cgWerks

<sarcasm> Because a top complaint about the mini is that it is just too darn big!  </sarcasm>

What will be particularly funny is if they make the cord from the brick just a bit too short, and the brick keeps pulling the mini off the desk, right?

I guess as long as it retains enough cooling capacity to bring more CPU cores and GPU cores and still be silent, I don't care all that much... besides the above point about it being pulled around the desk because it's too light/small. The external brick sucks, though. I hate those things!!!

MacPro said:

The power of the M1X and M2 will be staggering, I can well see the next Mac Pro, using Apple Silicon, being used to prototype Crays.  

https://wiki.c2.com/?AppleCrayComputer

Yeah, the big problem is GPU. I hope we hear something at WWDC about the future of eGPUs or much-bigger-than-the-rumors plans for Apple GPUs.

macxpress said:
Because they can? What other function will you gain by making it larger? You're not getting more ports. Thats a limitation of the M1, not because its thin. The only real thing you'd gain is the power supply would be inside instead of an external power brick. 

Well, that internal power supply would be quite welcome. But, you also get more cooling capacity more quietly. I sure hope they didn't trade off any potential CPU/GPU expansion or quietness going for a considerably smaller package. But, if history informs, they very well might have. Sure Apple Silicon runs a lot cooler, but my understanding is that when pushed to the max, the fans do spin up on the M1 mini or MBP.

Xed said:
You two really don't understand how a smaller and lighter device is both good for selling products and for the logistical aspects of lowering materials, shipping, and storage costs?

It looks better for the marketing department, I suppose, as they often hide cords, bricks, etc. But, in reality, packaging the mini and a brick... or having to deal with that as the user, is much less pleasant. Maybe they'll sell the brick separately and tout the reduced packaging?

Musk just pivoted because he got hit by the 'noodle gun' (you'll have to listen to No Agenda to get that one).
Selling eco-car while backing eco-destruction thing is bad PR. Whatever reality there may or may not be to that is irrelevant. He can't risk mob-'justice'.

The value in crypto is like the value in anything, utility and/or storage. Government backed fiat has value, until it doesn't. The USA spends trillions backing up the value of the USD with the US military. If that scheme ever falls apart, though, it will come quickly crashing down. And, there are a lot of powers gunning for that (but internal collapse will likely get it first).

I think a lot of the interest in crypto, is certainly, hype. It reminds me a lot of the dot-com ramp up. I remember being dragged to a couple 'investment' meetings by friends because I was the tech-guy they knew. You'd hear these pitches about how much a 'click' is worth and how much more it will be worth tomorrow.

BUT, the other side of crypto, is a recognition of how fragile fiat is and the crazy place the world has become. It is a system of storage and transaction outside the system. For example, if you're 'deplatformed' you might not be able to take payments/donations via any of the normal channels we think of. But, you can take crypto, and no one can stop you.

There are also technological advantages. Take a look at what Adam Curry is doing with Podcasting 2.0 and Lightning Network (it doesn't have to be that, but it is where they are starting). cf. PodcastIndex.org Basically Lightning Network is kind of like the cash-drawer & safe at your store. Because Bitcoin transactions have a cost, you store up a bunch of them, and then at the 'end of the day' take them to the bank to settle out. It could work with other forms of crypto as well, but this gets around the Bitcoin 'cost' issue.

What they are doing is baking in a value block to the podcast RSS feed, which directs and splits streaming funds when someone wants to support a podcast. The funds (micro-payments) will automatically end up in different parties wallets (think podcast host, audio editor, podcast app developer, podcast host, etc whoever you want.) with no 3rd party in the middle to meddle, control, or charge. This could work for lots of things. The documentary people have been talking to Adam. It could happen to the music industry. etc.

This would be hard to do with other forms of payment, and you'd have a middle entity involved. This was just to give you an example on the utility side.

Personally, I think we'll eventually see a few major forms of crypto shake out of all of this. Maybe Bitcoin and Etheurum. But, I suppose it could be something else too. It's just like hundreds of competing 'standards' right now, and a ton of speculation about which will win and what is will eventually be worth. But, you're fooling yourself if you don't think there is value here at all. The question is how much.

As for the whole power and environment thing, a couple of points. First, if you look around, there have been some lengthy (and fairly technical) papers written to debunk much of the hysteria. But, more importantly, we're not going to stop using energy. I'm all for efficiency and improving tech, but unless we wipe ourselves out, we'll always need and use it. We have to find better ways of creating it, not poo-pooing things that use it.

