muthuk_vanalingam

davgreg said:

iPad Pro?
They are due for an upgrade.

I have a MacBook Pro 14” that mostly stays home as a desktop and my iPad Pro goes everywhere. Ready to see the iPad Pro’s next act.

caladanian said:

A new MacBook with Touch Bar is really crazy. Either it’s dead or it’s not. But this chaos is like having both lightning and usb-C in iPads 

dewme said:

In my opinion it seems backward thinking to assume that Apple will simply follow the same kind of incremental spec bumping on a predefined schedule that Intel followed with their line of CPUs. There is no reason why Apple would arbitrarily release updated SoCs every 12 months, 24 months, or whatever time increment you want to speculate about for no reason other than the calendar flipping to a new month or year. This is "Intel's Way of Looking at the World," i.e., milking the cash cow, not Apple's way of looking at the world. 

Rather, I expect that Apple would release new custom SoCs on a timeline that matches their desire to deliver new functionality and unique functionality into a product or product line. They control the whole stack and thus can build problem-domain-specific, purpose built, SoCs that bring the optimal set of capabilities to bear against the problems that each product or product line is going after, all while maintaining a common core that delivers a base level of cross product capabilities. They've already done this with their A-series SoCs when you look across iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, and Apple Watch.

All I'm saying is that Apple can fine tune their SoC designs, and their release schedules, to their hearts content because they are not building commodity components intended for general consumption. I don't see them following the same release model that commodity chip makers have followed where they have to release newer, faster, and marginally better chips on a calendar based increment just to keep everyone buying their latest stuff.

The Apple Silicon team only has to meet the demands of Apple's product teams, which in many cases will be far more strenuous than anything that Apple ever expected from Intel, Qualcomm, or whatever commodity chip supplier they were dependent on in the past. Apple is a product company, not a chip company. Apple's product designs will push Apple's chip designs, not the other way around.

DAalseth said:

Unfortunately most developers that can will yank their apps from the AppStore. We will lose not only access to FB and Fortnight, but Creative Cloud, Office365, and other essential apps. We will be FORCED to go to outside, insecure,  stores to get the apps we need. It’s all fine and good to say that those that want to look elsewhere can while the rest of us will stay in the walled garden. In reality we will all have to look elsewhere or we will nor be able to do much with our devices. 

sflagel said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

sflagel said:

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.

People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 

Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
(But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

"Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 

This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

True!  Good point!

But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).

Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 

But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 

Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 

I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

(But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)

I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 

Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 

Sorry to say this, but this statement "It seems that weight gain is a one way street" is total BS. I don't usually use such strong words, but can't resist it when such silly claims are made. With a healthy lifestyle, anyone can reduce weight and keep it that way for the rest of the life. George is absolutely spot on with his posts related to Lifestyle and how it impacts Health.

I am just giving a summary of the content of these studies in The Biggest Loser. I would be careful full with claims such as “anyone can….” unless you have done it, know a lot of other people who have done it, or have some evidence that it’s possible. Sadly, the most evidence points in the other direction, everyone knows that diets fail and that most people gain their weight back. Blaming the individual is easy, but more curious is the one that wonders WHY they cannot maintain “a healthy lifestyle”. 

Most smokers are able to quit, it’s hard and they may indulge every once in a while, but most can do it. That does not seem to be the case for overweight people.