Early Linux 4.14 Kernel Benchmarks Are Looking Promising

[greyseek3r]

Thanks for the benches Michael.
Just one question. Why is ffmpeg compiled with f-no-tree-vectorize? I'm pretty sure that's a recommended option for a performance boost, especially if the CPU has AVX extensions.

[Michael]

Thanks for the benches Michael.
Just one question. Why is ffmpeg compiled with f-no-tree-vectorize? I'm pretty sure that's a recommended option for a performance boost, especially if the CPU has AVX extensions.

I was testing with default compiler flags.

[starshipeleven]

You're the one who first used the word "people", implying more than just you who felt the same way. There is not sufficient data to have used such a word.

Huh? A forum is looked at by many more people than those that post.

Right, and as I elaborated later, I think you're just telling yourself that, because you're too invested in this to think otherwise.

Or maybe you're too wrapped up to think that people might just be like that.

There are plenty of opportunities.

I can only answer questions, just dumping info at random isn't useful.

Also, why post something informative? If arguing is as fun as you claim, how is being compliant and useful any fun to you? I don't take you as the altruistic type, considering your definition of fun.

I don't have a rational explanation, that's just two things I like doing. I usually prefer the former, if not enough of the former then I do the latter. Mostly because otherwise I'm bored and I don't like being bored.

For that matter, also other people show a similar behaviour, ever seen pal666?

Yeah well you screwed up big time there.

I know you never let go even when presented strong evidence, I knew you would not let go now either.

Actually it's not that hard, just try not being a presumptuous asshole for once.

I'm a presumptuous asshole only when I'm not trying to convince anyone. Which is usually when I'm plain answering questions. Or in real life, when I can't usually afford to show my true flag.

Except, in each of those situations I mentioned, people were still alive when they changed their minds. Sure, there was a lot of death involved, but the deaths caused those who were living to realize something needed to change.

What? You think a change in political decisions (based off economical concerns) meant people changed their minds?

So by just voting a guy any sizeable amount of people changed their mind? Have you ever voted? Have you ever thought about pros and cons of some candidate vs the other and chosen the one you liked more while it was not anywhere near 10% you wanted?

If you go in the South states the racism and beliefs associated with slavery are still there, weaker than back then, but still there. Ideas are hard to kill, easy to mutate, hard to kill.

Or the Brexit, old people voted for a massive clusterfuck decision based off their outdated beliefs, while pretty much all young people voted against it.

In case you're not aware, biological evolution and natural selection doesn't occur via death, it occurs from those who survive.

I don't see the connection in this case. Death in what I said isn't a selection mechanism either, it is just a dumb turnover mechanism.
Changing belief system takes centuries because people take 50+ years to die off and be replaced by others with a slightly mutated belief system (based or not over the older one, but usually mutated).
The selection happens when kids make their own belief system, and the factors that influence them are the ones that matter in the progression.
Influencing older people is usually not worth it. Only a minority is actually capable of changing their minds on something serious.

And look at you now - having a long interaction with me, failing miserably at shutting me up or proving any value/truth in any of your points. So no matter what your goal is or could have been, you have failed.

You can say "failed" all times you want, does not mean anything. The mere fact that we are now talking of more interesting things may mean that I won. Or not. Stop assuming.

Oh I'm very well aware, but there have also been likely thousands that have been disproven and are either no longer in use or are on the decline. The point is, there are things people once believed and have been convinced to think otherwise.

And you base this on what? Really, we are both just chatting here and above (i.e. neither has provided any proof, that would be required to prove or disprove the claims of the other), and I'm still convinced of what I said above.

Uh... no? Slavery was abolished because it was extremely unethical. It was actually very profitable, especially if your slaves had kids.

Really, no. Your sources suck. Slavery was much less profitable than hiring workers for crap wages, especially after basic industrialization concepts applied in factories, or when the british started interfearing heavily with slaver ships from africa and prices of buying new slaves skyrocketed (well before the civil war).
For example you could not overwork a slave, as if he died it would cost you to replace him. At the beginning this was kinda doable, but as prices rised... and it was not anymore.
With a worker? Nope. You could overwork anyone and when they could no more work you'd fire him and take another fresh guy.

But in other cases, people's minds can and have changed due to less greedy reasons.

Really, any historical event where masses are involved never was like that. You're confusing the propaganda with the actual stuff that happened.

That being said, you are still usually to blame for a derailed thread that you are involved in.

It takes 2 (or more) to derail a thread, let's not give me all the merit.

[schmidtbag]

Huh? A forum is looked at by many more people than those that post.

