It’s not like GC isn’t a massive part of RVA23 - those are the basic instructions that handle 80-90% of all uses (including most of what CPython needs).

I’m sure one could do some optimizations on RVA23, but is it really worth it?

Vectors are pretty big for speeding up stuff like string comparisons.

Bit manipulation offers up to almost 10% advantage.

Zicond allows branchless code which represents significant speedups.

There’s also serious gains to be had from crypto support.

I’d guess the rest aren’t as important to Python, but those are quite important.

Vector extensions are the biggest gap. That is going to make a pretty big difference for some stuff.

We ran it 4 years ago (including numpy) and it wasn’t a massive uphill climb or anything. It’s gotten a little easier since then if anything.

For RISC-V that would functionally be RV64GC then. And you go incrementally from there as required.

It’s more about failure. It’s right there on top.

And industrial accident investigation (except the ones with low regulation or whatever). And market or supply chain collapse, and civilization collapse (late Bronze Age anyone?)

I think, part of the point is that it’s not possible to have a recipe to prevent failures. They are cascades of many events coming together to fail in an a priori non obvious way.

Or so I read the [site? article?]

Again, depends… I have appreciated my seniors’ notes in some textbooks - especially where the book itself isn’t clear.

Learning and figuring out the meter and rhythm of a new passage? If you don’t have someone who knows to chant it for you…

Besides, it’s a fun exercise, so why not?

Wealth is not finite, but it does have to obey physical limits and real world implications. If person A takes a piece of lumber and carves it into a dresser, and person B, seeing that, buys up lower quality lumber that cannot become a dresser, is that wealth generation? What then, of the guy who buys up lumber futures and dresser futures, on something that won't actually ever happen (say, those lumber futures are for trees that are completely not viable) and then claims to be creating wealth? And asking the stock market to value him on the basis of hype?

There's real wealth and there is all of the manipulation to drive up prices.

TBH, "Don't trust anything on Wikipedia" was always just stuck up posturing. Plenty of badly sourced, badly edited and biased articles in regular encyclopedias too, but because Wikipedia is contributed to by the unwashed masses, don't trust it.

"Don't use Wiki as a primary source" is much more to the point - it's not meant to be. Use it to find the primaries.

Also, I don't see this as "reducing breadth" so much as attempting to hold to a minimum standard of "has this been written up anywhere by someone other than the people who started it?" which isn't perfect, but it's been the stance since the beginning.

Early days of Wikipedia was the wild west. Surely you must agree to that.

Of course. But,

1. So are most other encyclopaedias, and most don’t even give you references or citations for an article 2. We are literally decades from that point now. Surely you must agree that times have changed.