barsoap

I'm not arguing for any policies, just explaining what would be necessary to make the theoretical model of the free market a reality in actual reality: It assumes perfect information and perfectly rational actors, it's a tall order.

Its assumptions are inconsistent with the conditions in the material world, but that doesn't make the model itself unsound. A model is not an argument, definitely not in the political sense, it's just a model.

You can also include the model in the material world, as was done, at the very least, when the paper introducing it was published and that doesn't make the material world unsound, either: The model lives in organic computation machines which implement paraconsistent logic in a way that does not, contrary to an assumption popular among those computation machines, make those paradoxes real in the material realm they're embedded in.

Everything is, ultimately, sound, because the universe, nay, cause and effect itself, does not just shatter willy-nilly. "ex falso quodlibet" would have rather interesting implications, physics-wise. For one, an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains would haunt an infinite amount of physicists.

To get closer to the free market there would have to be a duty to disclose any- and everything that's now a trade secret, no matter how easily kept. To not just get closer but actually get there we all would need to be telepathic. As said, perfect information is a bitch of a concept.

It's not so much that they're wrong is that they're impossible in practice. Axioms, by their very nature, cannot be justified from within the system that they serve so "true" or "false" aren't really applicable.

The model does have its justification, "given these axioms, we indeed get perfect allocation of resources", that's not wrong it's a mathematical truth, and there's a strain of liberalism (ordoliberalism) which specifically says "the state should regulate so that the actually existing market more closely approximates this mythical free market unicorn", which is broadly speaking an immensely sensible take and you'll have market socialists nodding in agreement, yep, that's a good idea.

And then there's another strain (neoliberalism) which basically says "lul we'll tell people that 'free market' means 'unregulated market' so we can be feudal lords and siphon off infinite amounts of resources from the plebs".

Or trade secrets. "Perfect information" is a bitch. Not to speak of "perfectly rational actors": Say goodbye to advertisement, too, we'd have to outlaw basically all of it.

You also need that stuff to shut up pseudo-sceptics. Like, random example, posture having an influence on mood, there were actually psychologists denying that, reason for that kind of attitude is usually either a) If there's no study on some effect then it doesn't exist, "literature realism" or b) some now-debunked theory of the past implied it, "incorrectness by association". Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean that you should discount catholic opinions on beer brewing, they produce some good shit. And just because the alchemists talked about transmutation and the chemists made fun of it to distance themselves from their own history doesn't mean that some nuclear physicist wasn't about to rain on their parade, yes, you can turn lead into gold.

With Deutsche Telekom, never attribute to incompetence that which can be attributed to greed.

Newsflash: T-Mobile is a big provider. They took some standard European practices, also technology, and then pretended to be a small scrappy startup in the US until they had enough of a customer base to return to their usual monopolistic ways.

The only thing that keeps them half-way in check over here is forced unbundling: If you have network infrastructure you need to let other providers use it, at regulated prices. Which is really necessary as they inherited every single landline in the country from the old state monopoly.

Be glad that the postal service got broken up into telecoms, postal/parcel and banking before getting privatised if it hadn't it would be an absolute scourge on the world. Imagine them cross-financing such market takeovers with the additional resources from the largest logistics company in the world (DHL). Banking sector is less impressive right now Deutsche Bank doesn't know what to do with it. I have no idea why they even bother, they don't care about end-consumer banking there's no money in that.

Great! Now please explain how opcodes are expressions. Also, what processor instruction a cast from one pointer type to another pointer type corresponds to.

You are way out of your depth here. Have you even implemented a compiler.

EDIT:

You don’t even have a clue, you are just talking trash.

In assembly you don’t generally talk about pointers, but address modes. Like register, immediate or memory (indirect).

Have you ever actually been programming any serious assembly? Because you sure don’t sound like it.

Oh cute edit to make to make my response look bad retroactively.

But as you wanted to get pedantic: A pointer is a value which is intended to be dereferenced, that (hopefully) corresponds to a valid memory address. "address", "pointer", "reference", it's a matter of taste which one you use. It exists "in assembly" just as "an index" exists in C: Not because it's a language feature, but because it's a concept you use when writing in the language. And yes I speak pretty fluent x86, at least the non-SIMD part. Did I mention that I was there, at ground zero "why is is thing not compiling in 64 bit mode" times, fixing code?

Now, back to my question:

what processor instruction does a cast from one pointer type to another pointer type corresponds to.

Figuring out the answer to that will tell you everything you need to know about where you went wrong. Where you went from talking about actual concepts to arguing semantics.

I'm sorry are we somehow assuming floating-point pointers, now, of course you need to convert there. "casting" is a specific thing you do in C which may or may not involve conversion of actual data. Processors don't speak C. Processors don't have a type system.

You can use 32-bit pointers in x86_64 long mode, no issue. You don't even need to bit-fiddle: mov rax, [esi] is perfectly legal. Opcode 0x67488B06. Dereferencing rsi would be 0x488B06.

That the CPU should be called by a single aspect they can’t actually handle!!! That’s moronic.

People literally use the word "literally" to mean figuratively. It doesn't make any sense. One might even call it moronic.

But it's the way it's done. Deal with it.

1. The whole article overall lacks sources.
2. That section is completely unsourced.
3. It doesn't say what you think it says.

You were arguing the definition of "X-bit CPU". We're not talking about "X-bit ALU". It's also not up to contention that "A 64-bit integer is 64 bit wide". So, to the statement:

Also, 64-bit central processing units (CPU) and arithmetic logic units (ALU) are those that are based on processor registers, address buses, or data buses of that size.

This does not say which of "processor register, address buses, or data buses" applies to CPU and which to ALU.

Obviously 64 bits means registers are 64 bit, the addresses are therefore also 64 bit,

Having 64 bit registers doesn't necessitate that you have 64 bit addresses. It's common, incredibly common, for the integer registers to match the pointer width but there's no hard requirement in theory or practice. It's about as arbitrary a rule as "Instruction length must be wider than the register size", so that immediate constants fit into the instruction stream, makes sense doesn't it... and then along come RISC architectures and split load immediate instructions into two.

otherwise it would require type casting every time you need to make calculations on them

Processors don't typecast. Please stop talking.