SoylentNews

AMD Ryzen 4000 CPUs With 7nm+ Zen 3 Cores & X670 Flagship AM4 Platform Arriving End of 2020

* It looks like Zen 3 will be the last generation on AM4, then Zen 4 will move to AM5, adding support for DDR5 and PCIe 5.0.
* Since it's a little over 12 months between each release, you could see Zen 3 in Q4 2020 and Zen 4 in Q1 2022.
* Rumors about Zen 3 performance range from +8% IPC and +200 MHz to over 15% IPC increase and higher core counts. A core count increase (e.g. 12 cores per chiplet or more chiplets) seems unlikely to me, but "7nm+" might make it possible (20% greater transistor density).

Things to watch out for in January:

* 64-core Threadripper 3990X
* Possible 48-core Threadripper 3980X, which AMD may have decided is not worth releasing. You are probably either good with 32 cores or want as many as possible.
* Possible 8-channel memory for Threadripper
* Zen 2 APUs with up to 8 cores
* Use of either Vega or Navi graphics for the Zen 2 APUs
* Any improvements to media decoding? Such as AV1 or 8K. Is it called Video Core Next, Radeon Multimedia Engine, or both?
* LPDDR4X support?
* Possible successor to the fanless A6-9220C, with at least the +52% higher IPC of Zen.
* Possibly more details about ray tracing for the next-gen consoles.

So why is 5G network coverage so sparse? It turns out, there is a reason.

It is little known, yet well established that AT&T representatives are carefully disguised to have the form and appearance of ordinary human beings.

Due to lack of sufficient testing early on, it escaped AT&T's notice that 5G network signals interfered with the disguise making it possible for some people to perceive the true form and nature of their representatives. Because of this, AT&T representatives need to avoid being in areas where 5G signals are present. Thus it makes sense to ensure that 5G coverage is in as few areas as possible, and to manipulate other major carriers to do likewise.

In the meantime marketing will work on hype for a new 6G network so that the entire 5G debacle can be swept under the rug as quickly and quietly as possible.

You read it on the intarweb tubes. So it MUST be true!

This post partially motivated in response to fustakrakich journal post: https://soylentnews.org/~fustakrakich/journal/4779

I don't really expect that civilians understand the real issues at stake here. Some will, most won't.

Bottom line, in this issue, is whether the military answers to civilian authority, or it does not. Like it or not, President Trump is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Soldiers and sailors in the enlisted ranks don't get to pick and choose which officers they will follow. Junior officers don't get to pick and choose their own superior officers. And, flag officers don't get to pick and choose who will be elevated to the office of Commander in Chief. Things just don't work that way.

That was true when Obama was president, when Bush 1 and 2 were president, when Clinton was president, Ford, Reagan, Carter, and the other 40 or so presidents.

Military discipline is not threatened by Trump's decision - it is threatened by the rebellion of flag officers.

Further, streiff explains clearly how this rebellion is based on nothing more, and nothing less, than hypocrisy.

Read on, be enlightened, and enjoy.

To be quite honest, there is a lot of bullsh** being slung about here. First and foremost, Gallagher was tried by a jury and acquitted of all but the most chicknsh** of charges. It was a verdict that expressed revulsion at the tactics of the Navy JAG officers carrying out the prosecution and their minions in the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and a total rejection of the evidence presented against Chief Gallagher. Even the court-martial convening authority thought the punishment meted out went too far and he intervened to prevent Gallagher from being reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. The whole episode, as I’ve posted before, was nothing more or less than an admiral who was torqued because a court-martial panel did not give him the verdict he wanted decided he’d take his pound of flesh.

On the subject of war crimes, the United States has never severely punished war crimes by our own troops, even in egregious cases. William Calley served some three years of a life sentence in house arrest for the My Lai Massacre. His commander, Ernest Medina, was acquitted. (I, myself, made the pilgrimage to V.V. Vick Jewelers at Cross Country Plaza where Calley worked.) The soldiers convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering Phan Thi Mao in 1966 served a mere four years of a life sentence before being released. I’ve posted on two cases from Sicily in 1943 were some 72 Italian and German prisoners were executed by two Americans. One was acquitted based on a “following orders” defense, the other was sentenced to life but served less than a year before being restored to duty and eventually receiving an honorable discharge. In short, Clint Lorance served longer for a war crime than any other American ever convicted of one, in fact, he served nearly as a long as all previous convictions combined.

