1 : to include especially within a particular scope <civilization as Lenin used the term would then certainly have comprised the changes that are now associated in our minds with “developed” rather than “developing” states — Times Literary Supplement>
2 : to be made up of <a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings — Jane Jacobs>
3 : compose, constitute <a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation — William Styron> <about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women — Jimmy Carter>
Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up."
I can guess why it's been singled out. People who spend their time thinking about such things probably find it more elegant to have one word exclusively used in one direction and another used in the opposing direction. In that way, it's similar to the 'further' and 'farther' push that was going on some years back. But since English doesn't have a language arbiter and we go by authoritative usage, it's not really correct to say the word 'comprised' in place of 'composed' in the article (it's been changed to 'composed' now, apparently) is "mischosen", as 'comprised' has apparently been used that way in scientific and technical writing for over 200 years.
This comment in no way implies any specific issue or deficiency with this product/manufacturer/review/article.
Its annoying when companies pitch their IP as this perfect macro block that will just drop in and seamlessly work with your product. Than the MBA guys close the deal and force the internal engineers to try to integrate the POS with the rest of the system, increasing risk to schedule, costs, performance and power. Ironic because those are all the very things they're using as the reasons for not doing these things in house.
You get the IP and than you find out the assumptions used for the pretty slides are bogus, they used benchmarks with hilarious configurations. You dig deeper and find out the architecture can only handle X number of requests outstanding, or they can't handle responses out of order, or they consider misses after hits to also be hits even though the data has been prefetched, or the coherence algorithm serializes atomic instructions that should've been parallizable or requires serialization of request lookups to ensure proper ordering.
Even when the architecture is fine on paper, you find out they won't have a simulator for you to use until the quarter before your project tapes out, and you won't get the actual block the month until tapeout! Than once you get the block, you see they messed up and its not passing the basic verif checks and when you go back to get them to fix it, they're dragging their heels because they're trying to sell their next generation to the next set of suckers.
But I'm sure this advertisement will be different. /s
The part about things looking fine on paper, but necessary details being missing made me think of how similar things are from the Warranty Repair perspective. Here is a short summary of my experience when a new Vendor is added to the 25+ already serviced by a couple of Technicians:
Management sign Service Agreement with Vendor. Vendor supply barebones docs/software/tools. Technicians notice 16 devices have appeared for repair, all marked URGENT.
Barebone docs don't cover any of the devices. Emails to Vendor for docs gets reply next day saying already provided. More emails to/from, incoming calls reiterating URGENT status, "Skype" training days, conference calls, meetings, Vendor then supplies part of necessary docs/software, emails again, more "Skype" training, angry incoming calls, Vendor supplies more docs/software, repair completed.
Then of course, there are the other 25+ Vendors devices being repaired while the above is taking place.
It would have been great to be involved during the proposal stage with Vendors, but then it would take away time from Technicians in the short term.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
9 Comments
Back to Article
Pissedoffyouth - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link
Welcome back AndreiAndrei Frumusanu - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link
I was never gone... just very busy with some large articles.plopke - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link
oooe the teasing !xakor - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link
You incorrectly typed the mischosen word "comprised". I'd go for "composed", it's a much better word and has strong connections with design.Yojimbo - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link
From merriam-webster.com:"comprise
transitive verb
1
: to include especially within a particular scope <civilization as Lenin used the term would then certainly have comprised the changes that are now associated in our minds with “developed” rather than “developing” states — Times Literary Supplement>
2
: to be made up of <a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings — Jane Jacobs>
3
: compose, constitute <a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation — William Styron> <about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women — Jimmy Carter>
Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up."
I can guess why it's been singled out. People who spend their time thinking about such things probably find it more elegant to have one word exclusively used in one direction and another used in the opposing direction. In that way, it's similar to the 'further' and 'farther' push that was going on some years back. But since English doesn't have a language arbiter and we go by authoritative usage, it's not really correct to say the word 'comprised' in place of 'composed' in the article (it's been changed to 'composed' now, apparently) is "mischosen", as 'comprised' has apparently been used that way in scientific and technical writing for over 200 years.
Meteor2 - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link
I've learnt something new today.BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link
Good Stuff :')webdoctors - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link
This comment in no way implies any specific issue or deficiency with this product/manufacturer/review/article.Its annoying when companies pitch their IP as this perfect macro block that will just drop in and seamlessly work with your product. Than the MBA guys close the deal and force the internal engineers to try to integrate the POS with the rest of the system, increasing risk to schedule, costs, performance and power. Ironic because those are all the very things they're using as the reasons for not doing these things in house.
You get the IP and than you find out the assumptions used for the pretty slides are bogus, they used benchmarks with hilarious configurations. You dig deeper and find out the architecture can only handle X number of requests outstanding, or they can't handle responses out of order, or they consider misses after hits to also be hits even though the data has been prefetched, or the coherence algorithm serializes atomic instructions that should've been parallizable or requires serialization of request lookups to ensure proper ordering.
Even when the architecture is fine on paper, you find out they won't have a simulator for you to use until the quarter before your project tapes out, and you won't get the actual block the month until tapeout! Than once you get the block, you see they messed up and its not passing the basic verif checks and when you go back to get them to fix it, they're dragging their heels because they're trying to sell their next generation to the next set of suckers.
But I'm sure this advertisement will be different. /s
zirk65 - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link
The part about things looking fine on paper, but necessary details being missing made me think of how similar things are from the Warranty Repair perspective. Here is a short summary of my experience when a new Vendor is added to the 25+ already serviced by a couple of Technicians:Management sign Service Agreement with Vendor. Vendor supply barebones docs/software/tools. Technicians notice 16 devices have appeared for repair, all marked URGENT.
Barebone docs don't cover any of the devices. Emails to Vendor for docs gets reply next day saying already provided. More emails to/from, incoming calls reiterating URGENT status, "Skype" training days, conference calls, meetings, Vendor then supplies part of necessary docs/software, emails again, more "Skype" training, angry incoming calls, Vendor supplies more docs/software, repair completed.
Then of course, there are the other 25+ Vendors devices being repaired while the above is taking place.
It would have been great to be involved during the proposal stage with Vendors, but then it would take away time from Technicians in the short term.