photonerd

> Recently I tried helping someone to get a file from a PC to their iPhone. The best options were either weird file sharing services or an USB stick like a barbarian.

Those… aren’t even close to the best options. Hell, if they have iCloud it’s a simple upload on a website away at least. There are other easy ways too.

> I blame Apple

Yes, I’m sure you do, taking responsibility is hard for some people.

Scrum is supposed to be training wheels for agile, not the end point.

I think a lot of ppl forget that.

Plenty of people clutched pearls (rightly) about IE tho. And https by default. And much more.

That it’s not currently a problem is due to 25 years of strongly pushing for privacy & security.

We’re still not there (see Google & adblockers in chrome)

Given Android users don’t have iMessage that’s kind of not an issue then.

Charlie certainly was (he took a copy from Bob).

Bob is the distributor in this context however. In most Berne convention states he broke copyright law (technically, but nothing would happen)

Together Bob & Charlie gained or acquired a picture produced by Alice’s work effort that was unauthorized.

That’s stealing. Is it a big deal? Probably not. Still stealing.

Taking just means, broadly, “to gain or acquire”. Repetition of an incorrect point doesn’t make it any more valid I’m afraid.

Copying is often called taking a copy. Even basic usage of the term copying invalidates your point!

As for “not allowed” that will vary by contract/law/agreement/license/etc

This distinction is why it’s usually not downloaders that are punished, rather uploaders: they’re the ones that broke an agreement.

Taking can simply mean “to gain or acquire”. So, once again, incorrect. Sorry.

I’m sympathetic to the moral argument you’re making—though when the raw goods are digital too I think it’s an impractical & ill conceived one—but both legally AND linguistically… it’s incorrect

Copying is “gaining or acquiring” so would come under “taking”, sorry.

Taking can simply mean “to gain or acquire”.

If that’s your argument… it’s unsound linguistics and legally.

> The key part is depriving the original owner of the use of the item.

I know that’s been a tribal shibboleth of piracy since the 2000s, and I’m sympathetic to the moral argument to this view… but it’s just factually untrue (both in terminology AND in law)

Doesn’t need to have a transaction to be stealing. You just need to take (or appropriate) something that you’re not allowed to.

Incorrect.

You’re using one of the intransitive definitions but general speaking it’s the transitive forms that apply to digital content, ideas, information, etc.

1. to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

2. to take away by force or unjust means

3. to take surreptitiously or without permission

You may not want stealing to mean that… but that’s irrelevant to reality.

The last solar install I saw retrofitted to a (reasonably large) parking lot took about 3 days & the lot was only partially reduced in capacity for that time.

There’s really very little excuse

Yeah, it’s completely meaningless to compare but HN loves specs & seemingly hasn’t learned—after about 15 years of it being true—that direct spec comparisons are meaningless.

I see if with every major product announcement, the worst are usually Apple threads but it’s not constrained only there.

Wait until you learn about the oil industry…

That’s… almost literally the worst tape product you could use (outside of obviously awful ideas like Duct Tape).

In fact repairing use of scotch tape has its own whole section in most treatises on document restoration

M1’s took a hit because multiple processors came out each gen. Remember: the M1 was superseded by both the Pro & the Max (and the unites but that’s not in a MacBook).

By the time the M2 came around ppl knew what was up. So you might be able to find a bog standard M1 that low (they do show up) due to this… but it’s rare.

It’s more than that. That’s just shared memory. As you say, if it was just that they it wouldn’t be noteworthy at all

Probably a balance of both tbh, as it appears to be both faster AND around the same performance per watt.

The majority of MacBooks out there are still intel based. This presentation was mostly aimed at them & M1 owners.

oh absolutely, I can't wait to see the benchmarks. Per the (non-numerical data) benchmarks in the video tho - it is faster. So... until other evidence presents itself, that's what we have to go on.

2.5x is "just barely"? lol k.

Yup, exactly what I was saying.

That's... the same view, just applied to a different metric. Both would be correct.

Your reading comprehension needs work, no wonder you're unconvinced when you don't even understand what is being said.

Based on what? The event video says it's faster.

more like "a hundred bucks less". The M1's go for maybe half... if you're lucky. Most are more.

> But others have caught up

Then you proceed to link to one that... hasn't? (it's good, yes, but it's not caught up at all)

Depends. Is it faster? Then it's an upgrade.

Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more cores always === better?

I thought we'd learned our lesson with the silly Mhz Myth already?

They definitely are thinking of RetroArch. It’s mame cores suuuuuck too! So it’s compounding their confusion it seems.

The rest of their post is about as accurate too

BlastEm is great but—despite is vaunted accuracy claims—is buggy as hell too.

It plays more games but that’s not the same thing as accurate.

MAMEs emulation is incomplete, that’s why there are bugs.