel programming.

EDIT: as an example, you do not actually need a computer to parallel program. Get yourself a box of transistor, some cable, and a soldering iron, and you can build some very rudimentary gate arrays, like a flip-flop.

This link might give a better understanding of our confusion.

EDIT 2: One could perhaps illustrate the confusion which this topic is often victim of as such:

Transistors are part of the hardware and are parallel programmed to form complex gate arrays called "Processors", which feature instruction sets used by machine code, which is made using assembly, which is called "serial programming", which enables high-complexity operations such as multi-core "parallel" programming.

I'm talking about the former "PGA parallel programming", and not the latter "multi-core parallel programming".

A CPU is a very complex gate array which handles bothersome tasks such as synchronization (run conditions) and memory access, and presents you with a very limited set of instructions. All serial programming builds upon this very limited set of instructions, and the instructions have been thoroughly tested over the past 6 decades.

Not to say that CPU architecture or microcode is fail-safe, but the chance of your computer blue-screening because of a failure of your CPU is rather small.

Now, parallel programming (the low level variant, not the hijacked definition) is the art of "wiring" those gate arrays. A CPU is actually made using parallel programming, so all the safeties it presents for serial programming will not be present in parallel programming, as parallel programming does not use a CPU.

EDIT: the above is of course simplified, there exist multiple architectures, collected into more common instructions sets such as amd64, armhf, arm64, etc. but even the most barebone processing unit contains a lot of securities and nicities that parallel does not have.

Lots of buzzwords indeed, author apparently doesn't even know what a smart sensor is, as they described a regular sensor in their first paragraph.

That said, you can absolutely program analog ICs, such as by using a Field Programmable Gate Array instead of just your regular Gate Array (your usual, 'stupid' IC). Though, while a random IC might cost you less than half a dollar, a FPGA will cost you around 100$ for a simple chip.

On the other hand, skipping any GPU or CPU and their limitations by clock speed should speed up the AI considerably, though parallel programming (not concurrent programming, and not multi-core "parallel" programming either) is much harder and comes with almost no safety when compared to serial programming.

I personally feel, as that is how I experience it, that thinking using your inner voice is just another layer on top of your more basic consciousness which of course is layered on top of your subconsciousness, as, at least for me, using the inner voice is something I do to acknowledge and analyse a feeling i already experienced.

Experiencing the thought and using it for making a decision usually takes 100ms~1s, and trying to articulate it for communication to other people takes seconds to minutes.

Communication by talking is painfully slow, discussions would be so much more exciting if we could just send thoughts or ideas directly.

If it's a more complex problem, like confessing love or being angry at someone, then I'll flash through multiple thoughts, options, and consequences in quick succession, perhaps followed by the usual slow recreation of a hypothetical situation in a theater of mind, which is often supported by, but not centered around, my inner voice, and which I imagine is much more similar to articulating everything you think.

To clarify, this theater of mind is heavily centered around emotions. It expresses these using visualized motions and direct feelings, both in my own position, but also if I were in theirs. The inner voice usually sets the speed, as I can only think so fast using it. Without it I might jump around, from scene to scene, marking each with a feeling, state, or emotion that I wish to achieve, and then later revisit each scene and adding the voiceover.

Again, I cannot but believe that everyone also experiences that first step of just flashing through thoughts before living them out in your mind.

Please apologize my long answer, this is very fun but also somewhat challenging to talk about, as I have only ever experienced my way of thinking. I'm sure you understand. :D

I think that's pretty much the same as asking "do you dream in voice or in images". I'm sure the vast majority of people use a mix, and not one or the other.

That said, it's just a feeling? Like, you feel pulled towards or repulsed by one or the other action.

Strong sensations might even have a "blitz" or snapshot of the possible future, but without blocking or occupying your eyesight. Something really bad might have you see yourself or others in tears, or whatever action is likely to fit them given the situation.

I wouldn't say that I think in images, at least not purely. If it requires deep thought then I'll spell it out in my mind, and if it requires speed (such as simple math) then I'll just skip the voice and use the abstracts of my mind directly.

Gel, shampoo, balsam, shaving foam/cream, and roll-on deo from Neutral/Minirisk. Simple, cheap, safe. And the best thing? It doesn't trigger any allergies.

Though, I do use aftershave from Matas, and oil from ecooking.

I think that covers most of my self-care products.

Isn't this the plot of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann?

@[email protected]'s thought process seems perfectly rational. Contrary, your continued belittling of and attempts to force OP into the role of a mentally ill person appears almost like a superiority complex or obsession, uncannily so.

You're likely a wonderful person who just formulated yourself in a very unlucky way, but OP would surely have spoken up if they needed help.

Right? I'm embarrassed that we still think hydrogen to be more dangerous than gasoline and other fossil fuels.

I mean, hydrogen is dangerous, as are most things, but it likely won't ever kill 5~10 million people per year from pollution alone.

And regarding airships, hydrogen doesn't just explode as some like to think, and won't just plummet In case of fire if sealed in multiple metallic and flame resistant compartments like in modern airships, at least not without a freak accident.

PIA being owned by the same scammy company as ExpressVPN does not necessarily mean that it itself also is bad, but one should keep an open eye on them.

Like I said, I haven't found any evidence that ExpressVPN sells their customer data, even though it might be likely.

Thank you, but I already know that study.

My problem is, that while it makes a satisfying click noise and temporarily feels good, it also sometimes becomes itchy or perhaps slightly painful afterwards, and I just don't like that feeling.