@NonPlayableClown @cvnt @mischievoustomato @Hyperhidrosis @frogzone

> I don't know what you know.

I know enough about C++ that you are not going to tell me anything new. I've played with the Fibonacci template. It is a dopey language, I can see why the compiler is slow.

> So I have and here's what I found, kinda proving my point.

It is fine if you don't know something. It is irritating if you lecture me about shit I was present for.

"Page 1 of Google" is not a substitute for research. Some jagoff makes shit up, writes it on quora, then you cite it to support the shit you made up. Later, some *other* jagoff will be cherry-picking shit to support his incorrect usage and will find your post and cite *that*. Try finding a primary source, for once. I am old, I was there, and I can tell you that, on god, quora is cap, frfrfr. It is also stupid to try to prove something that I was present for.

Here is how you do etymology: you develop a familiarity with the old sources, you find usage of the words, you find usage of precursors to the words, you build a chain of how a word came down by looking at historical usage. This is REALLY GODDAMN EASY TO DO WITH COMPUTERS because the history is not so long also EVERYONE THAT PARTICIPATED HAD A COMPUTER

Go start here: https://wiki.c2.com/?ExEightySix . (If you don't know what the C2 wiki is, that's part of the test.) This is a normal pattern: 80x86 means /^80.86$/. You see people refer to the m68k, but you also see them refer to the 68k20; somewhat less frequently, you will see "680x0", not because some other manufacturer was making 68k chips, but because the person that writes "680x0" is referring to the family of chips designated 68000, 68010, 68020, etc. (Here's an example of usage: https://wiki.c2.com/?FreePascal .)

You play an old NES game and Megaman was created in 20XX, Earthbound took place in 199X. Movies did this sometimes. Science fiction books. "80x86" has nothing to do with manufacturer-independence, just a placeholder for a digit.

"80x86" was shortened to "x86". We would say thay shit out loud: "eighty X eighty-six". Here's the Spring 1992 issue of 2600, they mention the "80X86" on page 4. (If you don't know what 2600 is, that's part of the test.) Check Phrack 49:14. (If you don't know what Phrack is, that's part of the test.)

I don't have easy access to a USENET archive but I am certain that it would be pretty simple to dig up early mentions of the chip. TUHS might have something. (If you don't know what TUHS or USENET are, that's part of the test.)

`grep -i x86 /lib/rfc/rfc????` had a mention of x86 in 1710: "It is unlikely that Intel would develop a new processor in the X86 family that did not run DOS and the tens of thousands of applications which run on the current versions of X86's." The author referred to x86 as a CPU family developed by Intel.

Here's the LKML from 2004: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=107766481408468&w=2 . (If you don't know what the LKML is, that's part of the test.) Jun Nakajima calls it "AMD64" and he's an Intel employee. "x86-64" is a term that was created as a generic term; "AMD64" didn't sound generic enough. That's what it was called, though: x86, amd64. "x86-64" is unwieldy. Until Longhorn leaked (if you don't know what Longhorn is, that's part of the test), nobody had heard the term "x64": it's a Microsoft coinage. Even now, nobody outside Microsoft's ecosystem uses it, for obvious reasons. It's baffling: 64 is less than 86, and what does the "x" stand for? It stands for "Microsoft is retarded."

Now you *have* heard of all of those things, if you hadn't before, and you can stop embarrassing yourself and annoying old people.
2600--09-1_spring_1992.pdf