JustSomeGuy1
About
- Banned
- Username
- JustSomeGuy1
- Joined
- Visits
- 60
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,172
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 330
Reactions
-
Apple remains favorite tech stock as company gears up for 'monster' growth
We need better editing. This article is a complete mess. Three or four paragraphs are unreadable due to HTML errors.
-
Mac Studio with M1 UItra review: A look at the future power of Apple Silicon
Also, about the SSDs - if I had to bet money, I would bet that they wind up being upgradable by 3rd parties (though perhaps only OWC makes the effort). That didn't happen with the nnMP because it's too niche - and also, it's easy to add a pile of NVMe SSDs with an inexpensive PCIe carrier card. The Studio is a different story. I think it'll sell in large quantities, and the size of that market will drive attention to the upgrade market in a way the nnMP couldn't.Of course it's possible that Apple could prevent this. If they're *seriously* serious about preventing this, they can use crypto to make it *really* hard to figure out (basically impossible unless you get hold of an internal Apple tool, which would probably be a major violation of the law (DMCA at least, possibly title 18 felony). I doubt they've bothered, but we won't know for a while (if ever).Edit: I apparently missed some recent developments. Apple did *not* get serious about preventing it. So it's definitely doable, and if they sell as expected, I figure we'll see upgrade SSDs from OWC within a year (maybe slower than Apple's, going by past experience, but at least they'll be bigger).
-
How we ended up with the 'Pregnant Man' Emoji
Argh, and I said I was done. Still, this was at least a real attempt to reason, so here goes.
thrang said:
While I'm not a religious person, there is a lack of respect exhibited in the last sentence that is ironically dismissive, narrow-minded and denigratingJustSomeGuy1 said:Marvin said:Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.I think you missed what I wrote a couple days ago here.It will likely NOT be until the end of time, because technology will catch up with this problem and render it moot. As long as we don't destroy ourselves first (nukes, climate change, etc.), we're likely to have perfect functional sex-changes, within the lifetime of many (most?) reading this site. Not to mention horns, tails, gills, extra limbs, etc. When bodies and sex become that fluid, I expect it's going to get harder to motivate people to hate based on sex. A lot of that energy will probably be directed against people taking on animal characteristics. Because while humans progress, we also like our petty moralizing and religious narrowmindedness. :-(
It is dismissive, unironically, and denigrating - to a certain subset of religious people. But it's not narrowminded. I've known many religious people, and I respect some of them. The others, not so much. But I'm not obligated to respect them in order to be part of a functional society. I simply have to recognize that I don't get to decide how they live their lives, and treat them with politeness when interacting with them, at least until they actively provide a reason not to be polite. For example, by trying to tell others how to live *their* lives.Put another way, I didn't say "we like our narrowminded religions", which you could plausibly call an attack on religion in general (though it might still not be). I said "religious narrowmindedness", which is definitely a real thing, and does not make any statement about *all* religious belief systems or behaviors.The supposition is that people or societies "don't have the right to define things" is not only objectively wrong, it is, as a position, attempting to define how others think, which is counterintuitive to the argument posited.You can say that, but it doesn't make it so, or even a rational statement.If you want to agree with other people on a definition of a term, by all means feel free to do so. I don't get to tell you not to do that.If you want to enforce that definition on all of society, then you can just f*** off. *That* is attempting to define how others think.If you want to label anyone with XY chromosomes a man, and call them "he", then that's your right. It's also the right of a trans woman so labelled by you to be offended by your unwillingness to see her the way she does, and therefore not associate with you. She doesn't get to enforce a penalty on you for your choice - but neither do you get to insist that she subject her self-labeling to a genetics test. You have to accept that others will use words in ways that you don't. Arguing with them because their definition is different than yours is futile and foolish; if you don't understand that the definition is contested, then you remove yourself from the group of people capable of rational discussion.It is true that the government can legislate a definition of a word for legal purposes. This has been a source of much conflict in the past (for obvious example, defining "marriage" in a restrictive way). But until it does, nobody else gets to. And do you really want it to? A lot of conservatives like their "don't tread on me" flag; keeping the government out of private lives has a lot of backing on both sides of the political spectrum. At least, when it's convenient - some people like to pick and choose whose lives the government should be meddling in.For example - you will never "convince" vast numbers of people that a homosexuality is "understandable,", yet there are countless efforts to push hard on those with this viewpoint - from a political/social engineering/media perspective. Why is one PoV ok but not the other? This is not to say this lack of understanding should permit such people treat homosexuals with any less respect in any facets of life or work - that's a very different issue. But trying to "convince" people who have a certain belief system to the point of derision and denigration is as, or more, guilty than the supposed offense.You are using a famous fallacy to argue a weak position. "If you insist on being tolerant then you must tolerate the intolerant" is a foolish argument based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the word "tolerant". Being tolerant means I'm OK with you being straight, gay, bi, trans, etc. It does NOT mean I accept you trying to take power over others.As for trying to convince people... everyone does that all the time. And sometimes they are rude and obnoxious about it, and yes, that applies to people on the left as well as on the right. But if you think people on the left are worse about it, then you haven't met the evangelists I have. But also, and more importantly, there are grave and egregious flaws in our society that are *killing people* today due to intolerance. How many people have died because some overstuffed liberal got offended at something? Zero. How many gay teens have committed suicide, though? How many with body dysphoria?
