Yes, kinda annoying. But on the other hand, given that apple releases a new chip every 12 months, we can grant them some slack here. Given that from AMD, Intel or nvidia we see usually a 2 year cadence.
And yet they seem to be the only people picking the apparently "Low Hanging Fruit" in ARM land. We'll see about Qualcomm's Nuvia-based stuff, but that's been "nearly released" for what feels like years now, but you still can't buy one to actually test.
And don't underestimate the investment Apple made - it's likely at a similar level to the big x86 incumbents. I mean AMD's entire Zen development team cost was likely a blip on the balance sheet for Apple.
They don't care as much for the ARM stuff because software development investment vastly outweighs the chip development costs.
Sure, maybe they can do better but at what cost and for what? The only thing Apple does truly better is performance per watt which is not something that is relevant for a large part of the market.
x86 stuff is still competitive performance wise, especially in the GPU department where Apple attempts are rather weak compared to what is on offer across the pond.
The Apple Silicon switch cost a large amount of developer effort for optimisation, and in the process a lot of software compatibility was lost, it took a long time to get even the most popular softwares to get properly optimized and some software house even gave up on supporting macOS because it just wasn't worth the man hour investment considering the tiny market.
This is why I am very skeptical about the Qualcomm ARM stuff, it needs to be priced extremely well to have a chance, if consumers do not pick it up in droves, no software port is going to happen in a timely manner and it will stay irrelevant.
Considering the only thing much better than the current x86 offering is the performance per watt, I do not have a lot of hope, but I may be pleasantly surprised.
Apple aficionados keep raving about battery life but it's not really something a lot of people care about (appart for smartphones, where Apple isn't doing any better than the rest of industry).
speaking of which, whatever happened to qualcomm's bizarre assertion that ARM was pulling a sneak move in all its new licensing deals to outlaw third-party IP entirely and force ARM-IP-only?
there was one quiet "we haven't got anything like that in the contract we're signing with ARM" from someone else, and then radio silence. And you'd really think that would be major news, because it's massively impactful on pretty much everyone, since one of the major use-cases of ARM is as a base SOC to bolt your custom proprietary accelerators onto...
seemed like obvious bullshit at the time from a company trying to "publicly renegotiate" a licensing agreement they probably broke...
Again, not saying that they are easy (or cheap!) problems to solve, but that there are more relatively easy problems in the ARM space than the x86 space.
That’s why Apple can release a meaningfully new chip every year where it takes several for x86 manufacturers
> We'll see about Qualcomm's Nuvia-based stuff, but that's been "nearly released" for what feels like years now, but you still can't buy one to actually test.
That's more bound by legal than technical reasons...
Saying typescript is slow because zod is slow is like saying c++ is slow, because javascript is slow. Not to say that typescript is quick in any way (how could it be, as something written in javascript). But letting typescript execute code to infer types in a large scale application seems like a self inflicted issue.
What do you mean by that? I don't think Zod is doing anything special as far as the TS type system goes, although its types are necessarily complex to make its "magic" work. But it's not executing code to infer the types
But TypeScript IS slow. It just so happens that the issue is currently with Zod but JavaScript in general has always been less performant than other lower level languages. This is why JavaScript tooling is all built in other languages.
Vite and webpack (and thus turbopack, which is advertised as a webpack successor) are two different beasts.
While vite is perfect for most users, there are just some usecases that are not doable with meaningful performance. Without boring you with details why, let me assure you that having a performant webpack replacement for those 10% who need it, helps vite staying lean, as they are not bothered with feature creep.
If you want a small detail why: Vite is built on esbuild. Esbuild is carried by a single developer (https://github.com/evanw/esbuild/graphs/contributors) thus every nut and bolt that vite does for you on top is built in javascript, so you are in slow-land again.
webpack and turbopacks promise (and complexity) is that it treats these extras (plugins and loaders) as first class citizens and thus tries to make them as fast as possible by applying tons of caching. E.g. if you'd throw a webpack workflow at vite, you might end up with a slower build then webpack. And this is where turbopack tries to improve.
They sponser https://github.com/kdy1 (see the vercel in his profile), who spearheads swc, which is very similar in goals and scope to esbuild. swc may ring a bell, as it's the parser/compiler that is used by deno and bun.
You can swap esbuild out for swc in vite and get whatever swc plugins you need. There's not a ton available, but more then enough for my needs at least.
IMHO the base framework can and must be simple and unnuanced and easy to remember:
* eat as little and never drink: sugar, alcohol
* seek: stuff that feeds you and your gut biome and doesn't cause diarrhea (aka avoid ultra-processed food)
* bonus: at least once a week: fish, salad, nuts, fruits
Sure, thats not nuanced. But the message is simple: If you eat/drink sugar, alcohol or processed foods, then your body will degrade faster and your biological organism will run on pain, inflammation and fatigue.
In recognition of your email retention policy, I shall be resending this complaint at 5 month intervals, along with a running history of the previous complaints.
Hypothetically, and just out of curiosity: if mint2 were to keep this email and it would be included as part of the evidence in a lawsuit, how would this bode for Lidl?
Assuming it wasn't mint2 that had the fire, it would almost surely go undetected in discovery. (Lidl would say "as required, we've searched for and provided all emails and care contacts referencing USB chargers".)
It didn't appear constructive, just implying that they were going to do their best to lose the email.
Here in the UK it's quite easy to get stuff fixed. A few years ago, a single complaint to trading standards by me got a can relabelled properly with its ingredients. Failing that, I know from prior experience that companies hate being embarrassed. They really value their image, and risking house fires for your consumers, it doesn't go down well.
What you posted came across as negative, and I'm afraid I have a fairly low tolerance for that. If I misread you, sorry.
