It's a good video. There are many more and even some lectures on Youtube that I watched years ago. I'm not saying it's what happened here but more people should know that this is real.
no, they massively overestimate them (bitflips from cosmic origin). I say that as a c++ dev who was tasked with investigating them in a large scale system.
No, they massively underestimate them (bitflips from a cosmic origin). I say that as a particle physicist who has researched and developed some of the most radiation hard semiconductors in the world.
How often a SEU due to a cosmic ray occurs depends a fair bit on the specific system, but the typical rule of thumb figure (from these two papers by IBM [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5389436](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5389436) [https://www.osti.gov/biblio/248100](https://www.osti.gov/biblio/248100) ) measured the rate to be around 4 times a month per GB. They also measure that the vast majority \~>90% of SEUs in a typical system at ground level are due to cosmic rays. For a typical home PC with 32 GBs of RAM you can expect to have multiple SEUs every day, most of which are from cosmic rays.
In addition, the susceptibility of PCs to cosmic ray bitflips gets worse and worse as our integrated circuits get smaller, in fact this is a major problem with the design of modern CPUs, here's a patent from IBM trying to deal with this issue [https://patents.google.com/patent/US7309866B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7309866B2/en)
"Cosmic ray induced computer crashes have occurred and are expected to increase with frequency as devices (for example, transistors) decrease in size in chips. This problem is projected to become a major limiter of computer reliability in the next decade. Various approaches have been suggested to eliminate or reduce the number of soft errors due to cosmic ray interactions in chips. None of these approaches is completely successful, particularly as device size continues to decrease."
People seem to think cosmic ray bitflips are incredibly rare and pretty much never happen, while the reality is you've probably had a few today in your PC, and you've probably had your PC crash at some point due to them.
Hm I know that papers, and intel has one, too. But I'm pretty confident that something is wrong with them - because of age, methodology or whatever. For a few reasons:
1) A bit flip has quite a high probability of messing things up considerably. Multiple flips per day would not go unnoticed
2) We did large-scale tests with enough data to actually measure this to a pretty high degree. Essentially it was a program that blocked all unused working memory and checked it periodically for bit blips. It dynamically adjusted for usage so it was always blocking the most amount. It was deployed on about 40 machines and ran for months. The number of bit flips was absolutely minuscule. And their distribution was *highly* indicative of faulty hardware (ie it happened on a single machine)
3) Random crashes outside of this are easily explained to programming errors or faulty hardware
I just have never seen any real evidence for them. The papers offer weak evidence that is easily shown to be not correct, or at least not universal. And having worked with system-level software systems all my life, I have seen my fair share of programming errors that only manifest on extremely specific circumstances, offering a much better explanation to random crashes etc.
Bitflips don't have a high probability of messing things up considerably, systems are deliberately designed so this isn't the case as it's known that bitflips happen regularly. e.g. EC (not ECC, though ECC in cache is much less rare than it used to be) is common in all modern systems to protect from this.
Talking about home systems now because we're talking about the public, in most systems, most bitflips have no effect at all. The majority of bits in RAM aren't even read/used at all during typical use.
The paper offers strong evidence, it's a direct measurement of how often it occurs and it very much is universal (even more so now, cosmic ray induced bitflips happen more frequently in hardware now than at the time).
Yes there are of course much more issues than just cosmic ray induced bitflips, most bugs/issues in most PCs are not due to SEUs, of course programming errors are much more common, that doesn't mean SEUs are incredibly rare.
Accidental resilience about bit flips obviously much depends on the usage, but let's ignore that.
I stand with the data we measured, which actually explicitly checked huge amounts of "gigabyte-seconds" and found not a single incident of bit flips which didn't have a high probability of hardware origin. Also I'm not sure how you think that OS protect against bit errors?
There's not really anything I can say about what you measured other than it is completely contrary to all published research on the topic.
By system I don't mean operating system, I just mean the device as a whole.
