That's part of the reason I never really liked Jon Stewart. He knew he was the primary, if not only, news source for a large demographic; yet, he would consistently hide behind the Comedy Central logo in the bottom corner when he was criticized.
It's like he felt he---and only he---was allowed to turn on and off his "real" journalist at whim.
I'd compare it to Kronkite talking about the Vietnam War, if I had to pull out a quick example in relating it to network news. Kronkite was candid and honest and his manner might not have always been what the network wanted (they'd prefer some kind of ra ra America attitude), but it was his breaking character that made people pay attention.
I don't think anyone feels the same about any other anchor on TV right now, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. I'm not saying Stewart is a journalist, him being able to sit on the fence like he does upsets guys on the networks, but he is effective with his hosting and I don't think he's doing anyone a disservice.
To be clear, you are saying that you didn't like Jon Stewart because, even though he was the best news source, he wasn't better enough for your desire?
He's saying there was genuine criticism on bias and presenting stories making light of one side, and presenting the other side too favorably.
Knowing full well that a large number of people looked to him for news, and that his reporting (de facto news reporting, that is, despite him not naming it like that) received genuine criticism, how one can then hide behind the notion that 'oh it's just comedy don't take it seriously' for years and years is a bit disingenuous.
In fairness however, Jon has always said that he is biased and flavored. And that's okay. And add to that the fact that it IS also comedy, it's hard to ask of him to be completely objective. Especially when it's a counterbalance to the media landscape which is COMPLETELY biased one way or another, whether it's Fox News or Democracy Now!. And if you then look at where the ciriticism comes from: Fox News, which isn't comedy but just news, but is worse in its reporting, and is pretty much more biased than anyone in media AND is more powerful and watched than anyone, I can easily see why Jon will look at that and say 'YOU guys pretend to be fair and balanced but aren't, pretend to bring news but it's crap, have responsibility as journalists to be objective but aren't, while I'm admittedly biased and run a comedy show'.
Yeah, looks like it's for function alignment padding. It's a pretty common thing at the end of functions to have the next function start on a specific boundary. (even if the first function doesn't fall into the other)
I haven't tested, but I'd bet good money that 12 NOPs would be faster than a jmp.
You can do an unconditional jump every 1 or 2 cycles, depending on the chip, whereas no chip I know of can execute more than 4 nops per cycle. Therefore I would say the jump is probably marginally faster than 12 nops.
Smart toolchains will turn those 12 bytes into 2 multi-byte nops, e.g., a 9-byte one and a 3-byte one.
Loops can be implemented with JMPs, and it would be Very Bad if every iteration of a loop invalidated caches. (In fact, it would be Very Bad if just about anything common invalidated caches, given how important they are to modern CPU performance.)
I don't know what exactly you mean by that, but I'm going with no. Unconditional jumps do interact with the uops cache in recent Intel chips, but they do so by terminating the current uops cache line---which is generally desirable.
> Lol, what the heck? Troll or astro-turfed? Where can you get a CS Master's Degree and on only four years of programming?
Introduced to computer science / programming halfway through undergrad 2 years ago. Going to finish up a masters next fall. (3 and some change years after I started)