I agree that it is a lot easier to do a drive by shoot down of someone else's idea than provide a constructive solution. That has to be balanced with the idea that a dose of realism is necessary for improvement and iteration.
I didn't directly mention burning down the house, but I did say
"The takeaway of this is that given the plug looks exactly like a standard USB-C phone charger's plug, it's easy for a novice user (say, a child whose phone charger's wire has been bit through by the family dog) to attempt to charge a device not rated for 13 V using this charger, which is quite likely to damage the device."
Thanks for the link. I tried it in my quest 3. The picture quality is awesome. I wonder why those "VR Experiences" are filmed for 180° which is super pixellated. High resolution + hdr + 3d is way more immersive then a super stretched out pixelated mess.
But the 3d effect is very subtle. I guess thats what you get from two cameras sitting 2cm next to each other (instead of the typical 6cm of two eyes). IMO the early reports from people trying the vision pro have entirely oversold it. Yes, it's better then your typical 180°, but the 3d is disappointing.
The samsung galaxy and pixel pro with their 3 lenses next to each other, using the two outer ones could do much better, if they implemented something similar. So in typical apple fashion, they are hamstrung by their own design.
> the early reports from people trying the vision pro have entirely oversold it
You can bet those demos were not recorded by an iPhone, but a pair of studio cameras spaced further apart. There were reports of apple working with movie studios to develop new hardware. We might still get that quality from professional productions.
Maybe there is a market for a "patreon for musicians". A platform that distributes your music to all streaming platforms but doesn't steal the rights from you. And additionally lets fans subscribe monthly for favorite arists (like patreon) for early access to music and discount to concerts and merch. IMO the patreon model is so good to lift artists out of poverty if they provide value to a small number of people without them having to loose all their creations to some publisher they signed off to in the begining.
Maybe if myspace didn't kill itself, it could have been it.
You can get all your music onto all streaming platforms without giving up any rights for about $20/year. The Patreon part, presumably you could use Patreon itself for this?
The history of yarn is fascinating. Dependency management in our monorepo is super smooth since we use it. We are on version 3.6 right now.
I admire that arcanis tried something very bold with plug and play and zero installs in version 2 and 3, but is willing to default back to node_modules since it didn't stick. Must have been hard to come up with something this good, but then nearly everyone rejecting it.
Respectfully, I believe you are in the wrong here.
Covid and climate science denial can be strengthened by having a 'discussion'.
This is because conspiracy thinking is actually immune to evidence. The denialist will subvert your evidence in a way that it proves the conspiracy. In here they will probably complain that 'correlation is not causation' or some other methodology 101 trope, whereas the audience will think "oh, yeah, this is complicated, smart people are debating it, I guess the jury is still out and we don't know for certain if climate change is real or not, and the vaccines are not a silver bullet either, lets just wait until the debate is over'.
But, in fact, the debate is over.
So no, in this case the onus is one the person attacking a vast body of scientific literature proving beyond reasonable doubt that vaccines are effective to come up with something supporting those wild claims. It is not up to me to provide a literature list that nobody will ever read anyway, and anyone who is even remotely interested in finding the truth can google such a list in 5 min.
Thank you for your post. And I mean it. I've fallen into this trap so often myself, because nothing grinds my gears as conspiracy theorists do. I think next time I'll stop before I answer, think of your post and maybe copypaste it.
At this point, anyone still "asking for information" knows full well where to find it. It's not March 2020 any more.
"Actual data from US prisons" took me about 20 seconds to find a reputable source for (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736396), likely less time than your comment asking for it took to type.
> Unvaccinated, infected inmates had an estimated 36% risk of spreading the virus, compared with 28% among infected vaccinees. After adjustment, any vaccination, previous infection alone, and both vaccination and previous infection cut the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by 22%, 23%, and 40%, respectively.
> Booster doses and more recent vaccination further lowered infectiousness among vaccinated inmates, with each dose conferring an 11% risk reduction; the risk of transmission rose 6% for every 5 weeks that had elapsed since the last shot.
Out of 111,000 inmates, 31 were hospitalized and none died. Is there a small city with equivalent population where approximately the same numbers held?
I very much doubt there's a small city with total gender segregation, people living in large buildings they're not permitted to leave, and single-source universal healthcare.
(That's what makes it such a good observational study population; a whole bunch of variables are controlled away by default.)
I don't know about you, 8% sounds a rounding error and probably within the error margins. It certainly wasn't enough to open the country en-mass like the OP believes.
And now we have the opposite situation with those who have had the most boosters and now more likely to catch the new variant that is out.
This is a classic example of the way conspiracy theorists shift goal posts and demand more and more evidence, while waving away any evidence provided. It's _boring_ to engage with people like you. You have no idea what you're talking about, and demand that people who _do_ know what they're talking about give you an education that you don't actually want. You're just _performing_, you aren't having a genuine conversation with people.
> 8% sounds a rounding error and probably within the error margins.
It is not.
Erm yes it is ... from the study:
> In adjusted analyses, we estimated that any vaccination ... reduced an index case’s risk of transmitting infection by 22% (6–36%)
CI is much wider than 8pp and the estimated absolute transmission risk CIs actually overlap at 31%. So the study results are consistent with there being no actual difference, also.
If this is the best evidence of a difference in transmission it's not very good.
Also this is Omicron which hardly matters. The justification was the earlier variants.
You may want to avoid casting all questions through this lens. Some people seek to leverage this sense of loss of trust to promote other arguments, in politics and the economy.
I appreciate that loss of trust is real, happens fast, and takes longer to recover. Recovery itself demands some acceptance that not all evidence is unequivocal, or comprehensible.