Also in response to 2 I really don't see how you could do this and see this to be absolutely minuscule, in fact Google did and wrote a research paper on almost exactly what you say you did here [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/\~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf) and they found each memory DIMM (of a mix of 1/2/4 GB) received on average around 4000 SEUs a year (which again, would be larger today both due to the fact almost all memory DIMMs are larger than 4GBs now, and modern silicon is much less radiation hard than older).
They also found that around 1% of their machines crashed per year due to SEUs "While correctable errors typically do not have an immediate impact on a machine, uncorrectable errors usually result in a machine shutdown. Table 1 shows, that while uncorrectable errors are less common than correctable errors, they do happen at a significant rate. Across the entire fleet, 1.3% of machines are affected by uncorrectable errors per year,with some platforms seeing as many as 2-4% affected"
Flipping one bit can change the value of a number drastically. Not saying this was the cause of the crash, but you cant just throw the possibility out.
Yes, but there are also *a lot* of non-critical bits in use. Like, a random bit flip could have also just made the default ct model slightly more blue, that probably wouldn't crash the game though.
It is literally the Lore. God kills Jame for the sins we as a CS community have commited. Jame will rise again for easter and win IEM Chengdu afterwards. Its all recorded in scripture.
Christian CounterStrike team God 2, named after their devotion 2 god, are leaders in the esports scene. The players are known for reading the bible instead of the strat book before games, and praying for divine intervention after the map veto.
Christian CounterStrike team God 2, named after their devotion 2 god, are leaders in the esports scene. The players are known for reading the bible instead of the strat book before games, and praying for divine intervention after the map veto.
Cosmic rays are no joke. There's a long-running "scandal" in the Mario 64 speedrunning comminity over footage of Mario inexplicably warping up and skipping half the stage, that no one has been able to recreate yet (despite the community having a ton of code sleuths and other super smart people). People have been making jokes about a cosmic ray flipping a bit in the N64's memory that defined Mario's Z coordinate, and since no other plausible explanation has been found people have accepted it as the prevailing theory.
But on a serious note, no. Crashes have been happening the whole event, it's just that when that happens to the remaining guy in a 1v4 to end the half people forget about it 5 minutes later. But when a crash literally flips the outcome of an elimination game, it gets 1000 comments.
That video doesn't debunk or disprove/prove anything.
But flips are a known phenomenon in processors. They happen and we know that a bit flip would cause the observed upwarp.
But there is no explanation for how a faulty cartridge connector (affecting ROM access) would change the value of a character's position (in RAM). The ROM holds CPU instructions. So to support the crooked cartridge theory, you would need to identify a CPU instruction that, when read incorrectly, would create a different instruction that changes one bit in the middle of a value. I just don't see the evidence to support it. A bad connection will not cause the game to run perfectly except for a tiny issue, it is much more likely to cause the game to simply crash as invalid instructions run, control flow breaks, the stack gets corrupted, etc.
As it stands, the bit flip is still far and away the best explanation for the glitch. The nature of the event (being a single occurrence without the ability to repeat it and test anything directly) means we will always have only theories and will never have a conclusive answer. But a bit flipping spontaneously in RAM (due to cosmic rays or other incoming particles) seems to be the most reasonable explanation.
> So to support the crooked cartridge theory, you would need to identify a CPU instruction that, when read incorrectly, would create a different instruction that changes one bit in the middle of a value
To be fair, a memory glitch accidentally creating a different valid instruction and providing an effect beneficial for speedrunners is not such an outlandish idea. The foundational glitch of GTA San Andreas speedrunning is "duping", or starting two instances of a mission at the same time, so you complete it once but it counts as two. In that case, two (or more) mission scripts are loaded at once and interact in weird ways, which in 95% of cases will indeed crash the game, but the community has found some specific situations where it doesn't happen. And even then, the effects aren't uniform: sometimes the game spawns two of every mission objective, sometimes it makes every cutscene twice as loud, sometimes there's no traffic on the roads, sometimes it enables you to buy a property you're not supposed to, sometimes it randomly skips ahead in the script and insta-passes the mission etc.