Right, but your phrasing implied there were definitively more people than just you who misunderstood me.

I can only answer questions, just dumping info at random isn't useful.

Who said "dumping random info" was required? Also by your logic, are you saying talking shit or being a sarcastic ass is useful? Because that's what you're doing instead.

I don't have a rational explanation, that's just two things I like doing. I usually prefer the former, if not enough of the former then I do the latter. Mostly because otherwise I'm bored and I don't like being bored.

You can disagree with someone and comment on your disagreement to aleviate boredom without being an asshole. So once again, you have flawed logic. Don't you find it a little sad that arguing with people for the hell of it is your way to pass time?

For that matter, also other people show a similar behaviour, ever seen pal666?

Yup, you're definitely right about that. Though, pal666 seems to have a different motive(s) than you.

I know you never let go even when presented strong evidence, I knew you would not let go now either.

Actually I'm the exact opposite - present me with indisputable evidence and/or logic and I back down. If you ridicule me of something and there's a flaw in your statement, then I keep going.

What? You think a change in political decisions (based off economical concerns) meant people changed their minds?

No, I think it is a representation and the outcome of people who have changed their minds. Obviously, there were still a lot of people who wanted to keep slaves, hence the American Civil War.

If you go in the South states the racism and beliefs associated with slavery are still there, weaker than back then, but still there. Ideas are hard to kill, easy to mutate, hard to kill.

Yes, I'm not denying that. But bigotry is declining a lot faster than you think, and those who remain bigoted are gradually becoming punished or isolated. They will remain for a while, but they're becoming a minority. Also, "easy to mutate" is a statement that favors my point more than yours. I understand that older generations dying out does to some extent cause progression, but remember, the older generations are the ones who teach the younger ones their ways. If people's minds can't be changed, then how does progress occur?

I don't see the connection in this case. Death in what I said isn't a selection mechanism either, it is just a dumb turnover mechanism.
Changing belief system takes centuries because people take 50+ years to die off and be replaced by others with a slightly mutated belief system (based or not over the older one, but usually mutated).
The selection happens when kids make their own belief system, and the factors that influence them are the ones that matter in the progression.
Influencing older people is usually not worth it. Only a minority is actually capable of changing their minds on something serious.

I would agree a "dumb turnover mechanism" is a good way to describe death. But changing belief systems isn't as slow as you think. Religious subscribers are plummeting as education goes up, younger generations are disregarding authority (and therefore coming up with their own beleifs), and people are taking proof a lot more seriously than they ever have in human history. Homosexuality is a solid example of something that is making tremendous progress in a very short timeframe. 10 years ago, most people thought being gay was bad, to the point kids would say "oh that's so gay!" when describing something they didn't like. Now, gay pride parades occur without being banned or bombed, US congress permitted gay marriage at the federal level, and there are people who are openly gay in the media who don't come home to a burning cross on their doorstep. Surely, that isn't because a bunch of old people all dropped dead in the past decade. (and yes, I'm well aware there are still a huge amount of homophobes).

The mere fact that we are now talking of more interesting things may mean that I won.

That was not a goal you ever specified, and it is too late for you to claim it is. So no, you didn't win. I also never specified why I'm here, so you can't win if your opponent hasn't lost.

And you base this on what? Really, we are both just chatting here and above (i.e. neither has provided any proof, that would be required to prove or disprove the claims of the other), and I'm still convinced of what I said above.

There is proof. Go to any "top 10 list" regarding disproved myths, and see all the comments of people being like "woah! I didn't know that!" or "my whole life was a lie!"

Really, no. Your sources suck. Slavery was much less profitable than hiring workers for crap wages, especially after basic industrialization concepts applied in factories, or when the british started interfearing heavily with slaver ships from africa and prices of buying new slaves skyrocketed (well before the civil war).
For example you could not overwork a slave, as if he died it would cost you to replace him. At the beginning this was kinda doable, but as prices rised... and it was not anymore.
With a worker? Nope. You could overwork anyone and when they could no more work you'd fire him and take another fresh guy.

Mind citing your sources? Because there is no point in me responding to any of this if you're going to just come up with claims out of your ass. Credible sources, please.

Really, any historical event where masses are involved never was like that. You're confusing the propaganda with the actual stuff that happened.

Yeah, obviously. I never said everyone was on-board with whatever change occured.

[speculatrix]

Any moment now, someone will trigger Godwin's law, and this discussion can be closed.

[starshipeleven]

Any moment now, someone will trigger Godwin's law, and this discussion can be closed.

Unlikely to happen on a 2+ weeks old discussion.