Last Active
  • Apple unveils macOS Monterey at WWDC 2021

    Probably too early, but any indicators on the future direction concerning GPUs, eGPUs, etc.?

    charlieF said:
    ... Anyone else a little pi**ed that there wasn't even a hint of hardware to take full advantage of this amazing new OS? 
    Didn't watch it, but I guess that indicates there were no hints or talk about upcoming hardware at all (I know no announcements of particular products)?

    Yeah, that ticks me off a bit, mainly because I want to know, especially stuff about GPU support and where Apple is going with GPUs. I'm pretty confident whatever they come up with in terms of CPU will be fine to exceptional (just scaling on what we've seen with the M1).

    It seems like the kind of thing developers would want to know, instead of spatial audio and crap like that. (Again, these software events are just filler mostly, IMO.) I suppose (and hope) that kind of thing will come up in the breakouts, but I'd think the world would want to know that kind of stuff instead of relatively inconsequential software demos.
  • Tesla stops accepting BitCoin, nearly entire cryptocurrency market hammered

    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. 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 [email protected], 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.
  • Lawmakers remain conflicted about what to do about Section 230

    fastasleep said:
    Because we don't need "good competition" when it comes to dealing with the pandemic, we need to vaccinate people and get to herd immunity. 

    There is no evidence hydroxychloroquine does anything beneficial with regard to Covid-19:

    There is no evidence that Ivermectin is a practical treatment in humans either:

    Vaccines work. The taken down information you think is "100% accurate" (as far as you could tell — whatever the hell that means) is not helping get people vaccinated. Pushing questionable (at best) treatments for infections is not helpful when we're trying to *prevent infections* first and foremost.
    Good competition was in regard to social media and news outlets.

    The 'vaccine' won't help herd-immunity, as it doesn't prevent Covid, it just lessens the symptoms (you can still get it and spread it). Real herd immunity would be more like letting people get it and treating those with severe symptoms to prevent the deaths (which we didn't do). So, instead, we're 'vaccinating' (a.k.a. gene therapy) people which is quite likely to make them more susceptible to future wild viruses (cf antibody dependent enhancement / pathogenic priming), not to mention a plethora of autoimmune disorders which probably won't get linked the the 'vaccine'. But, we're going to find that out the hard way, as we're currently in phase 3 trials on the public.

    If you're looking for facts, you probably should venture outside the Collins/Fauci info exchange.

    Maybe you'd learn about the hit-job done on HCQ so emergency use could be declared (so big-pharma doesn't have to do trials and can make their $trillions):

    BTW, *one* of the clips taken down, was actually a clip of Fauci on a virology podcast discussing the problems with the Ct of the PCR test being used. Yeah, wouldn't want misinformation like that out in the wild, huh?
  • Lawmakers remain conflicted about what to do about Section 230

    zimmie said:
    Though it's more than a little preposterous to claim more conservatives are being censored. Twitter and Facebook both absolutely bend over backwards to find the most charitable interpretation of anything conservatives say. Tom Cotton, a sitting US senator, used Twitter to call for the military to execute protestors. He still hasn't even been suspended temporarily.
    Well, BOTH (and ALL) sides get away with an awful lot that should be banned according to the ToS. The problem is more that certain *ideas*, not behavior, tend to get banned more on the conservative side of the fence. (I know, because it has happened to me, and many I know... who are quite polite and well-reasoned with absolutely nothing in our banned content that was against the ToS as far as we can tell.)

    And, there tend to be quite a bit of absolute ToS violations by very visible left-leaning public figures that don't get banned.

    Anyway, the solution isn't getting rid of Section 230, but allowing other platforms that are more fair (ex. Gab) to compete. I really don't know what the solution is, or how one could write laws, to prevent the bias and censoring, as I think that will always come back around to bite everyone else.

    EsquireCats said:
    Just this week the CCDH released a report demonstrating that just 12 individuals are responsible for the majority of anti-vax information. Similarly political disinformation dropped massively after Trump was booted from Twitter. 
    The problem is... is it disinformation? Yes, there are anti-vaxxers with totally wacky ideas. But, there are also vex-hesitant scientists and doctors who have had their content taken down that were (as far as I could tell) 100% accurate. And, then we have media who are funded by big-pharma promoting the big-money-making solutions as the only way, and labeling everything else as conspiracy theory or disinformation. (For example, the orchestrated take-downs of HQC and Ivermectin should be criminal!)

    It's completely messed up, and I don't know what the solution is, aside from allowing good competition (which currently isn't happening).
  • Apple COVID-19 screening tool introduces anonymous data sharing

    So, now that it is over, what will this be used for?
    apple ][ said:
    The virus is officially a joke now, as far as I am concerned.
    Yeah, I'm not sure I'd say it was a joke, but the extreme over-reaction certainly was. The crazy thing, is that we didn't wear masks at work through the worst of it all, and now that it is over, we have to wear masks.

    igorsky said:
    Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the WHO have already walked this statement back.
    Who can trust WHO?

    StrangeDays said:
    It’s not a joke, you’re just completely ignorant. Again. Simply look at the data... Almost twice as many Americans have been killed by covid as in the Vietnam war. Globally we have a 5.5% mortality rate (400k dead from 7.2 million cases). What part is difficult for you to understand? Oh yeah, the science part. 

    My brother and his wife, early fifties, no major issues, were hospitalized and nearly died. You’re just pretending it’s not a big deal because it hasn’t happened to you. The very definition of ignorance. 
    It isn't a joke for the people impacted, certainly. The problem is more the scale of that impact, vs the reaction (and scale of the implications).

    GeorgeBMac said:
    It's been an ongoing problem where those who know what they're talking about acknowledge grey and ambiguous areas but that is then twisted by those who want clear, unambiguous, black and white answers.   While conversely, those who don't know what they're talking about spew grey, meaningless garbage that they take as clear, black and white and definitive.   
    Yep, and that would be mostly the media, and certain scientists with agendas. The data, aside from a lot of uncertainty, is out there and reasonably good. It just doesn't tell the story the alarmists are telling.

    TommyCardello said:
    3. 35%-75% deaths occurred in nursing homes (% varies in different states, according to different sources. Even highly biased NYT admits that third deaths occurred in NY nursing homes)
    And, that's including the fact that the horrific early models caused a lot of leaders to do THE EXACT OPPOSITE of protecting the most vulnerable. If it weren't for the Science™, MSM-hyper-inflation and scare-mongering, and de-platforming of reasonable minds, the death toll would likely be considerably lower. (And, that's not counting the massive death-toll to come.)