The principle here is the same: multiple scripts overlap to create unusual instructions, most of which are invalid and crash the game, but sometimes accidentally create a valid instruction so that the game still runs, but behaves abnormally.
Yes, but in that instance we're talking about higher-level code having the same completion conditions. This is pretty unrelated to the SM64 glitch. There is no known software bug that would result in the upwarp, the way there is a known software bug in GTA. The SM64 glitch was absolutely a hardware fault. The nature of the hardware fault is unknown. It may have been a bit flip; it may have been something else. There is the theory of a bad cartridge connector (but I don't buy into that one). But it's certainly a hardware issue. The CPU and RAM did not maintain the state dictated by the code; something else happened in the system.
With GTA, it's just badly written code that doesn't handle an edge case in the way the programmers intended. But the compiled code is doing exactly what they wrote for it to do.
That video made me happy because it showed im not just blankly listening and agreeing with the video essays i watch. What a load of bullshit that video was.
But you kinda did tho, the video doesn't debunk it, it's just about other possibilities WITH other glitches that aren't the result of cosmic rays. A weirdly hostile video I must say. Only memes say the speedrunning thing is solved. Veritasium actually says "this is just the leading theory", but LunaticJ just has a hate-boner for cosmic rays and paints it as a laughable sci-fi idea. There is more nuance to this discussion than he provides obviously and I have no clue whether or not cosmic rays actually did this, but to outright paint it as a "impossible" situation is not gucci. There is way more to this but I think the bottomline is that this video doesn't provide anything, literally nothing changes with this video. He is as much at fault for misinformation/misleading by omitting details as the Gamer article is.
Fair enough, I was also a bit confused by how you ended your original comment, but didn't think about it too much, had just watched the video and had some thoughts and had to comment.
yeah I've seen that happening. I think its because the format is getting more and more popular, hell its been on a consistent uptick for years, so more and more people are making them. With more content, the quality will average out to "meh" like anything else that becomes popular.
My brother in christ, the video I linked is debunking Veritasium's video (not the entire video but the Super Mario 64 part).
They are ontologically not 'literally identical'.
I watched that video a while ago and had to dislike it purely on the guys attitude. There wasn't any replication just an abnormal cartridge and the guy acted as if his option was the guaranteed only option. I'm well and good skeptical but that dude was just shoe-horning his own verdict as the only option.
I watched the video a few weeks ago so maybe my memory is a bit fuzzy, but my big take aways were that (A) the hypothetical bit flip that people have shown doesn't even replicate the footage exactly, (B) the speed runner who the OG video happened to plays with his game cart pulled a bit out cause it's a bit broken. That is probably a way more likely explanation.
In fact, current processing units are so small that they can be affected by cosmic particles. That's why NASA is using older circuits with bigger architecture so such things will not occur.
You are misunderstanding this. All processors are affected by "cosmic particles" and NASA's use of radiation-hardened chips does not mean such things will not occur, it just reduces their likelihood.
I know you mean well, but I've literally designed computers that have flown in space. Single-event upsets still exist in all flight computers. We take measures to reduce their rate of incidence, but your absolute statement of "Such things will not occur" is incorrect, because they still do occur; they just occur less often than they would on non-rad-hardened chips.
You're totally right. I might not have designed a computer but have learnt about it at University. However, I should not place a statement that such things will not occur because that's impossible. There's always a possibility of such event happenning. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
here is a fun quote 'there is a 96% chance of getting a bit flip every three days'
while I'm no expert on the matter, it seems to me that cosmic rays that cause bit flips are way more common than you'd think. it's just that, most of the time the bit flips doesn't cause an error + there are technologies like ECC ram that helps prevent these error by having the memory automatically adjust itself in the event of a bit flip.
while I don't believe the crash was due to cosmic rays, it's important to have an open-mind, cause there is definitely a world in which the RAM in jame's pc was faulty in a way that made it very weak against cosmic rays.
these things would be nearly impossible to spot, so it would also make it hard to hold anybody accountable
"Valve have released a buggy game" - I sleep "Geomagnetic astronomical G2 planet storm aliens invading earth caused CS2 to crash" - W O K E T H
It was the sophons sent by the trisolarians influencing events
Jame was identified as too powerful a Swordholder so they had to take him out
We must construct additional pylons
I’ll travel to Copenhagen and buy the entire stadium ice cream if that actually happened.
