See Page 6 For Details: Fill & Download for Free

Not exactly sure what you are asking.The 8086 major modes are max/min which change the pin configurations and operational performance based on how the mode strap pin is configured. See the datasheet.However there are instructions that assume certain memory segmentation behavior based on the type of operation. Program fetches use the segmentation registers differently than how local, stack or external data access use them. See page 6 for the details.

Oh, she definitely misunderstood the deal.But before anyone begins to feel too smug about that, it’s worth noting that you probably did too.The reason I say this is because I’ve read some 60-70 articles on the whole HQ2-NYC fiasco, and none of them got the details right (if we’re defining “right” by some minimum benchmark for context and thoroughness). While simplistic headlines abounded on why the deal was good or bad, almost all of them mindlessly quoted “$3 billion in incentives” without really breaking down what those incentives were or noting that only one of them was unique to Amazon.To remedy that, a quick summary:Empire State Development Corp’s Excelsior Jobs Program offers credits equivalent to 6.85% of wages per net new job, plus 2% for net new investments (cap of 10 years for both). This meant a max credit of $1.2bn for Amazon (math on final page here), with credits being made available at the end of each tax year based on verified eligible hires/payouts.ESD also offered Amazon a dual set of capital grants consisting of $480m for the HQ2 buildout and $25m for site development and infrastructure upgrades (see page 19 here), which would have been disbursed in annual chunks upon proof of hitting 100% of investments and 85% of projected job creation. (Weirdly enough, Amazon’s blog post announcing the deal put the total value here at $325m instead of the $505m listed in the official MOU signed a day earlier. I have yet to figure out why.)Amazon would have also paid its property taxes (less abatements) to ESD, who would have put 50% or more into a local infrastructure fund, with the balance going into NYC’s general coffers (see page 5 here). Some incorrectly labelled this a tax incentive, even though it wouldn’t have changed Amazon’s actual bill (just a different payee).NYC’s Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP) offers property tax abatements for new builds and significant renovations in certain under-developed parts of NYC, which in Amazon’s case was expected to net a max of $386m based on submitted plans.NYC’s Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) offers “an annual credit of $3,000 for twelve years per eligible employee” for companies relocating employees from either outside Manhattan or south of 96th Street to certain targeted zones elsewhere in NYC. This would have amounted to $897m had Amazon hit all their hiring goals.There were also a bunch of smaller things in the form of special program commitments on each side totaling in the low tens of millions that aren’t really worth getting into here. (Plus that dumb helipad thing.)So, what’s the takeaway from the above?All but either $325 or $505m (whatever that ESD capital grant actually was) of the incentives were through normal/existing programs.That ESD grant (using the higher number) was equivalent to a 14% rebate on real investment dollars, which isn’t exactly extravagant.That ESD grant, while unique to Amazon (to what I can tell), was of the sort that anyone with a large enough project could likely secure for themselves, and definitely wasn’t indicative of NYC prostrating themselves before Bezos in particular.Put another way, at least 83-88% of the total incentives were made using existing programs and didn’t award Amazon any special considerations.But that’s not all:One of the things that was unique to the Amazon deal was their unprecedented commitment to hiring under-privileged contractors and suppliers (15% of contracts to women-owned enterprises, 15% to minority-owned, and 6% to those owned by service-disabled veterans).All these incentives would have cost NYC taxpayers zero in up-front cash.* All were abatements on property improvements, future tax credits based on real spending, and capital grants to be paid out after Amazon began paying contractors (thus generating taxable income). Ergo, this would have been NYC paying back a small share of its winnings.Anyway, on to what AOC got wrong specifically.While it’s true that nothing in the HQ2 proposals or agreements explicitly guaranteed Amazon jobs for existing residents of NYC, HQ2 would have created substantial work for existing New Yorkers, along with a considerable number of local non-Amazon jobs. Estimates ranged from 30,000-65,000 downstream jobs in total, with tens of billions of dollars (at minimum) in economic value.[EDIT: It’s worth noting that all those under-privileged contractors mentioned above — representing over a 1/3rd of total contracts — had to be registered with the State of New York. Maybe some of those would have come from outside NYC itself, but you always want to hire local where you can. The presumption would be lots of bids being awarded to contractors from Queens and Brooklyn.]The point of landing a big fish like Amazon is in what they add to your economy in marginal investment/spending, all of which increases your tax base, improves your neighborhoods, and makes your citizens richer.While I largely appreciate what AOC is up to on a tonal level, her contributions to the HQ2 discussion have been a net negative — as has been most of the “journalism” on the topic. Fairness matters. Infrastructure capacity matters. Gentrification matters (kind of). But these are problems you solve by increasing your tax base, not by chasing money away.* Bonus points to Scott Welch for asking about whether the tax credits were refundable. Some interesting discussion in that thread (link). While it seems unlikely to me that Amazon could have engineered a net refund in any given year (thus technically costing NYC/NYS taxpayers something), the tax aspects of the deal are beyond my powers. (If an accountant with knowledge of the Byzantine market that is NYC wants to weigh in, I’d be grateful.)PS - Just for kicks, here’s a fun comparison: ESD is providing $300m in capital grants to IBM for their new AI Hardware Center at SUNY Poly. For how many new local IBM jobs? 60! (I’m not suggesting this is an especially bad deal. Just pointing out that if you want to pick on ESD for generous payouts relative to expected jobs or incomes, the Amazon deal is a disingenuous and frankly bizarre place to start. But Bezos does make for better headlines, and blindly hating/cheering Amazon is cool now I guess, so that’s the journalism we get.)

