flydog

keithw said:

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to spend the extra $1k for 64 GPU cores instead of 48.  I tend to keep machines for at least 5 years (or more,) and want to "future proof" as much as possible up front. Sure, I know there will probably be an M2 "Ultra" or M3 or M4 or M5 in the next 5 years, but the "studio" is the Mac I've always wanted.  My current 2017 iMac Pro was a compromise since the only thing available at the time was the "trashcan" Mac, and it was obsolete by then.  This thing is 2-1/2 times faster than my iMac Pro in multi-core CPU tests. Howerver, it's significantly slower in GPU performance then my AMD RX 6900 XT eGPU.

An Ultra is complete waste of money, as is adding cores.  Xcode does not use the extra cores, nor does anything made by Adobe, Blender, or even Final Cut Pro.  None of those apps are significantly faster on an Ultra vs Max (or even the most recent 27" iMac). Games may see a large improvement, but even the fastest Ultra is not a gaming PC replacement (nor is it intended to be).

In real world use, my Ultra is actually slower than my old iMac in some tasks, and the actual difference in performance across the average app is more like 15-20% (not the 300-400% that the benchmarks suggest).  Xcode builts are 30% faster, and exporting a 5 minute 4k video via Final Cut Pro is about 10% faster.  Anything that uses single core (safari, word, excel) will not be any faster than a Mac Mini.  On an average workday, that $4,000 Ultra saves maybe 3 minutes.  

Most people will do just fine with a Mac mini. 

This bill is a piece of crap, and will work about as the do-not-call list in curbing robocalls.  All 98 votes should have been against, but 97 voted aye because the bill gives the appearance to voters that congress is doing something about the problem. 

The FCC already has the ability to penalize robocallers, and all this does is increase the penalties.  The FCC has been completely ineffective, and raising civil penalties will do nothing because robocallers are often foreign entities, can't be located, or couldn't care less about civil penalties.  

In addition, the bill:

• does not require carriers to implement STIR/SHAKEN for 18 months, giving robocallers plenty of time to find a workaround 
• gives carriers a means to obtain exemptions and extension to STIR/SHAKEN implementation
• does not provide for private right of action against robocallers, which means FCC is the only means of enforcement 
• does not impose any criminal penalties for spoofing a phone number, nor criminalize robocalls
• does not require carriers to give consumers the means to block anonymous calls
• does not fix any of the existing problems with the Do Not Call List

What Congress should have done is give consumers the right to sue scumbags who send unsolicited texts and make unsolicited calls, require carriers to immediately give consumers the ability to block anonymous or fake numbers, and criminalize violations of the Do Not Call list.  But that will never happen.

What FaceBook fails to disclose is that it actually earns revenue in other ways, such as paid advertising, during these events. It also collects user data that it uses to target those ads, and relies on the visits to its properties during those events to pitch its ad services to its advertising customers.

hexclock said:

stevenoz said:

Foxconn certainly doesn't need the coronavirus problem now too... besides Wisconsin workers who want an American wage.

But now Foxconn has learned something many of us know: anything Donald touches, becomes infected, dies, and rots.

Good old Andrew Cuomo spent 750 million on our Tesla Gigafactory, and it is doing the same thing. It’s just sitting there, not producing anything. 

Wrong.  Factory is operating, employs over 1,500 people, and does in fact produce parts for the supercharger network and Tesla’s solar cell business. 

mike1 said:

If this is all true, I'm very surprised to learn that Hyundai uses separate plant(s) to manufacture essentially the same car(s).

I also doubt that Kia would need to "agree to take control of production". They'd be told they are producing the car.

Kia is a separate company with a separate board and leadership structure.  Hyundai owns just 35% of Kia and has 1 seat on the board, so yes, Kia would need to agree.  

iOS_Guy80 said:

Why does not Apple by ARM?

Because Apple already holds a perpetual license to use the architecture, that license cost a lot less than $40 billion, and Apple is not in the business of licencing technology to its competitors.  And Apple already has enough antitrust issues without adding an allegation that Apple is unfairly licensing technology or excluding competitors from using ARM tech.

charlesn said:

"From this chair, Apple's 5K Studio Display is a nice monitor. It just delivers a beyond terrible price to delivered value ratio."

You've said it all in two short sentences. And there's nothing up for debate in this assessment--it's a perfectly "fine" monitor that--even by Apple standards--delivers nothing but appearance to justify the lofty price point. And even if the webcam issue can be fixed via software update, it's just inexcusable to ship such a premium-priced monitor in the age of Zoom with crappy webcam performance. 

There is no other monitor below $5,000 that can even match the brightness, contrast levels, and color range of the Studio Display, and when there is no substitute, $1,600 is a bargain. A comparable monitor simply does not exist. 

agilealtitude said:

Another line item on my credit card statement every month? How fast can you say 'delete'...?

Well good for you.

For many apps, the business model of selling an app for a one time fee, then supporting that customer forever is unsustainable. There comes a point where most people who need the app already own it (as is likely the case with FCP), then 100% of a developer's resources are devoted solely to maintain that app for eternity.  There are relatively simple apps that require little maintenance, which may work under this business model, but apps like FCP, Office, Adobe, most certainly do not.

For a customer, the cost is not much more.  There was a time when Adobe cost upwards of $3,000, and it lasted a few years. You could maybe stretch it 8 years, but that still ended up being almost $400 a year. Now you pay $30 a month (with the regular sales they have), and the app is updated every few months (rather than every 8 years).  

If the app is regularly updated with new functionality, the subscription model is well worth it. If you pay 99 cents a month for a calculator, then clearly that's a ripoff.  

This article is misleading.  Developers are not required to disclose this information until the next time they submit a new app or app update after December 14.  Therefore, there is nothing to "comply with" until the developer submits a new app or app update. Gmail has not been updated in 2 weeks, and therefore Google cannot be categorized as "ignoring" or having to "comply with" the requirement.  

Also, the article makes is sound like WhatsApp is hiding something by stating only that it collects "Other Data Types," however, the labels and descriptions are not chosen by the developer.  There is no option to enter custom information.

deckert63 said:

Is Masimo a real healthcare technology firm or are they a patent troll? If the former, not sure why apple doesn’t pay them the license fees like they do Qualcomm. If the latter, may Masimo rot in special place in hell only reserved for patent trolls. 

What's the difference?  If they hold a valid patent, they should be able to enforce it.  "Patent troll" is not a legal basis to invalidate a patent.  If you disagree, write a letter to your representatives in congress.