Every senior officer who was interviewed for the CNN and New York Times articles, at a minimum, violated the UCMJ. Their statements were, where not outright contemptuous (Article 88 of the UCMJ), manifestly detrimental to the maintenance of good order and discipline by expressing the opinion they did not trust President Trump’s decisions. This issue with the pardons for Gallagher, Lorance, and Golsteyn is not the first instance of rebellion. We’ve seen this as the military hierarchy fought tooth and nail to continue to allow transgenders into the military despite an order to cease doing so (imagine this, a straight man with braces is barred from enlisting but a person who is unbalanced psychologically and taking several varieties of drugs is cleared). We saw a military judge tie the UCMJ to the rack and torture it in order to allow the duplicitous, if not outright treasonous, Bowe Bergdahl go free in order to take a jab at President Trump. All of this calls into question whether the military command structure would actually obey President Trump when called upon to do something that they viewed against their institutional interests or if they would take action favorable to their perceived prerogatives despite a presidential order to the contrary. This, by the way, is not something unique to the past three years. If you’ll recall, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was fired because he tried to do an end run to Congress around Don Rumsfeld to preserve a redundant artillery system that he had championed. So the rot is deep and long standing but only clearly visible today.

source: https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/12/01/real-question-not-whether-military-trusts-president-trump-whether-nation-can-still-trust-military/

citations found in source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-sabotaging-his-military/2019/11/21/6b46199e-0cad-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-undercuts-his-military-leadership--and-dishonors-troops-who-uphold-our-values/2019/11/24/67702788-0d66-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/24/firing-richard-spencer-trump-recklessly-crosses-another-line/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-ill-advised-pardons-will-damage-americans-view-of-the-military/2019/11/21/5c356fda-0c9a-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/pentagon-concern-trump-decision-making/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/us/politics/trump-seals-eddie-gallagher.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_on_Hill_192

An outsider's opinion:

Guest Post by Thaisleeze

Living on the opposite side of the world to the USA I am obliged to follow American politics as a stone thrown into the Washington swamp sends ripples that reach this far. With less than a year to go until the next presidential election it is time to assess the current political landscape.

Trump of course is the focus of massive media noise. This must be ignored if a rational analysis is to be produced. 2016 proved that opinion polls must also be ignored. As things stand today Trump holds the following chips in his stack:

*He is the incumbent

*The official employment numbers are in his favor

*The official economic numbers are in his favor

*His Republican approval is over 90%

*His Hispanic/black approval ratings are at record levels for a Republican

*He has made a dent in the illegal immigration problem

*He has not started any new wars

*Both Trump and the RNC are raking in record amounts of campaign cash

*He will have the vote of most people with a 401(k) account

*He will have the vote of most people in the military

*He is in control of the social media narrative

*He pushed the concept of the deep state and fake news into the mainstream

*Democrat controlled cities are clearly in serious decline

*He forced the DNC to defend their lunatic far left fringe and embrace their views

*He forced the Democrats into the farcical impeachment process

*The Democrats have little cash on hand

*The Democrats do not have a viable policy platform

*The Democrats do not currently have a viable contender for the nomination

Probably the most important fact we have learned since the election of Trump is that the deep state does exist in America and that it is a massively powerful hand on the tiller of American policy. It has also become abundantly clear that this faction was strongly opposed to the policies Trump ran on in 2016 and that they have tried to impede him ever since he announced his candidacy. It is not unreasonable to conclude that this faction does not wish Trump to win re-election. The question then becomes how far are they prepared to go in stopping him.

The most obvious way to stop Trump would be at the the ballot box. However, given the factors outlined above this is a long shot bet. None of the declared Democrat candidates can beat him. Hillary Clinton would fail again. A Republican cannot unseat him. Obama has been keeping a very low profile, it is possible that his wife Michelle could win, if she could be persuaded to run. Oprah?

What would turn the world of Trump upside down would be a financial crisis of a similar magnitude to 2008, or a major dollar collapse (Putin said last week the dollar would collapse soon). If there were a consensus among the deep state to take such action it would be incredibly easy for them to achieve given the highly unstable fabric of markets today.

The corporate credit markets could be pushed into panic by Jamie Dimon alone if he wished such an outcome and had the blessing of his buddies. Indeed, the cynic might argue that the groundwork has been laid since the start of the repo problem in mid September and the launching of QE4. Last time around the patsie was Lehman, has Deutsche Bank been singled out to take the fall this time? Time is running short for this to be an option, a crisis must be in play by spring next year to stymie the Orange Man.

The third way Trump could be stopped does not bare thinking about but it happened before to JFK 56 years ago.

Epstein did not kill himself.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/only-3-ways-stop-trump-2020
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2019/11/29/only-3-ways-to-stop-trump-2020/

They release documents...

The war mongers see things differently of course, but they have no credibility:

The Syrian war has split the OPCW, once largely a technical organization, along political lines, with Russia and its ally Syria on one side and the United States, France and Britain on the other.

Play it again, Sam!

For the whiners:

When you sell your vote, you are no different than the person that bought it.