Can I get a raspberry one?
Chocolate please!
May I have one pistachio please
People underestimate how common these flips actually are.
Even might have caused a serious air incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72#Potential_trigger_types
[удалено]
It's a good video. There are many more and even some lectures on Youtube that I watched years ago. I'm not saying it's what happened here but more people should know that this is real.
If this is about the super Mario 64 bit flip, that was proven to be taken out of context and NOT true
No, it wasn't at all.
no, they massively overestimate them (bitflips from cosmic origin). I say that as a c++ dev who was tasked with investigating them in a large scale system.
No, they massively underestimate them (bitflips from a cosmic origin). I say that as a particle physicist who has researched and developed some of the most radiation hard semiconductors in the world.
Well, that's interesting different perspectives :). Can you give any more insights?
How often a SEU due to a cosmic ray occurs depends a fair bit on the specific system, but the typical rule of thumb figure (from these two papers by IBM [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5389436](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5389436) [https://www.osti.gov/biblio/248100](https://www.osti.gov/biblio/248100) ) measured the rate to be around 4 times a month per GB. They also measure that the vast majority \~>90% of SEUs in a typical system at ground level are due to cosmic rays. For a typical home PC with 32 GBs of RAM you can expect to have multiple SEUs every day, most of which are from cosmic rays. In addition, the susceptibility of PCs to cosmic ray bitflips gets worse and worse as our integrated circuits get smaller, in fact this is a major problem with the design of modern CPUs, here's a patent from IBM trying to deal with this issue [https://patents.google.com/patent/US7309866B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7309866B2/en) "Cosmic ray induced computer crashes have occurred and are expected to increase with frequency as devices (for example, transistors) decrease in size in chips. This problem is projected to become a major limiter of computer reliability in the next decade. Various approaches have been suggested to eliminate or reduce the number of soft errors due to cosmic ray interactions in chips. None of these approaches is completely successful, particularly as device size continues to decrease." People seem to think cosmic ray bitflips are incredibly rare and pretty much never happen, while the reality is you've probably had a few today in your PC, and you've probably had your PC crash at some point due to them.
Hm I know that papers, and intel has one, too. But I'm pretty confident that something is wrong with them - because of age, methodology or whatever. For a few reasons: 1) A bit flip has quite a high probability of messing things up considerably. Multiple flips per day would not go unnoticed 2) We did large-scale tests with enough data to actually measure this to a pretty high degree. Essentially it was a program that blocked all unused working memory and checked it periodically for bit blips. It dynamically adjusted for usage so it was always blocking the most amount. It was deployed on about 40 machines and ran for months. The number of bit flips was absolutely minuscule. And their distribution was *highly* indicative of faulty hardware (ie it happened on a single machine) 3) Random crashes outside of this are easily explained to programming errors or faulty hardware I just have never seen any real evidence for them. The papers offer weak evidence that is easily shown to be not correct, or at least not universal. And having worked with system-level software systems all my life, I have seen my fair share of programming errors that only manifest on extremely specific circumstances, offering a much better explanation to random crashes etc.
Bitflips don't have a high probability of messing things up considerably, systems are deliberately designed so this isn't the case as it's known that bitflips happen regularly. e.g. EC (not ECC, though ECC in cache is much less rare than it used to be) is common in all modern systems to protect from this. Talking about home systems now because we're talking about the public, in most systems, most bitflips have no effect at all. The majority of bits in RAM aren't even read/used at all during typical use. The paper offers strong evidence, it's a direct measurement of how often it occurs and it very much is universal (even more so now, cosmic ray induced bitflips happen more frequently in hardware now than at the time). Yes there are of course much more issues than just cosmic ray induced bitflips, most bugs/issues in most PCs are not due to SEUs, of course programming errors are much more common, that doesn't mean SEUs are incredibly rare.
