techconc

maestro64 said:

As I said before on this topic, comparing a Hash from a known image to an Hash of another image only works if both images are exactly the same. If the image that is being compared is modified in the least bit the Hash is no longer the same. 

Nope.  The algorithms used are designed to recognize the same picture, regardless if it has been resized, rotated, even slightly cropped, etc.

bbh said:
How about if I'm the arbiter of whether or not that "cute" photo of your child taking a bath is "kiddy porn" ?

That's not how it works.  The arbiter of "kiddy porn" is based on a collection of existing photos currently in circulation and being distributed as such.  The photo you take of your child taking a bath is not part of that collection. 

bbh said:

APPLE is trashing years and years of reputation with this. BAD IDEA.

Perhaps.  Mostly because of the ignorance, misinformation and overall false assumptions associated with it.  I would agree that it's not necessary.  I would also agree that it's probably the responsible thing to do.  Again, other services are already doing this today.  This is really nothing new.

rob53 said:

I can see websites implementing the same type of knee-jerk code that happens when you have an ad-blocker, they simply won't let you in unless you turn it off.
...
My only hope is iCloud Private Relay will trick them into believing they're actually tracking someone when they aren't.

This won't block ads, so the traditional type of code to prevent access to sites with ad blockers wouldn't work.  These sites will have "something" to track... there will be just no way to actually tie it back to you.

On a side note, I am genuinely thankful that we have companies like Apple who champion user privacy and challenge the despicable practices common within the advertising world. 

GeorgeBMac said:

The answer is simple:   End the silly, hateful, vindictive trade war with China cleverly disguised as "National Security".

You can't shutter chip factories and limit production in other less direct ways -- and THEN whine about lack of production!

....  That's silly and childish.

For starters, it seems odd that you feel the need to quote the entire article in order to make a point.

Further, there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed here.  

1. You seem to ignore the genocide issue.
2. You seem to ignore the $67 Billion trade deficit we have with China.
3. You seem to ignore the examples of hardware back doors found in Chinese hardware and why it's valid not to trust Chinese equipment for critical infrastructure, etc.

On top of that, you seem to take comedian, Bill Maher, as a valid source of political information.  Enough said.

commentzilla said:

If the Mac Pro is the only model that supports 3rd party GPUs in any form that's going to be a really tiny market for graphics card makers. Is it even worth supporting? So it begs the question, could Apple simply scale up their GPU, Neural Engine, etc, units to replace them? Granted it probably wouldn't be on the CPU die but rather on a 5nm GPU co-processor tapped into the shared memory pool. Who says the unified memory concept cannot be extended to the very top of the line?

What's clear at this point is that Apple is cutting INTEL and AMD out fo their MacBook and iMac development, so why not the MacPro? Why would AMD bother to develop for a single Mac?

Apple certainly dropped some major hints at the last WWDC which seemed to at least imply that the Apple Silicon path includes their own custom GPUs and not third party GPUs from AMD or Nvidia. They didn't outright say that, but their slides were structured in a way that certainly implied it.  On top of that, there have been specific rumors of discrete Apple GPU, codenamed "Lifuka".

proline said:
Don't be silly. There is clearly a need for three chips:

M1 (MBA, small MBPs, iPads)

M1X (16" MBP, iMac)
X1 ((iMac Pro, Mac Pro)

What you are waiting for is the X1, not the M1X.

I'm just speculating of course, but I don't think there will be just one pro configuration.  Rumors seem to suggest there will be a 16 and 32 CPU configurations.  I would imagine there would be multiple GPU options as well.  This is especially true if Apple creates a discrete GPU as rumored.

As for the iMac it is conceivable that there will be just one configuration for iMac, though I'd like to see more... again, at least with regard to GPU configurations.  We'll see.

cloudguy said:
With all due respect why do you believe that this is even possible? As I have stated numerous times, the idea that ARM is inherently superior to x86 was wishful thinking. If it were true, ARM would have more than 3% of the server market.

I've read a number of your posts and I'm trying to figure out whether you are simply trolling people in this forum or if you are actually that willfully obtuse.  I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm still not sure.

Anyway, trying reading an actual technical comparison. Anandtech has done a good job for example.  Apple's silicon is faster than Intel's on a per core basis.  This is proven not just with common benchmarks such as Geekbench, etc. but with larger workloads that run for longer periods of time such as SPEC, etc.  That said, let's be clear....  ARM based chips are inherently more efficient than x86 based chips.  This was as true for Intel's most efficient low power Atom chips as it is for their desktop chips today.  Apple silicon specifically is BOTH more efficient AND more powerful than anything from Intel.  To date, Intel does have larger chips with more cores, but that's simply a matter of Apple scaling their SoCs with more cores as they move up their product line. 

Finally, why would market share of the server market prove which chip is inherently better?  What do you know about cloud computing?  Do you understand the model of developing on the desktop and then moving it to the cloud?  The server market will follow the desktop market.  In terms of chips sold, there are FAR more ARM based chips sold each year than Intel based chips.