They are. I have a friend who was significantly more smart and thorough in our studies but often get bad scores on exams not being able to concentrate under the pressure.
Exams also rarely measured skill in the course. Often just a subset. We would often spend the last month of each semester cramming exams instead of studying the curse material because it wasn't that useful.
I rarely felt I got a lot out of courses, but I often felt I would if I got to study it properly
Well, that is a way to test students’ ability to perform under pressure, but I’m adamant it’s not a fair assessment of their skill in the subject at hand, nor how much they’d worked and improved during the course. On several occasions I have gotten higher marks than my friend because of their anxiety issues, despite me being a worse student and arguably a worse researcher (what we studied for).
I also struggled with exams, but that's because my understanding was often shallow, due to a lack of effort to study and understand the material. I'm very suspicious of people that say they're smart, but can't perform on exams. That said, there's plenty of ways to structure things to avoid this. Have weekly, easy, pass / fail exams that ensure you've read the material at a basic level, or understood some basic concepts. Lab work. Presentations with live grilling from the professor to ensure you understand the topic.
I don’t think my friend would claim to be smart (and not I’m not talking about myself in third person to sound more convincingly, I have a real las in mind). I say they are. I saw them in a day to day work and they are both more knowledgeable and more productive than I am. It’s being put on the spot, with high stakes and limited time, they had a difficulty with.
> there's plenty of ways to structure things to avoid this
Sure, I was arguing specifically against GGP’s solution, i.e. betting everything on the finals.
Huh? Not every job requires this trait, and even though some do, it’s not something nonlinear optics professor ought to evaluate.
Sure, it’s a nice quality to have and I find it useful at times: when it’s “suddenly” the last day to write a proposal, or when someone has to present at a conference. (However, these tasks many other skills besides just the ability to stay calm.) But I can’t agree that it is indispensable for a researcher.
Why would I give up my cushy place where I’m paid to do interesting stuff, for a stressful position full of management responsibilities? I swear, more people should learn the idea of lagom.
I do the same, I think I've had it for breakfast almost every day for the last year. My wife can't stand having the same thing more than a few times in a row (not sure how common this is), but I don't mind it at all.
> A lot of folks talk about the P4 not having radios as a problem; I personally think that it's an advantage.
I believe, the problem is that there isn't a comparable chip with WiFi/BT (ignoring S3, because, you know, Xtensa), not that P4 itself doesn't have them.
I don't use these directly myself in any projects, so I'm citing hearsay... but from what I understand, Espressif officially recommends using an ESP32-C6 as a radio module with the P4. Wouldn't that cover it?
What I have seen directly is a lot of folks reacting negatively to the P4 because it doesn't have radios. They seem to be coming from a "what could it possibly be useful for if it can't [wifi/BT]". While it's easy to see this as a failure of imagination, it does seem true that a lot of folks equate the ESP32 line as what you use when you want to create an IoT device. While that's not wrong or necessarily bad, I've always felt like it's a weird way to pigeonhole an entire SoC family that might be self-limiting.
Maybe Espressif will notice that there are no RV32 chips with MMU so far (at least to my knowledge); we only have 32 bit MCUs or then only 64 bits for the CPUs. Something like Cortex-A7 is missing.
Baochip looks very interesting, and I highly respect bunnie's work, but I can't realistically say Baochip is a viable option for me, an unprofessional tinkerer.
I'm not sure why you are not sure - S3 was using Cadence's Xtensa 32-bit LX7 dual-core microprocessor, but the article on S31 only mentions "dual core" without too much detail.
That's the SoC. The CPU is a small part of it. For example they could be using an open source design like the CVA6, or a commercial design from someone like Andes.
Without being hands on, it's difficult to make a direct comparison. There's 2 processors according to CNX [0], and the HP core's instruction set might roughly be comparable to M55.
Don’t know the specifics of the Espressif RISC-V cores, but in general they can’t really compete on those aspects with ARM.
ARM is a much more mature platform, and the licensing scheme helps somewhat to keep really good physical implementations of the cores, since some advances get “distributed” through ARM itself.
Compute capabilities and power efficiency are very tied to physical implementations, which for the best part is happening behind closed doors.
The author wanted it to retain some practical value, hence the discussion of the four “layers” of time—departing from the 12-hour system completely, even if there is a better way to represent time outside of it, would make the clock difficult to use.
reply