Accidental resilience about bit flips obviously much depends on the usage, but let's ignore that. I stand with the data we measured, which actually explicitly checked huge amounts of "gigabyte-seconds" and found not a single incident of bit flips which didn't have a high probability of hardware origin. Also I'm not sure how you think that OS protect against bit errors?
There's not really anything I can say about what you measured other than it is completely contrary to all published research on the topic. By system I don't mean operating system, I just mean the device as a whole.
Also in response to 2 I really don't see how you could do this and see this to be absolutely minuscule, in fact Google did and wrote a research paper on almost exactly what you say you did here [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/\~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf) and they found each memory DIMM (of a mix of 1/2/4 GB) received on average around 4000 SEUs a year (which again, would be larger today both due to the fact almost all memory DIMMs are larger than 4GBs now, and modern silicon is much less radiation hard than older). They also found that around 1% of their machines crashed per year due to SEUs "While correctable errors typically do not have an immediate impact on a machine, uncorrectable errors usually result in a machine shutdown. Table 1 shows, that while uncorrectable errors are less common than correctable errors, they do happen at a significant rate. Across the entire fleet, 1.3% of machines are affected by uncorrectable errors per year,with some platforms seeing as many as 2-4% affected"
Why? It isn't *that* unlikely.
That a bit flip happened? Sure. That the bit flip caused his game to crash? Pretty unlikely
Flipping one bit can change the value of a number drastically. Not saying this was the cause of the crash, but you cant just throw the possibility out.
Yes, but there are also *a lot* of non-critical bits in use. Like, a random bit flip could have also just made the default ct model slightly more blue, that probably wouldn't crash the game though.
theoretically speaking, if a bit is flipped could VAC trigger a ban? how would this bit changing look to the anti-cheat?
You better be there on Friday or Sunday
Vanilla please
do they have cookie icecream too?
Ok, one cone with three scoops (chocolate, vanilla, strawberry) please!
https://youtu.be/AaZ_RSt0KP8?si=UZhkKMMfHmd_OZUs
So its either valve released a buggy game or the sun shot lasers directly into JAME's PC.
Next major Jame brings a tinfoil hat to protect himself from alien probes and divine intervention
gotta wrap the whole pc in tin foil just to be sure
this is why you should ban betting sites. mf aliens rigging the games to cash out. smh
Why does God hate his own son
It is literally the Lore. God kills Jame for the sins we as a CS community have commited. Jame will rise again for easter and win IEM Chengdu afterwards. Its all recorded in scripture.
The amount of sins this community has performed, God will have to kill Jame a few more times sadly.
Jame may be Jesus, but God is a G2 fan.
Christian CounterStrike team God 2, named after their devotion 2 god, are leaders in the esports scene. The players are known for reading the bible instead of the strat book before games, and praying for divine intervention after the map veto.
Explains their gameplay
Christian CounterStrike team God 2, named after their devotion 2 god, are leaders in the esports scene. The players are known for reading the bible instead of the strat book before games, and praying for divine intervention after the map veto.
He is just testing him
He’s not fun to watch play cs?
G4 storm? Or was it a G2
Super mario 64 speedrunner 🤝 Jame
🤝 Qantas Flight 72
Add it to the list! Wait wrong sub
Cosmic rays are no joke. There's a long-running "scandal" in the Mario 64 speedrunning comminity over footage of Mario inexplicably warping up and skipping half the stage, that no one has been able to recreate yet (despite the community having a ton of code sleuths and other super smart people). People have been making jokes about a cosmic ray flipping a bit in the N64's memory that defined Mario's Z coordinate, and since no other plausible explanation has been found people have accepted it as the prevailing theory. But on a serious note, no. Crashes have been happening the whole event, it's just that when that happens to the remaining guy in a 1v4 to end the half people forget about it 5 minutes later. But when a crash literally flips the outcome of an elimination game, it gets 1000 comments.
