« first day (4677 days earlier)      last day (359 days later) » 

1:54 AM
15 messages moved to Chimney
@Tinkeringbell maybe it might be helpful to the people... they just fired
 
2:40 AM
 
3:26 AM
@JourneymanGeek who got fired?
 
4:39 AM
Thanks @JourneymanGeek .. I'm wondering something when you first login to meta or whatever SE site you go to is about asking and answering. But people with high reputation. Don't even ask or there answers are more of his the infustructor of his SE works and they get tons of upvotes. Is SE all politics after you move past the beginning stage?
 
@Tinkeringbell I am not that advanced. I run on old technology.
Also, there’s nothing interesting in the comment archive today; only more comments about climate change not being real. I’m not interested in that.
It is boring.
 
 
1 hour later…
6:12 AM
 
6:50 AM
@Andreasdetestscensorship But you started that thread! Why then?
 
7:41 AM
@Andreasdetestscensorship this is only showing that MSE is usually not that hot compared to MSO. Granted, for regular users, it's usually the last meta to start a drama :p
 
@Tinkeringbell Technically, they started it. I only wanted to state why their answer is horrible.
And I thought it’s better for people to upvote my comment, than to vote for deletion.
@MetaAndrewT. Sad, sad.
 
8:04 AM
@Andreasdetestscensorship You're too kind ;) Just state that the answer is horrible by downvoting
 
8:20 AM
@Feeds ...... so, basically, let me summarize this.
... and the next time I open the chat I get another useless article about "how to write a resume to find a job"
Oh, by the way, let me be totally grumpy while I am at it.
If you have time to think about "corporate marketing" then you probably aren't busy looking for a job after a sudden firing....
I want to be able to downvote blog posts.
.... actually, I want to be able to vote for deletion on blog posts.
 
8:53 AM
@SPArcheon sadly ...
@SPArcheon I'm vaguely considering a long angry meta rant
only thing is I'm overseas and I don't think this site is worth carpal tunnel
@BigJoe not really no
I still treat meta 'mainly' as a way to help support other users
any politics is 'incidental' to the goal of trying to nudge folks in what I think is the correct direction for a healthy community
 
9:38 AM
There's a lot less feature requests than there used to be, other than the stuff in the 'backlog' for when there's resources to...
which sometimes feels like never :(
 
 
2 hours later…
You know it's going to take years and years and billions of Euros in taxpayer money before the EU finally decides anything, right?
 
11:50 AM
Hi
 
 
1 hour later…
1:14 PM
@JourneymanGeek problem is that I don't exactly trust EU to be able to understand what they are supposed to regulate.
 
1:30 PM
@Tinkeringbell yup
@SPArcheon precisely
 
@JourneymanGeek see: Nitter getting the blame for Twitter content
 
Anyone here who knows about CPUs and stuff?
 
CPUs, or Central Processing Units, are a crucial component of modern computer systems. They are often referred to as the "brain" of the computer, as they perform most of the processing and calculations necessary for the system to function.
"Stuff" is a general term used to refer to various objects, belongings, or things that exist in the world. It is a broad and informal term that encompasses a wide range of physical items and sometimes even abstract concepts.
 
Alright. Just a small question, if you don't mind - In x86 CPUs, they startup in a mode so-called 16-bit "real" mode. But When I search for x86 reset vector (the place where the CPU starts executing instructions from), Wikipedia says the reset vector is 0xFFFFFFF0 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reset_vector). How can the 16-bit "real" mode handle 32 bit addresses!
(maybe I should be asking this as a question in SE somewhere, but well maybe the answer is in plain sight, but I am unable to know)
 
1:48 PM
> In x86 CPUs, during the startup process, the CPU indeed begins in 16-bit "real" mode. In this mode, the processor operates using 16-bit registers and can execute instructions that are compatible with the 16-bit x86 instruction set.

However, the x86 CPUs also have a feature called "real mode addressing," which allows them to address memory beyond the 16-bit limit. In real mode, the CPU uses a segmented memory model, where a 20-bit address is formed by combining a 16-bit segment address and a 16-bit offset. This allows access to a maximum of 1 MB of memory (2^20 bytes).
 
So, if I understand correctly, the segment is stored in the CS register, and the offset is stored in the IP register?
But the CS register is also 16 bit, and the IP register is also indeed 16 bit. And PhysicalAddress seems to be equal to ((CS * 16) + IP) from my research
And that makes the limit to be 0xFFFF * 16 + 0xFFFF = 0xFFFF * 17 = 0x10FFEF
And that is close to 2^20, which I understand the 20-bit limit
"the address 0xFFFFFFF0 represents a segment/offset combination that points to the system's BIOS firmware" - but what is the segment offset combination here? It can't be more than 20-bits as said above
So, even if we combine the maximum segment and the maximum offset when the registers are 16-bit, we don't get a 32 bit address? Right? Or is it something else that I am missing?
Or is it that the CPU does not use the instruction pointer (IP) and the segment registers upon boot-up in real mode? and there is some kind of magical hardware wiring for this?
 
Sounds like something that is better asked on retro computing: retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/real-mode
 
@rene, Well, don't today's computers do the same thing?
 
2:03 PM
Maybe at boot mode but then you still have a very small group of people that work with that and can answer your detailed question.
 
Hmm. let me see
 
2:14 PM
Worth mentioning that motherboards have/had hardware control over the A20 pin / gate which could explain how a CPU could read memory "above" its theoretical limit. But I have no clue if that is still done with these newer bridge control chipsets.
 
@rene, If I am correct - The address space in 64-bit CPUs is always 2^64 (huge) irrespective of the RAM and devices connected in the PC. Correct me if I am wrong
(That also applies to 16-bit and 32-bit CPUs afaik, 2^16 and 2^32 respectively)
 
 
2 hours later…
3:53 PM
> If we define possessions as things we call ours, James was saying that we are the sum of our possessions. and sense of self also are identified.
-40
Q: I waited nearly one hour, but my post has only five views

user21955639I have a question about my Stack Overflow post: How to convert labels shape from (x,1) to (x, ) I waited nearly one hour, but my post has only five views. I created this account, because my main account was banned already five months ago. Are my views in my new account connected with my old accou...

> I created this account, because my main account was banned already
🚽 as they say. 🚽
 
its only 2 accounts
 
4:12 PM
@Exampleperson I'm not enough into close to the metal development to know, confirm or deny that statement is true. You need a close to the bare metal dev / OS dev which I'm not.
 
It's alright :)
 
4:30 PM
What happened to this question? The dupe banner says "This question already has answers here:", immidetely followed by "Closed 13 years ago by random, ChrisF (mod), Ladybug Killer, John Rudy, Pollyanna." The revision history doesn't really clarify much. So... how did they close it as a dupe of... nothing? Shouldn't that be not possible?
I see the dupe closure was done in 2010... did the dupe system allow doing that when it was closed?
 
@cocomac, isn't there a dup mentioned below?
Maybe there was a bug?
 
No big, the dupe is below
That's how all really, really old duplicates look. Back then, the link to the duplicate was edited into the post instead of in a close notice
 
5:05 PM
@Tinkeringbell I am very kind; thank you for stating it, but certain people like to think I intentionally break rules. Hey, sometimes I do. Sometimes I don’t. :)
@M.A.R. Kevin?
 
5:19 PM
old style close system
 
5:38 PM
it was originally closed as a dupe of this while it was on MSO, before the MSO/MSE split
you can tell by this edit: meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/36888/3
 

« first day (4677 days earlier)      last day (359 days later) »