The original comment says "sell them to «resale» companies". Selling goods means being paid for it, while you and the parent comment are both saying money goes in the opposite direction.

Outside of a few very rare circumstances, that’s not what “sell” means. 99.9999999999% of the time, “selling for a negative price” is more accurately called “buying”.

Selling for a negative price is completely different from buying, because the flow of 'goods' is in the other direction.

Then they'll sell at a profit, but the shipping cost will be inflated to offset that profit and then some. If this is identified and corrected in the law, then the sale will be at an actual profit, but there will be a corresponding price hike in goods purchased in the future through the same partner company. Or, a politician will be bought and it will be made it illegal to restrict shipping goods for destruction, citing damage to rising economies etc, and now it's 2 countries' laws creating a situation which will drag 20yrs in courts, while the goods keep getting destroyed. Or, the goods will be sold already in the first country to a separate entity, shipped through a 3rd country, and tracking will be lost due to unfortunate bugs, nobody's fault, really sorry.

There. 4 scenarios. I could make more.

They need more Italians helping draft these laws, we have a... cultural/genetic knack for figuring ways around regulations :) and I don't even think I'm particularly good at this. But maybe LLMs will make our devious disposition finally obsolete.

The law is naive, but well intended. Maybe with 20-30 patches it will achieve enough of its purpose.

You're buying a service, and the service is getting rid of goods.

I don't think you can sell at loss in Europe (not sure, happy to be corrected), so might be small but it'll still be positive. The bet is it will be high enough to be a deterrent. The other bet is that at some point the rest of the world will push back being a corporate dumpster.

Brings to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

The gist was created 1 hour before your comment.

ZMM registers are separate from the 8 FPU registers. That's because the ZMM set is separate from MM registers. So there's 8 more.

In hardware, however, renaming resources are shared between ST/MM registers and the eight Kn mask registers.

Fun fact, that obviously you already know but may be interesting to others.

In the encoding the registers are ordered AX, CX, DX, BX to match the order of the 8080 registers AF, BC (which the Z80 uses as count register for the DJNZ instruction, similar to x86 LOOP), DE and HL (which like BX could be used to address memory).

Yes, two in fact. One is the same prefix (with subtle differences of course, it's x86) that was introduced for AVX512's 32 registers. The other is new and it's a two byte extension (0xd6 0x??) of the REX prefix (0x40-0x4f).

The longer prefix has extra functionality such as adding a third operand (i.e. add r8, r15, r16), blocking flags update, and accessing a few new instructions (push2, pop2, ccmp, ctest, cfcmov).

Isn't it how recent Wine runs 32-bit programs?

In 1999 I used Modula-2 for my first computer science/programming languages exam at university. The environment was a bit like Turbo Pascal 3.0, though with a more complete language (TP3 had no modules/units) and library, comparable perhaps to TP5.

Units were introduced in Turbo Pascal 4, then TP 5.5 added OOP based on Apple's Object Pascal, further improvements were then based on the Object Pasca / C++ relationship on Borland's compilers.

I do something similar with build trees, naming them +build, +cross-arm etc.

This convention was suggested by the GNU Arch version control system years ago (maybe 20??), but it's really useful for the same tab completion reason and I have kept it for almost two decades, even when I switched to git.

It was suggested by Tom Lord (RIP), who used it heavily long before he wrote GNU Arch.

File names or directories starting with a comma where considered “junk”, and ones with a plus sign I think where considered “precious”.

> because that client wasn't planning to pay them

Wait, you mean they used your little ruse as a means to be paid themselves??

Yes they did, and it worked!

That only works if you are sure to have a 64-bit result. If you can have divisor < multiplier and need to detect overflow, it's more complicated.