anonconformist

maciekskontakt said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Apple Computer: Nice products but you wouldn't want to work there.

Yes and that is my friend who came from east coast NYC finance learned too. Even their development process is weak comparing to what we use in big software shops in finance. If you do not know what is big, one floor of financial company has more operations line of code than entire Microsoft. I co-owned literally 2 million lines of code of trading system. Small piece of what else was on the floor. When he said of their weak process and ow to fix it they did not agree so, he played to leave that garbage Now Zoox pays probably better and has better process as Amazon project. Apple as much as achieved top in technology has a lot to learn to be more efficient. Keyword is automated testing and avoiding repeat mistakes in code. If they want people to work on weekends because management does not want investing into automated testing and people have to do it on time that normally would be their private time then Apple will have to pay more to those engineers.

That’s one hell of a claim, with no evidence provided as to how you can legitimately claim knowledge as to how many lines of code than the entirety of Microsoft.

I know there are rather large applications that run, with millions of lines of code.  Frankly, too many lines of code for a trading system will slow things down and make it more error-prone, as well as making testing a living nightmare for all that complexity.  I know of medical practice software that consists of over 22 million lines of Visual Basic 6 code that is its own platform for the vertical market, with its own third-party software. Still a fraction of the size of what’s just in the Windows OS source code that I have full access for helping customers with, and while the Windows OS source code is huge for what’s in a release, and it may be the largest single repository for any single Microsoft product, it’s still a small percentage of the total code Microsoft has.

mattinoz said:

pulseimages said:

Will anyone really notice the speed increase in day to day usage?

Well depends - doing things with less energy improves how long you can do those things for.
I think that could be why Apple moved to battery life improvements as that a measure because that is real world.
But actual CPU performance improvements at this point are probably not seen outside academic tests or on larger devices. 

If they can say for the next 5+ years  "We still have the most powerful SOC by miles and we increased battery life again" then that could use some gains to move the budgets towards things consumers will get a kick out of. 

I think that is the real reason they have de-emphasised CPU metrics to concentrate on what it delivers Cameras and Battery.

To add to your analysis, consider the context that Intel fouled up with the Pentium 4 towards trying to focus on performance, and truly whiffed it for power usage, they thought they could ramp up that design pattern to a 10 Ghz clock.  I suspect they could have eventually gotten there, but it'd require a cryogenic freezer around the CPU to make that work.  Intel's Israel team was working on a low-power Pentium processor that had a shorter pipeline, which also was a meaningful part of how it used less power.  Intel started from that as the basis, with the design goal of going for performance (not sure how perfectly they followed this) where it'd save power in the process.

The net result is that Intel has still created CPUs that need a lot of cooling and use a bit of power, but they've attached rocket engines to a pig of a system and made that pig fly by a long string of incremental performance tweaks that takes power into account as a major design priority. Why?  If you have "fast" circuitry but it uses too much power, it'll overheat anyway, and you'll limit your upper range of what's feasible purely by physics.

So, focusing on ways to reduce power usage for a given amount of computation translates long-term into headroom for improving performance while keeping the power/cooling costs reasonable.  By contrast, look how many Android phones can burst for a short period of time, but also need huge batteries (not that it would be a bad thing if Apple made larger batteries, but... that's not how Apple rolls historically) and will run hot.  It's not like an iPhone won't run rather warm/hot if you push it hard enough.

As an owner of an M1 MacMini, in an apartment in the Seattle area without AC (it's rather odd to have an apartment or house in this area with central AC, this is a curious area between the climate and the culture in that regard) I welcome working on a system that doesn't add notable waste heat into my environment.

mike eggleston said:

There are definitive ways to make it such that a person can vote by a device. A few people have talked about some of the technologies that can be used to validate that the person making the request is in fact the person that can vote. Like one person said, this is already done via Apple Pay (which is the far more secure way of doing contactless payments than anything out there). It is established that the card (or person) is valid, and then they are given a a secure credential. One way of doing this is by public key/private key encryption. That way the public key (i.e. the voting servers) can read what the votes are, but they will not know who the person is. Also, the person who submitted the vote can verify that their vote is the one they actually did.

Now, this is a very rudimentary example of what can be done, and there should be additional safeguards that are put into place plus there are other considerations that need to be dealt with (person changes device, what then?) that need to be addressed. But, all of those things are things that can be done with the will and desire to make it happen. It requires EXPERTS not POLITICIANS to come up with the solutions, and that way it is 100% fair for everybody.

What a common person cannot understand (black boxes) is what a common person cannot audit to be sure it’s all working as it needs to work and is not corruptible and as such, no common person (with common sense) will trust.

If it requires experts to design and implement it, only experts could possibly audit it, but an expert in this context can only audit that such a thing is valid for any given moment they audit it, if they compare source code translated to machine code as to what’s running at the moment they vote.

Things get much harder then to the point of impossibility that it cannot and is not corrupted. Nobody has much motive to corrupt income tax filings, what’s to gain? Voting results? Clear motivations easily identified. Where something that can be corrupted and is hard to audit/validate, when the gain is large enough, someone will do it or has already done so.

I know the limits of computer technology in this area. I also know people and their limits. Only someone that doesn’t understand both think this is resolvable by throwing computer tech at it.  There’s no way something so secure (in theory) will be trusted by common people, they have too much data to suggest otherwise.

StrangeDays said:

entropys said:

No, the vote is more important than how much you earned or what deductions you got.

I do think the Us needs to clean its act up with voting systems, as it is quite vulnerable to accusations of impropriety. Because it is vulnerable.  Identifying that the voter is entitled to the franchise is important, and people should provide that when they vote.  

And as for arguments about people not having ID for one reason or another, you can have a process where people wanting to vote can get special voter ID. Like almost every other western country has already.

We already do that. Reminder: per the previous administration’s own cyber security czar, 2020 was the most secure election in US history. DOJ confirmed the same. There was no meaningful voter fraud. 

As for voter ID, you clearly don’t understand the issues. I live in the poor south and there are many, many American citizens without drivers licenses. Nor state IDs. Getting them requires vehicles and flexible work schedules. Not everyone can afford to spend 4+ hours at the DMV on a weekday, yet it’s still their god given right to vote. And we have systems that enable this - voter rolls, paper bills, witnesses, signed statements, etc. 

they rejected even paying any time to look at evidence and threw out cases on technicalities they made up, and you say they confirmed things?

The only thing they confirmed is they had no desire to hear cases.

You’ve confirmed you didn’t pay attention to the facts of what actually happened, for whatever reason.

Your assertions are comically bad.

What we might not see are Intel’s forecasts of research and the like for marketshare they anticipated, and how much has been spent.  Big bets are made.  If Apple caught Intel with the M1 announcement and they were aiming at meeting Apple’s needs or whatever, perhaps they won’t break even: a lot of people don’t understand that it takes awhile to recoup costs, and often businesses only make money in the last few percentages of customers and their purchases.

Perhaps Intel is really scared now: they should have been years ago.