Explain to someone like me who uses C in safety-critical software in aerospace and defense why not?
For me, choosing the language is not enough. It's the tooling that goes far beyond the language that is important for safety and quality of compiler and runtime. C has very mature tooling options. So does ADA.
Explain to us why you are not allowed to use 100% of ISO C, without certification processes that castrate C to the point it feels like Ada 83 with curly brackets.
Proceses that outside high integrity computing no one is willing to make themselves go through without legal requirements and liability.
Most of it because during 1980's it was cheaper to advocate for C plus certification than pay for Ada compilers and developers.
Because we want to write correct code. We want to verify the absence of many types of errors where amateurish language war stuff like Rust vs C does not even scratch the surface.
I would propose that we change your original statement "Ideally neither C nor C++ should be used when security matters." into:
"Ideally people who don't care about secrurity should not write code when security matters."
Can we agree that this is better than talking about programming languages?
Except security matters everywhere in modern computing, and the world is full of amateurs that call themselves engineers, writing C without any of those tools, or legal consequences.
If it mattered they would not be using C without any of those tools or techniques. Therefore, it is empirically proven that it either does not matter or they are deploying code unfit for purpose and should not be writing such code.
And that is precisely what they said:
> Ideally people who don't care about secrurity [sic] should not write code when security matters.
The absence of legal consequences further supports the fact that it does not matter.
It does certainly matter, it needed to go beyond what is acceptable for governments and security agencies to finally start reacting, since Morris worm came to be.
Naturally the move fast and break things culture sees it otherwise.
The first SoC including Neural Engine was the A11 Bionic, used in iPhone 8, 8 Plus and iPhone X, introduced in 2017. Since then, every Apple A-series SoC has included a Neural Engine.
The first SoC including Neural Engine was the A11 Bionic, used in iPhone 8, 8 Plus and iPhone X, introduced in 2017. Since then, every Apple A-series SoC has included a Neural Engine.
The Neural Engine is its own block. Neural Engine is not used for local LLMs on Macs. Neural Engine is optimized for power efficiency while running small models. It's not good for LARGE language models.
This change is strictly adding matmul acceleration into each GPU core where it is being used for LLMs.
The NPU is still there. This adds matmul acceleration directly into each GPU core. It takes about ~10% more transistors to add these accelerators into the GPU so it's a significant investment for Apple.
The bleeding edge uses abstract interpretation to verify code.
Free from NASA:
IKOS (Inference Kernel for Open Static Analyzers) is a static analyzer for C/C++ based on the theory of Abstract Interpretation. https://github.com/NASA-SW-VnV/ikos
On the free side, you also have Frama-C (https://www.frama-c.com) and its Eva plug-in, based on abstract interpretation, and Mopsa (https://mopsa.lip6.fr), also based on abstract interpretation.
It'll be the same for Intel with their new process node.
Everyone working with the latest process node is tightly coupled with the manufacturer: Nvidia, Apple, AMD, and Qualcomm. Microarchitecture design and optimization for a new process is super expensive and hard.
Legacy processes have settled, have standardized design software and tooling, so everything costs less.
ps. Nvidia and Qualcomm are considering Samsungs 2mm because TSMC's 2-nanometer chip production capacity is extremely limited.
It's common to discover IMSI-catchers in national capitals around the world. There are many interesting targets.
Washington, D.C. mobile traffic is probably the most spied in the world. Especially now when it's run by technological cavemen and overly confident techbros. Israeli, Russians, Chinese, French and everyone.
Back in the mid-80s, it was an open secret that some AMPS transmissions could be received on ordinary TV tuners which were capable up to Channel 83 or so.
My father being a DXer and installer of a home-built Yagi and rotator system, I discovered this fairly easily. All he told me was to just guard the privacy of these people I was snooping on, because they were supposed to be private conversations after all. I never heard anything of substance anyway. It was one of the more boring surveillance activities of my misspent youth.
The Soviet/Russian station in San Francisco was heavily involved in SIGINT back in the days of microwave radio trunks and analog mobile phones, and I would imagine the Chinese have taken the throne from them today.
> least some part of the populace is well armed enough to overthrow t
What a naive fantasy.
Organization of people is much more important than guns. You don't even need guns when you organize. You can stop the state just by collective action. See color revolutions.
When it is guns, you need RGP's, detonators and TNT (and drones), a good underground insurgent logistic chains. You also need commit to life in poverty and eventual death.
United States, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Serbia have plenty of independent weapons, yet there is no fear of effective armed resistance. Everybody is a rebel in the Internet. When things go tough it's "I have to go to work and eat. My family needs me."
Magna Carta predates not just guns but even just gunpowder being known in Europe.
The barons it talks about would have been somewhat analogous to US state governors, though even then it's a very loose analogy as the logistics of England in the 1200s was so different to the modern world.
There's lots of things it could be analogised to, including a board of directors empowered to remove an unwanted CEO; or how the English civil war was a fight between Charles I and his parliament (some of the discourse at the time explicitly mentioned Magna Carta*).
Which is to say that while one does indeed need to be able to respond "this one" when asked "you and what army?", that requirement is not itself a show-stopper, people can (and have) been able to give the correct answer.
SIMD-accelerated integer-to-string conversion https://lemire.me/blog/2026/05/18/simd-accelerated-integer-t...
Other speedy things:
On-Demand JSON: A Better Way to Parse Documents? https://lemire.me/en/publication/arxiv231217149/
Parsing Millions of URLs per Second https://lemire.me/en/publication/arxiv231110533/
Transcoding Unicode Characters with AVX-512 Instructions https://lemire.me/en/publication/arxiv221205098/
reply