For a long time I ignored crypto. Then the world changed. I can no longer ignore it, but I also wish I hadn't in the past. While I was using my computer resources to substantially contribute to Folding@home, I could have secured my future if I'd done some crypto-mining. I can't go back and fix that, but I can stop ignoring it. Just like the dot-com bust, the silliness went away, but the Internet and websites remain... and are more important than ever. I think something like this will happen to crypto as well. The silliness will get ditched, and then what remains will become a crucial aspect of society.

Great article, and if you're involved in podcasting I highly recommend you go read (and understand!) that link to Podnews ('Research performed' link in the article).

Apple probably tried to do what Marco (Overcast) is doing, but messed it all up. It is a good thing, in terms of reducing the load on RSS feeds (of podcasts) and for the app users, in that if you're subscribed (now followed) to a lot of podcasts, it could take a lot of time and bandwidth to refresh them all. Now, Apple's servers do that 'heavy lifting.' That's one of the big reasons I've recommended switching to Overcast. BUT, Marco did it right, whereas Apple didn't (so far).

The other issue, is that this gives Apple a bit too much censorship control over podcasts/episodes. In the past, once you're subscribed, the app read directly from the RSS feed. Even if Apple pulled an episode/podcast from the directory, the listener would keep getting episodes. Now, if they do so, it will stop, or the particular episode won't appear.

For podcast listeners, I recommend considering 3rd party apps, like Overcast, or check out some of these newer apps https://podcastindex.org/apps starting to support the Podcasting 2.0 directory. If you're a podcaster, I suggest getting familiar with what is going on at https://podcastindex.org as it is not only a backup in terms of protecting the free-speech nature of podcasting, but they are also adding a TON (maybe too quickly, IMO) of new features which podcast hosts and players can implement, including direct listener to podcaster funding, meta-data based clips, tags to create an IMDB type functionality for podcasting, and much more.

Beats said:

Apple went from inventing the podcast to having a monopoly on podcasts to saying “fu** you” to podcast users.

FYI, Apple DID NOT invent podcasting! It was Adam Curry and Dave Winer. Adam met with Steve Jobs just prior to Apple adding it to iTunes, and gave Steve the initial podcast index. Apple, yes, then totally popularized it. But, many of us were downloading podcasts (before they were known as such) and putting them on our MP3 players, or burning them to DVD-RWs to play in our cars, etc long before Apple got involved.

Fortunately, they've done a nice job of helping promote it in a rather hands-off way so far. In that regard, huge thanks are in order. But, I fear those times are changing. Not that I think Apple is out to ruin it, but in their attempts to push it towards being a new services profit center, they might unintentionally do so (if we're not careful).

fastasleep said:
What on earth are you talking about? Apple has never had a "monopoly" on podcasts. What "massive library"? Apple's app fetches the same podcasts from public RSS feeds like everyone else's apps, they don't host any content. Seems like you actually don't really know what podcasts are.

They didn't host any content until now, that is. And, you're totally correct except that they were like 80%+ of of the market in terms of directory-listing and their listenership of their player for a long time, which has dropped just under 60% more recently. It isn't a monopoly at all, as you point out, because they were never in control of it. But, they did wield a lot of influence, in terms of any changes. Podcasters have been begging for various features for quite some time, with pretty much no response, as you kind of had to get Apple to adopt anything if you wanted any success. I'm hoping Podcasting 2.0 (PodcastIndex.org) changes that.

Xed said:

I beg for FB (and Instagram) to start charging users a fee. Let's bring a swifter end to them abusing the trust of their users.

Same here! The problem is they'd probably do both.

But, absolutely, I'd gladly pay a reasonable fee to use Facebook if I knew they were just providing the service as it is w/o all the creepy stuff.
In fact, I don't even mind straight out advertising (aside from the UI/distraction clutter!), or *even* targeted advertising based off interests I indicate I want my ads tailored towards. It's the tracking and cross-tracking anything and everything that is the problem.

The other day, I half-jokingly posted an Apple refurb Mac Pro into a crypto mining forum where someone was considering buying a GPU for like $2000 that wasn't even as powerful as the one in the Mac Pro refurb (which had 2 of them). If Apple has a good supply or already has the components, yeah, it could certainly make them more price competitive if the rest of the market can't get them or their costs go way up.