"Electricity" is word to describe, loosely, the movement of charges and related effects, so your question could refer to the electron flow (about 1% light speed in a wire; see note [4]) or could more interestingly ask...Does the electrical energy (electromagnetic energy) flow at the speed of light?Yes, and no... and both are true at the same time! It depends on where you're taking the energy flow measurement.1) Yes - the energy always flows at the speed of lightThe flow of electromagnetic energy is determined by the Poynting vector and in a vacuum it can be shown that the flow of energy is exactly c (c = the relativistic invariant with a value in MKS units of 299,792,458 m/s and the speed of light in a vacuum). See [1] for poynting vector.NOTE: For a current carrying wire, the flow of energy is NOT through the wire, but comes in radially from the space surrounding the wire and flows inward into the wire's surface. See picture [2]2) No - the energy never flows at the speed of lightWhile the speed of the energy flow through space is equal to that of light, what people typically mean when talking about wires is the energy flow along the wire. When a switch in a circuit is closed, the electromagnetic energy begins pouring into the wire in a wave that spreads out and away from the switch. The speed of the energy along the wire is given by the speed of the leading edge of the wave. This speed depends upon the details of the materials and construction of the wire. For a copper bar, it's nearly light speed. For most wires it ranges from 0.7c to about 0.9c. See [3]LightningThe electromagnetic energy radiates away at 100% c, while the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic energy moving along the return stroke is 33% to 50% c.NOTES:[1] Taking the vacuum impedance equal to that of air. The Poynting vector, or energy flow (technically, an energy density current), is proportional the cross-product of the electric and magnetic fields, as shown below[2] Electric field Intensity (E), Magnetic flux density (B), Poynting vector (energy flux) (S)Personal note: This diagram shows the magnetic induction field (B), however, the correct field should be the magnetic field intensity (H).**For clarity, here's the poynting vector without the other fieldsIn Googling for images, I found this site: Flowing Electrical EnergyI didn't read it, but the physics looks alright from an admittedly superficial glance.[3] Grabbed a random Table of VOP (velocity of propagation as a % of c)For details, see website: Aircraft Cable Velocity Factor | Velocity of Propagation | Wire & Cable VOP Effects[4] After reading some of the other responses I amended this post to hopefully clarify some misconceptions about electron motion in wires.a) Electron speed: Electron motion is describe by quantum mechanics, specifically Fermi-Dirac statistics. The electrons in the conduction band are locked into a narrow band of energies and move about at the Fermi velocity which is typically between 1 and 2 million m/s. See p3: Page on binghamton.edub) Drift velocity: There are no particles moving at the drift velocity.Suppose you have a current carrying wire and measure the magnetic field intensity (H) at some point from the wire. You could then ask "at what speed would a solid bar of charge move to create the same magnetic field intensity?". You could relate this question to the wire at hand and using the free electron density within the wire construct a suitable solid line of charge that "drifts" on by that gives the same value for the magnetic field intensity.When one does this type of analysis, found in elementary physics texts, we calculate that the line of charge would have to slowly drift with a speed of a few hundred microns/second. This floating bar of charge scenario has nothing to do with the electron speed which is about 1 000 000 000 times faster and is calculated using quantum mechanics. Please refer to the classic "Introduction to Solid State Physics" by C. Kittel, chapter 6, for the full calculations and p. 139 for a table of the electron speeds in various metals.c) Some misconceptions:1) Electron move by repelling each other and pushing each other in the wire. This is abjectly false. The electrons are described by a wavefunction defined over the whole system.2) Electromagnetic energy travels at light speed in mediums other than a vacuum. False; while the interatomic photon speed is of course c, the group velocity is always less than c.**See Comment below for further discussion