See the three-year warranty here for boxed CPUs: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/pr...

Note the first bullet under "WHAT THIS LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER":

"design defects or errors in the Product (Errata). Contact Intel for information on characterized errata."

Guess we're not covered on this one.

EDIT: That being said, given the potential scope of this issue (years of affected CPUs, massive PR hit) I'm hoping that Intel will at least offer some remedy to recent buyers. According to the article from The Register [1], OS vendors have been working on the fix since November. The blog posted over on pythonsweetness [2] posits the bug may have been identified in October. It'd be interesting to know for how long Intel has been selling Coffee Lake CPUs that are known to be vulnerable.

[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_fl...

[2] http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980422/the-myst...

Thanks for posting this!

It seems self-contradictory to me. How can Intel warrant that

> the Product will substantially conform to Intel’s publicly available specifications

while simultaneously disclaiming warranty for

> design defects or errors in the Product (Errata)

?

If an instruction does something different than what their specs say on occasion, do they take that to mean it's substantially conforming to their specs?

Easy: Erratas are actually specification updates. (And indeed, not just by sound and smoke, since most errata are never fixed but rather declared this-is-how-it-works-now).

In some abstract, philosophical sense it means that the specs are actually elected by majority of the produced processors.

I'm no lawyer, but my instincts tell me someone would have to prove that the chips today do not conform to Intel's specs, and that this difference is such that the CPU no longer "substantially conforms" to the spec.

> If an instruction does something different than what their specs say on occasion, do they take that to mean it's substantially conforming to their specs?

We're on the same page. What do you think Intel will argue?

Keep in mind Intel did initiate a substantial recall of Pentium CPUs in the late 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

I mean they would likely argue it's still substantially conforming even if it has bugs that come up, but I'm trying to figure out what kind of a case they could actually win.

Why try to win a case if all you need is a settlement? Going into an actual trial is far riskier than negotiating a settlement, for both sides.

What they're saying is that they'll replace your chip if it behaves differently from all the other chips of the same model, not if ALL the chips are broken by design.

Where does their sentence about the specification come into play in your interpretation?

"the Product will substantially conform to Intel’s publicly available specifications"

They're saying that it should work as specified for the most part. And apparently the CPUs do, since they've been in continuous use for many years.

Note that they also have this exception:

"… THIS LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER: … that the Product will protect against all possible security threats, including intentional misconduct by third parties;"

Which is likely designed to handle issues just like this one.

I think the user (bogomipz) was looking for your email contact. Could it be eitally@google.com?

[EDIT] According to another Googler in this thread, the address is actually etally@google.com.

Thanks for the save -- I can see my email in my profile and assumed it was visible to others, too.

Thanks, cheers.

"[RESOLVED] Increased Error Rates

Update at 2:08 PM PST: As of 1:49 PM PST, we are fully recovered for operations for adding new objects in S3, which was our last operation showing a high error rate. The Amazon S3 service is operating normally."

https://status.aws.amazon.com/

You're getting downvotes because you don't understand that B being down is not an effective indicator of the status of A, even if B depends on A.

Think you're mistaken, I don't have downvote privileges!

Claiming a statement is false when it's demonstrably true is something that will likely get downvoted every time. It's misleading to others and fills the board with noise.

Wouldn't go that far. It's always been the case in the cloud that if you're not region/provider replicated, you're susceptible to localized outages.

but the sentiment is valid imo (albeit arguably benign)...

That's a durability target, not an availability SLA. Durability != Availability.

That makes more sense (since I was listening to it in the context of a conference session, I'm not sure if I heard a distinctive term being used, though I'm sure they're careful about the language they use)

I want to see if I can clarify your last point, because it'd be huge if this is true.

You're saying that internal pressure has caused HR to drop ProctorU across the SDE/intern pipeline? What's the replacement, traditional phone screens + onsites?

Yes to all that, internal pressure from the SDE community. Except the onsites for interns - Interns in the US sometimes get only multiple phone screens - it's been like that for a while. I think they had some issues with cheating which is what led to the Proctor overreaction.

As far as I understand, it will have a positive effect on S3's latency, for straightforward reasons. But to what extent? Maybe some BOE calculations might help... Throwing out a guess, the gains probably won't be too extreme.

EDIT: Of course this is dependent on what region you're currently in!

The link only has listings for senior engineers, are you looking also for junior or new grad candidates?