I had a car with a broken fuel gauge before. It was quite the source of anxiety.

One option could be to get one of those 5G modems. It would require you to pay for your own Internet service, but many will then provide an Ethernet connection as an option, meaning you would never have to accept the legal terms presented to you. You could even use Wi-Fi because technically you never agreed to the terms, and practically speaking so many devices generate Wi-Fi networks I think it would be hard to enforce that you don’t produce any networks. Printers, smart watches, IP cameras… Are they really going to wardrive and triangulate the position of wireless devices on a regular basis? A sneaky network named after a printer or hidden SSID combined with ignorance for a TOS you never agreed to would probably slip through the cracks.

They don’t own the spectrum. I’m not sure it’s even legal to mandate that you can’t use Wi-Fi devices as long as you’re not using their network. When I was in university, there were still tons of such devices emitting signals that weren’t connected to the university network despite policy.

2 Duo. I remember when those came out and how multicore was still a novelty. Now my economy chip in my home desktop has 16 threads.

If search engines don’t improve to address the AI problem, most of the Internet will be AI gibberish.

This kind of monitoring and association technology is so advanced that Target famously had to turn it down because it was creeping out customers.

No.

These child lock suggestions are posturing at best.

Boggles the mind how they work for free for a business.

I drove a base model Ford Fiesta about five years ago that did not ship with cruise control functionality of any kind. I was surprised as well, but the practice does exist.

I’m less certain. Lots of intelligent people can get caught up in such things. Religion depends also on upbringing and cultural background.

Way cool! Might actually try it sometime.

That’s what happens when MBAs start making too many product decisions at a tech company, and game companies are no exception.

With KVM performance will be quite good, but when you need to emulate cross architecture? I don’t think there are many alternatives that support the entire VM. I only know of user space tools that are focused on emulating a binary.

Call it a difference of opinion that I don’t believe it should try to be bit-accurate for floating point. But, it’s a valid position to take. There are many use cases for QEMU. In this case where we emit some host instructions I do believe it’s still within the helper function instead of inline which is not ideal. The guest code using floating point in the first place to me implies some degree of inaccuracy is permissible and this is the position that some cross architecture game emulators take. But again, I suppose it can depend what code you wish to run.

Yes indeed. I develop QEMU at work mainly implementation of new hardware as needed for my employer. It has a software emulator, but it’s not very good. It’s acceptable.

The instruction generation backend does not seem to prioritize performance. Instead, it prioritizes accuracy and ease of maintenance. There is low-hanging fruit for making it faster but there isn’t much interest in doing so for the TCG backend. The attitude seems to be that it’s good enough.

For a small example, you may find it interesting that QEMU does not implement floating point acceleration. It’s done in software even though the host has floating point instructions. It usually doesn’t attempt to use those floating point hardware facilities on the host and instead execute many hundreds of instructions to do floating point using the Berkeley software implementation. Almost never does this matter but it costs a lot of performance. Compare this to the translation performed by projects like FEX and Box64 which do and blow QEMU out of the water for specific use cases.

Another place in the emulator that could be improved is handling of executable pages or cached output of the backend code generator. The executable code caching mechanism is very simple and could probably be much more aggressive on today’s systems.

If you examine change logs, TCG really doesn’t get much TLC last time I checked. It could be a better emulator but performance outside of KVM use case is not as important to the project.

It is pretty cool! QEMU can do all kinds of interesting things, although I do wish it had better performance. High performance doesn’t appear to be a primary goal for QEMU outside of using KVM.

Injection of money more often than not does not solve the fundamental problems that lead a business to failure or in this case poor performance. The causes of the poor decisions along the way must also be addressed.

Interesting running it in QEMU. If possible, it might be better to use a container if the host kernel supports this because performance and resource consumption should both be significantly improved.

However, an emulator provides great flexibility I’ll give you that.

This has been done to a limited extent. Some compilers can check for common cases and you can enforce these warnings as errors. However, this is generally not possible as others have described because the language itself has behaviors that are not safe, and too much code relies on those properties that are fundamentally unsafe.

I’d like to add that there’s a difference between unsafe and unspecified behavior. Sometimes I’d like the compiler to produce my unsafe code that has specified behavior. In this case, I want the compiler to produce exactly that unsafe behavior that was specified according to the language semantics.

Especially when developing a kernel or in an embedded system, an example would be code that references a pointer from a hardcoded constant address. Perhaps this code then performs pointer arithmetic to access other addresses. It’s clear what the code should literally do, but it’s quite an unsafe thing to do unless you as the developer have some special knowledge that you know the address is accessible and contains data that makes sense to be processed in such a manner. This can be the case when interacting directly with registers representing some physical device or peripheral, but of course, there’s nothing in the language that would suggest doing this is safe. It’s making dangerous assumptions that are not enforced as part of the program. Those assumptions are only true in the program is running on the hardware that makes this a valid thing to do, where that magical address and offsets to that address do represent something I can read in memory.

Of course, pointer arithmetic can be quite dangerous, but I think the point still stands that behavior can be specified and unsafe in a sense.

When you’re immortal and have nothing but time, what difference does it make to wait a few decades?