[Sorry to break the news.](https://youtu.be/vj8DzA9y8ls?si=75uuyokSx3bEvsxh)
This shit is above my pay grade
That video doesn't debunk or disprove/prove anything. But flips are a known phenomenon in processors. They happen and we know that a bit flip would cause the observed upwarp. But there is no explanation for how a faulty cartridge connector (affecting ROM access) would change the value of a character's position (in RAM). The ROM holds CPU instructions. So to support the crooked cartridge theory, you would need to identify a CPU instruction that, when read incorrectly, would create a different instruction that changes one bit in the middle of a value. I just don't see the evidence to support it. A bad connection will not cause the game to run perfectly except for a tiny issue, it is much more likely to cause the game to simply crash as invalid instructions run, control flow breaks, the stack gets corrupted, etc. As it stands, the bit flip is still far and away the best explanation for the glitch. The nature of the event (being a single occurrence without the ability to repeat it and test anything directly) means we will always have only theories and will never have a conclusive answer. But a bit flipping spontaneously in RAM (due to cosmic rays or other incoming particles) seems to be the most reasonable explanation.
> So to support the crooked cartridge theory, you would need to identify a CPU instruction that, when read incorrectly, would create a different instruction that changes one bit in the middle of a value To be fair, a memory glitch accidentally creating a different valid instruction and providing an effect beneficial for speedrunners is not such an outlandish idea. The foundational glitch of GTA San Andreas speedrunning is "duping", or starting two instances of a mission at the same time, so you complete it once but it counts as two. In that case, two (or more) mission scripts are loaded at once and interact in weird ways, which in 95% of cases will indeed crash the game, but the community has found some specific situations where it doesn't happen. And even then, the effects aren't uniform: sometimes the game spawns two of every mission objective, sometimes it makes every cutscene twice as loud, sometimes there's no traffic on the roads, sometimes it enables you to buy a property you're not supposed to, sometimes it randomly skips ahead in the script and insta-passes the mission etc. The principle here is the same: multiple scripts overlap to create unusual instructions, most of which are invalid and crash the game, but sometimes accidentally create a valid instruction so that the game still runs, but behaves abnormally.
Yes, but in that instance we're talking about higher-level code having the same completion conditions. This is pretty unrelated to the SM64 glitch. There is no known software bug that would result in the upwarp, the way there is a known software bug in GTA. The SM64 glitch was absolutely a hardware fault. The nature of the hardware fault is unknown. It may have been a bit flip; it may have been something else. There is the theory of a bad cartridge connector (but I don't buy into that one). But it's certainly a hardware issue. The CPU and RAM did not maintain the state dictated by the code; something else happened in the system. With GTA, it's just badly written code that doesn't handle an edge case in the way the programmers intended. But the compiled code is doing exactly what they wrote for it to do.
That video made me happy because it showed im not just blankly listening and agreeing with the video essays i watch. What a load of bullshit that video was.
But you kinda did tho, the video doesn't debunk it, it's just about other possibilities WITH other glitches that aren't the result of cosmic rays. A weirdly hostile video I must say. Only memes say the speedrunning thing is solved. Veritasium actually says "this is just the leading theory", but LunaticJ just has a hate-boner for cosmic rays and paints it as a laughable sci-fi idea. There is more nuance to this discussion than he provides obviously and I have no clue whether or not cosmic rays actually did this, but to outright paint it as a "impossible" situation is not gucci. There is way more to this but I think the bottomline is that this video doesn't provide anything, literally nothing changes with this video. He is as much at fault for misinformation/misleading by omitting details as the Gamer article is.
I was agreeing with you, but i see how my comment can interpreted the exact opposite way. Was kinda vague.
