Rosyna

frantisek said:

I would like to see any real life tests where we can see that big difference we see in Javascript and Octane benchmarks. It is my long time desire. \one can easily see Apple huge leap in video processing but not much else.

Can not wait see in real life launching updated apps in iOS 13 with declared speed.

Because the A12 is the only currently shipping ARMv8.3 SoC, it should always handily best others in JavaScript tests. ARMv8.3 adds an instruction, FJCVTZS, for a conversion that’s uncommon in normal code but happens all over the place in JavaScript.

The Snapdragon 855 SoC includes Cortex-A76 cores, which only implement ARMv8.2 fully. 2019’s Cortex-A77 (which no shipping Qualcomm SoC implements) is also a ARMv8.2 core which implements a few instructions from newer archs, but AFAICT, not the PAC or FJCVTZS instructions.

Once non-Apple ARM SoCs implement the FJCVTZS instruction, the Android JavaScript engines (like V8) will have to be compiled with them enabled to see the kind of performance increase JavaScriptCore on the A12 sees.

tjwolf said:

WTF?  What does this mean for all the open-source stuff developers depend on?  E.g. apache projects?  Will Apache go through through this signing process?  What about stuff installed via 'brew'?  Java VMs, etc., etc.....

Nothing has changed. No version of Catalina shipped without requiring, by default, the notarization of all software created after June 1st, 2019.

the server-side rules have changed, absolutely nothing on the client side is changing.

That's a super weird way to spin, "As everyone expected, there was nothing useful at all on the San Bernardino iPhone"

The shooters destroyed their actual personal phones and left the work iPhone alone, so of course there was nothing on it. The FBI had a list of all the apps on the device from Apple, so they knew absolutely nothing useful was on it.

Kuyangkoh said:

pgpappas said:

My wife and I had the same issue. She had a slightly higher credit score and makes more money than I do. I received 10K in credit. She only got 7500. All other aspects of our financial information are the same. The only possible explanation is gender based discrimination.

So what else is left? Very obvious 

He’s not familiar with the nonsense of the American credit lending situation. For example, moving a lot or moving to different countries can negatively affect your creditworthiness, even if it doesn’t negatively affect your FICO score.  You can also have a very high FICO score while having poor creditworthiness (or vice versa), because the factors a specific bank/credit company uses are a very black box and can also involve background checks (they claim its to “prevent fraud”).

For example, the amount in your bank account, savings accounts, investment portfolio with one bank aren’t legally available to other banks. Nor are you tax returns.

lkrupp said:

tallest skil said:

100% not Constitutional. I’d love to say that means it won’t happen, but of course it will.

Are you saying you have a Constitutional right to drive an automobile? Courts have long ruled that you do not have such a right. You are perfectly free to refuse the proposed textalyzer test. You have that right. You just can’t drive a car for the next ninety days if you do.

You have a 4th Amendment right to not be searched in an unreasonable manner (this law violates that) and you have a 5th Amendment right to due process and protection from self-incrimination (this law violates that).

The fact driving is not a constitutional right doesn't trump your actual constitutional rights. And courts cannot punish you if you refuse to waive your constitutional rights.

robjn said:

This is of course a product that is not available to non-US residents, so this guy probably has less first hand experience with it than the average US consumer.

David Rafalovsky worked for Citigroup for 20 years, most recently in their Risk & Compliance group…

While I think he perfectly understands US consumers, his bizarre take that banks should do food delivery is odd. Usually, you’d create a subsidiary that creates a subsidiary for that (like Japanese banking groups do). 

coffeetin said:

I’m pretty sure Walmart has yet to accept Apple Pay as well. They still continue to use their own proprietary app which is just plan stupid.

Walmart is still trying to use their monopoly to attack Visa. The “CurrentC” initiative (which never released an app that was usable or secure) was an attempt of major retailers (Walmart, Target, Best Buy, CVS) to collude against the payment processing market (especially Visa) by bypassing them and asking their US customers to give 1. Those companies access to your checking account, which has very little mandated fraud protections and 2. More access to your private data so they could target you with more ads.

CVS and Best Buy intentionally disabled their previously 100% working EMV Contactless Payment terminals as part of this collusion, only to re-enable them after customer backlash. Target later enabled the fully functional readers years after they rolled out their new PoS system that were meant address the numerous breaches Target had had over the years.

imperialforces said:

Here it comes. With the handful of progressives in Washington out of the way, it's open season on consumers. 

T-Mobile already does exactly this. It's not a new thing. The current FCC said it was OK.

schmrtzzz said:

But what if the GPU wasn't the problem (because a 13 inch) and Safari either (because hardly used in the days I had the machine)?

The Safari issue only hit you if you had explicitly disabled caches in Safari's hidden-by-default "Develop" Menu.

According to a previous Apple statement, it was an issue with extremely excessive reloads of favicons when the cache was disabled. No end user would ever hit it.

schmrtzzz said:

Rosyna said:

schmrtzzz said:

But what if the GPU wasn't the problem (because a 13 inch) and Safari either (because hardly used in the days I had the machine)?

The Safari issue only hit you if you had explicitly disabled caches in Safari's hidden-by-default "Develop" Menu.

According to a previous Apple statement, it was an issue with extremely excessive reloads of favicons when the cache was disabled. No end user would ever hit it.

No. Apple found out CR used this this developer mode. But that wasn't all. During this investigation they discovered a bug. They didn't give it much attention, obviously, because they first said CR was too stupid to perform a decent test. Anyway, they never made clear what the bug was and if it was in Safari or something else. So I'm still in the dark. 

Yes, the bug they found was the favicons bug. Look at the last paragraph of http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/17/01/12/consumer-reports-now-recommends-macbook-pro-after-apple-fix