Again you seem shaky on basic concepts of rational discussion. You're using an example to prove a point, but your example isn't just contested, it's *famously so*. Putting words in boldface doesn't make them any more true. The fact that I think your position is utterly stupid is not important, especially to you. But the fact that you're trying to use it as an example to make a point shows that you really don't understand: you can't make a point by using a contested example. That only reinforces the disagreement.If one says "it's all ok - everyone is different", then one needs to apply that thinking as well to those who actually have very different/opposing thoughts about a subject. This is one of the main issues with wokeism and the extreme extension of such thought (horns, tails, gills and such, or perhaps transgender males performing in female athletics). A different example - The Florida's law to prevent non-parents (teachers) from talking to K-3 kids about sexual orientation/gender issues is not only completely reasonable (this is not the role of a school or teacher), it in fact does not go far enough (from an age perspective), and is thoroughly mis-represented as "Don't Say Gay" legislation. An abhorrent distortion. It's also a law that, quite sadly, is needed, given the nature of what a school curriculum should be focused on but too often completely veers off the rails (ie preparing children to read, write, perform math, and develop free thinking minds not subject to indoctrination).So bringing it back to this topic, no one should be surprised when a vast majority of people factually and objectively say a pregnant man emoji is stupid. Nor should one attempt to school them very much, given the obvious nature of the distortion.
Yeah, here you're just totally off the rails:- It's not a vast majority.- Calling it stupid is... weird. We've already discussed trans men (born female) who LOOK LIKE men being pregnant. How is the emoji not entirely appropriate for them? And we've show at least one example of a person with XY chromosomes being pregnant (and delivering a child). So there are clearly people that that image can be applied to, whatever your definition of "man" (though the latter case would seem extremely obtuse and probably insulting).- If by stupid you mean totally implausible (which it demonstrably isn't, see above), well, why aren't you arguing against the unicorn emoji?If you had said "I really don't think we need this emoji, its use case is extremely limited", then that would be a reasonable position and I doubt anyone would argue with you - though Jason might (and did) write an article explaining how despite that being clearly true, we got that emoji anyway. What causes the bad reaction is bigoted idiots using this meaningless event to launch yet another salvo in their war of outrage that the world doesn't conform to their sad and restrictive viewpoint.
-
How we ended up with the 'Pregnant Man' Emoji
thrang said:Jason - despite all your verbiage, most people are fairly confident that a) gender is real and everyone has one and b) a pregnant man is impossible. So this is nonsense at the most obvious and fundamental level.
The good thing about this woke lunacy is the eventual whiplash on the return volley...Learn to read. Just *two* posts before yours I provided a documented example of a pregnant man (he had something like Swyer syndrome, I don't recall the details but the link is right there). More to the point, the emoji *looks like* a man and is pregnant. There are a number of such people, as discussed a bit earlier.As usual, the most ignorant people are the most certain of their knowledge. See my answer to lalafresh, it's entirely applicable to you as well.[Edit: Deleted question, now I see why this was bumped]
-
Everything Apple released at the 'Peek Performance' event - and what we thought
AppleInsider said:[...]When configured with the M1 Max chip, the new Mac Studio has 2.5 percent faster CPU performance than the fastest 27-inch iMac with 10-core processor.
[...]Since the M1 Ultra is basically two M1 Max chips connected using UltraFusion, it's not hard to imagine how far Apple could take the principle when it comes to M2 and the Mac Pro. Could it offer the equivalent of four M1 Max chips slapped together with the magical chip duct tape as a 40-core option? What about 60 cores? 80? What's the limit for this?
[...]What I do remember is the last time Apple introduced a new Mac. It was the iMac Pro in 2017, and, just as now, the new machine offered amazing performance. The new Mac Studio isn't the most attractive box Apple has ever made, but it is the one thing from the event that I want.1) Obvious error, you meant *2.5 times* faster, not 2.5 percent (that's going by Apple's somewhat handwavy numbers, which are probably GB5).2) The limit is two chips- the Ultra they introduced today. Physical packaging and proximity are big design issues. You can't simply add more chips without changing the architecture in really substantial ways. For example, even if you could plug two ultras together (you can't, you need that shoreline for the memory traces), you'd wind up with nonuniform core connections (diagonally aligned cores would have two-hop distance).Interestingly, rumors from quite a while ago which so far have proven 100% accurate (about Jade-1C, Jade-1C Chop, and now Jade-2C) DID specify that there will be a Jade-4C. So perhaps they will do something really interesting to plug two Ultras together (or really, four Maxes), and just eat the performance cost of nonuniformity. They will definitely not be doing this for any more cores than that though. The geometry just gets terrible.If you want to go wider than 4C, you're either going to have to do what AMD did with the multichiplet Zens (an I/O chiplet at the center of the cores, though perhaps with much more advanced packaging, just like the Ultra), or you're going to have to come up with something really new. My guess is that they will go for something Zenlike, but with Apple you can't rule out something new. They certainly leapfrogged the industry with the 2.5D interposer in the Ultra, but this would be something even more radical.For example, they could try to ride their amazing thermals to stack RAM on top, which would eliminate the shoreline issue. Not clear how they'd support really large RAM this way as they'd still need traces for a RAM bus unless *all* the memory is stacked, which seems unlikely - but possible, especially if they're willing to price it crazily high. You might even see something really radical like cooling tech integrated into the manufactured chip, to make stacking more feasible.3) Lol, your memory is terrible. It wasn't the iMac Pro in 2017. It was the Mac Pro, end of 2019. What you wrote still applies though. [Edit: And that's assuming you mean a totally new form factor. Obviously the M1 Macs are all newer than that.]