You all should quit bellyaching about the damn money. It's effects are a reflection on you. You're a soft target, an easy sell, and the reaction to that is classic, and tragedy is the result.

By Larry Keane

Michael Bloomberg made it official. Gun control godfather, financier of several anti-gun groups, is throwing his billions in to buy his way to the White House and forcing his radical anti-gun agenda on America.

It might have been the worst-kept secret in the history of presidential runs. The former New York city mayor has played an on-and-off again tease with his presidential ambitions. In October, the Nanny-in-Chief threatened a run, only to walk it back when he announced in March he wouldn’t. Then, he said, “I am clear-eyed about the difficulty of winning the Democratic nomination.”

It seems that the billionaire got a set of 2020 glasses where the future appears, at least to him, much clearer. Bloomberg’s vision for a gun control America is brighter, in his estimate, after he poured $2.5 million to flip Virginia blue for gun control through Everytown for Gun Safety, which he bankrolls, along with Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action and March for Our Lives. Those groups are already setting their sights on the Second Amendment stronghold of Texas, aiming to knock out Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Colorado’s Republican Sen. Cory Gardner.

None of this comes at a surprise. Bloomberg said in February he was prepared to spend a half billion dollars to wrest control of the White House from President Donald Trump. He dumped $80 million to bolster gun control Democrats to Congress in the 2018 midterms. Now, he’s vowing off public funding, using his near endless reserves to launch a shot to be elected as nation’s top Gun Controller.

Welcome to the Race
His announcement, though, is already being widely panned, even by those who openly embrace even the most far-reaching gun control ideas he embraces. Democratic candidate and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) blasted the Republican-turned-Independent-turned Democrat. “Telling billionaires they can come and buy elections, that does not make democracy work,” she told reporters.

Bloomberg got a similar chilly reception from Sen. Bernie Sander (I-Vt.) when he reacted to the announcement saying Bloomberg’s “not going to get very far in this election.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) panned his $34 million announcement media blitz, adding “I just don’t think people are going to buy it.”

More Obstacle Course than Race
The 77-year-old has hurdles to overcome. Aside from his less-then-warm reception by his fellow competitor candidates, he’s not inspiring a strong following from those who he funnels missions of dollars to peddle his gun control message. Buzzfeed polled 11 Moms Demand and Students Demand Action grassroots volunteers to see if their gun control funder-in-chief earned their vote. None committed to the billionaire. “I’m not super psyched about it, but I respect him enormously,” said Jessica Craven, 51, the legislative lead for her Moms Demand Action group in Northeast Los Angeles. The Wall Street Journal reported Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action reassured their followers they wouldn’t need to pledge their votes to the guy footing their bill.

Adding to Bloomberg’s obstacles are two glaring facts he can’t ignore. Bloomberg’s own news organization refused to investigate their benefactor, a signal he might not be up for the media scrutiny. To be fair, they’ll extend that same courtesy to all other Democratic candidates, but not to President Donald Trump, whom Bloomberg has targeted. Former Bloomberg D.C. bureau chief editor Megan Murphy was astonished, saying “This is not journalism.”

Bloomberg’s also facing a dearth of public support. In the five national primary polls tracking the candidates, he’s hovering around 2 percent. That might explain why he’s skipping the early state tests of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and the debate stages where Americans get to hear directly on why he’s running.

Even the left-leaning Mother Jones begged Bloomberg to butt out. “Stop, please!” pleaded Michael Winchester of Cedar Rapids. “This is insane.”

That’s something we’ve been saying about Michael Bloomberg for years.

Larry Keane is Senior Vice President of Government and Public Affairs and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/gun-controls-godfather-is-in/

With the flip of the Virginia Legislature from R to D earlier this month, the newly elected majority has vowed to finally ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) when the legislative session opens in January.

A vote on the amendment in the last session failed by just one vote.

With the almost certain passage of the ERA in Virginia, 38 states will have ratified it, meeting the 3/4 of states threshold required (along with 2/3 majorities in the House and Senate) to make ERA part of the US Constitution^*.

For those not in the US or those who might be unfamiliar with it, the Equal Rights Amendment (first proposed in 1923) forbids discrimination on account of sex:

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Once Virginia ratifies the amendment, the House and Senate will need to pass it once again (that was first done in 1972) with 2/3 majorities.

There are some procedural issues with ERA in Congress, but given the history of constitutional amendments, they don't seem to be a high bar to get over.

So, shall the US, nearly 100 years after its proposition, formally enshrine the ideal of equal rights for all in its constitution?

Or should we stand with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other nations that treat women as second-class citizens?

^*Process for ratifying amendements.

In one fell swoop the prez eliminated all barriers between the two. Whatever military honor there was went up in smoke. They are merely the president's button men.

You people gonna get serious yet? Or will denial of what caused this with the resultant blame passing remain the rule of the day?