Intel processors are dead, so I have an AMD question

Post Reply New Topic

That's a typical statement which is a) correct and b) useless. Those 2 aren't present in the PC market at all.


It was never proven that kokopelli is not a flying pink unicorn. Nobody can say for sure that kokopelli is not a flying pink unicorn.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about :facepalm:
The patch just tries to improve kernel and userspace memory isolation. Changing the way how the speculative execution works is just impossible without fixing it in the processor hardware.

You claimed that it only affects Intel processors. It is quite useful for showing how wrong you were.



Just when I thought that you couldn't get any more stupid and you proved me wrong.

Do you see any notion of ARM or any other CPUs in the name of this topic? Because I don't.


It's the principle of Russell's teapot, reworded. If you think that it's stupid, I've got some very bad news for you...

That doesn't matter. You made a statement that only needed a counterexample to be proven wrong. Furthermore, your statement was about all processors, not just Intel and AMD processors. I provided a counterexample.



It's not applicable. For it to have any chance of being applicable to what I said, I would have had to have said that we should assume that it applies. What I said that it has not been proven to not apply to AMD processors. You are the one speaking in absolutes.

It is quite possible that some Meltdown variant may be found to apply to AMD processors. The best we can say at present is that it doesn't appear to apply not that it does or does not apply.

IDK I have an acer with the intel core i5 and haven't had any issue.

I have some computers that cannot take a slowdown. Fortunately, there is no reason for anyone but myself to connect to those computers and only from a nonroutable CGN address. I'm not planning on applying any patches, but I am going to lock them down even more than they already are.

Don't be ridiculous. This discussion is in the context of Intel vs AMD. Period. That's why I didn't mention other CPUs - they are irrelevant here.


And that's where the Russel's teapot principle comes into play. You claim that something exists, you have to prove it. Not the other way around.
You still can't understand it, can you?

Suppose that we were discussing motorcycles and bicycles. Your comment would be like saying that there were no motorvehicles having four or more wheels and then trying to justify that by saying that we were only talking about bicycles and motorcycles.

By the way, I've seen a unicycle with three wheels. Figure that out.

Please provide citations where I claimed that Meltdown affects AMD processors. After all, you just said, "You claim that something exists." The truth is that what I said was we don't know if it exists. That is completely different.

You're the one having problem with logic and reading comprehension.

A: My requirements are like this (some description comes here)... What should I get in his situation, bicycle or motorcyle?
B: Better a motorcycle.
kokopelli: but what about trucks???! !!111


Not it's not "completely different". You'd better read about the Russel's teapot (finally), and a couple good books on proper reasoning too.
So much on logic and reading comprehension.

Nope. It's as if the thread mentioned bicycles and motorcycles and you claimed that you had to wear a helmet while driving a motor vehicle and then I pointed out that there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet while driving a car.



Perhaps you should read it again.

To the best of my recollection, Russell's teapot argument was about a religous person saying that since we don't know if there is a teapot in orbit that we should assume that there is.

That's nothing like what I said which was that in the case of the Meltdown vulnerability, it has not been shown to affect AMD processors. I didn't say that we should assume that they affect AMD processors -- only that we don't know whether or not it affects AMD processors. Not only is that fundamentally different than Russell's teapot in terms of the difference between "we should assume that it is" vs "we don't know either way", but it is also different in that the odds of a teapot being in orbit around anything at the time he formulated the argument was pretty much zero unless aliens from outer space came here, got a teapot, and tossed it out of their spaceship while in space. In the case of the Meltdown vulnerability, it hits some processors. There is an enormously greater chance that the vulnerability could affect AMD processors than there is that a teapot somehow magically materialized in outer space or somehow else got there prior to our first forays into space.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. If you can't admit that, then that is your problem.

What is kinda correct, but still irrelevant for the discussion about bicycles and motorcycles. And this discussion explicitly states that it's about Intel and AMD, right in the title.
So, would you kindly stop your tantrum and just admit your mistake?


No, the Russel's teapot doesn't work this way. It says "if it's not proven to exist, then we assume that it doesn't". Simple.
And Intel's Meltdown doesn't affect AMD cpus, that we know that for sure. May other similar vulnerabilities exist? We assume that they don't, unless you have solid proofs that they do exist.

Bertrand Russell was far too good of a mathematician to make that kind of mistake. Until something is proven true or false, we do not assume it to be true or false.

What Russell was arguing was that it was flawed to assume that it exists without proof, especially if it is unlikely to exist. Used as Russell used it, the argument does not prove that God does not exist.

Bertrand Russell's quote about the teapot:

Clearly, Bertrand Russell was saying that when someone claims that the teapot exists, the burden of proof lies on him rather than requiring others to prove that it doesn't exist. What makes this a particularly good argument is that it predates the first space shots and the idea that there might be a china teapot anywhere but on Earth is preposterous. The notion that there could be a china teapot in orbit around the sun would require a great deal of justification. If we had been in space for the last few hundred years, the notion that there could be a china teapot in orbit around the sun would hardly be so preposterous. Furthermore, in spite of the idea of how preposterous it might be to think that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, he is very explicitly not claiming that there is no teapot in orbit around the sun by his "since my assertion cannot be disproved".

So the assumption is that it is extremely unlikely that there is a teapot around the sun, but it cannot be proven that there isn't a teapot in orbit around the sun.

The argument has no bearing on the question of whether or not Meltdown might also affect AMD processors. First of all, the idea that some variant of Meltdown might affect AMD processors is hardly preposterous at all. Second, nobody is saying that it affects AMD processors -- only that it is not settled whether it does or not. All we know, at present, is that it hasn't been shown to affect AMD processors.

Claiming that Meltdown does not affect AMD processors because it has not been shown to affect AMD processors is little different than it would have been to claim that Fermat's Last Theorem is false prior to Dr Wiles proof of the theorem. There would have been no justification to claim that since it had not been proven prior to 1995, that we had to consider it to be false until it was proven.

Thus, to use Bertrand's argument about the china teapot to support the unproven claim that AMD processors are not affected by Meltdown is so far off the mark is highly fallacious and is demonstrates a complete lack of any logical thinking at all.

One other thing -- on January 11, AMD admitted that both variants of Spectre affects their processors. Earlier, they had said that there was a near zero risk that the second variant could be exploited on their processors.

And here is their words about Meltdown:

In other words, they are not saying that AMD processors cannot be affected by Meltdown, only that they believe that they are not susceptible to Meltdown.

When news about the vulnerabilities was first published, AMD claimed that their processors are not susceptible at all to Spectre or Meltdown. A class action lawsuit has been filed by investors over those false statements.

And the assumption is that AMD is very unlikely to have the Meltdown bug, unless it proven otherwise. Try harder, I think that you can understand it if you really try.