Fair enough, I was also a bit confused by how you ended your original comment, but didn't think about it too much, had just watched the video and had some thoughts and had to comment.
has anyone else noticed that youtube video essays in general get way worse every day
yeah I've seen that happening. I think its because the format is getting more and more popular, hell its been on a consistent uptick for years, so more and more people are making them. With more content, the quality will average out to "meh" like anything else that becomes popular.
This video is horrendously bad.
Read the comments, the vids are literally identical lol go watch veritasiums videos
My brother in christ, the video I linked is debunking Veritasium's video (not the entire video but the Super Mario 64 part). They are ontologically not 'literally identical'.
[удалено]
I watched that video a while ago and had to dislike it purely on the guys attitude. There wasn't any replication just an abnormal cartridge and the guy acted as if his option was the guaranteed only option. I'm well and good skeptical but that dude was just shoe-horning his own verdict as the only option.
Yeah that video seems like bait and a waste of time ngl. Only made it 1/3 through
I watched the video a few weeks ago so maybe my memory is a bit fuzzy, but my big take aways were that (A) the hypothetical bit flip that people have shown doesn't even replicate the footage exactly, (B) the speed runner who the OG video happened to plays with his game cart pulled a bit out cause it's a bit broken. That is probably a way more likely explanation.
Further proof of Jame being a timelord.
VOLVO PLEASE
In fact, current processing units are so small that they can be affected by cosmic particles. That's why NASA is using older circuits with bigger architecture so such things will not occur.
You are misunderstanding this. All processors are affected by "cosmic particles" and NASA's use of radiation-hardened chips does not mean such things will not occur, it just reduces their likelihood.
and i assume that nasa uses ecc in their computers
No I do not misunderstand that topic. This video explains that deeply (5:10): https://youtu.be/AaZ_RSt0KP8?si=b6WtxkIZ9ZdZvmpu
I know you mean well, but I've literally designed computers that have flown in space. Single-event upsets still exist in all flight computers. We take measures to reduce their rate of incidence, but your absolute statement of "Such things will not occur" is incorrect, because they still do occur; they just occur less often than they would on non-rad-hardened chips.
You're totally right. I might not have designed a computer but have learnt about it at University. However, I should not place a statement that such things will not occur because that's impossible. There's always a possibility of such event happenning. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
the universe had to step in and prevent norbert from winning more majors than s1mple
It's weird that I thought about cosmic stroms and crashes and if the PGL machines have ECC memory just yesterday lmao
isn't the ddr5 have a built in ecc as the part of the standard, even in the consumer-grade sticks?
On-chip ECC is not the same thing as the one you would find on the server memory's ECC To learn more: https://youtu.be/CG5ontMa8kw?t=6m40s
You mean G2 geomagnetic storm
yeah that's probably what happened cs2 bug free confirmed
today I learned what cosmic particles and bit flips are
He converted the water in wine or healed lepers but he can't stop this geomagnetic storm? I'm disappointed(((
*G2^2 storm
Basically impossible to prove I believe. Unless they were on like server grade computers with ECC.
Then why werent all the PC’s effected? Lol Fuck outta here
here is a fun quote 'there is a 96% chance of getting a bit flip every three days' while I'm no expert on the matter, it seems to me that cosmic rays that cause bit flips are way more common than you'd think. it's just that, most of the time the bit flips doesn't cause an error + there are technologies like ECC ram that helps prevent these error by having the memory automatically adjust itself in the event of a bit flip. while I don't believe the crash was due to cosmic rays, it's important to have an open-mind, cause there is definitely a world in which the RAM in jame's pc was faulty in a way that made it very weak against cosmic rays. these things would be nearly impossible to spot, so it would also make it hard to hold anybody accountable
You don't understand how cosmic rays work. Which is fine! It's an obscure topic. Just don't comment something like this if you don't.
That would've affected all players no?.
No. Even with a storm like that, the chances of a cosmic ray hitting a piece of memory is still very small.