JustSomeGuy1

About

Username
JustSomeGuy1
Joined
Visits
53
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,081
Badges
1
Posts
316

Reactions

431Like110Informative

  • How to play Windows games on your Mac with Whisky

    JustSomeGuy1JustSomeGuy1
    AppleInsider said:
    Keep in mind that when you run an app in Whisky/GPTK you're not running an emulator: the Win32 apps run natively as standalone apps just as if you ran any Mac-native app. Wine is doing all the magic of translating Win32 API calls to POSIX which translates to native APIs on the Mac.
    Keep in mind, Chip is hopelessly confused. (And not for the first time.)

    Of *course* you're running an emulator. Something has to take all those x86 opcodes and execute them on the CPU, which only works with ARM instructions. You can not run x86 code "natively", that's just a ridiculous claim. The syscalls are translated to native, sure, but the actual app code is still emulated.

    I haven't looked into this but I expect it's Rosetta2 doing the emulation (which means it's more translation than emulation, but it's both).
    appleinsideruser

  • Does Apple's platform need to be opened up?

    JustSomeGuy1JustSomeGuy1
    We can learn a lot about how to do things by considering the greatest technology ever produced on Earth: life. The genetic variety, adaptions, and innovations of life are not adapted purely to be low cost and efficient. Life has developed over millenniums of natural selection to be fit for survival: suitability for use.
    Leaving aside historical errors (which really don't matter), and the parts of the article I haven't gotten to yet (it's even longer than your usual), this deserves correction.

    Writing about evolution is *hard*, even when you really do understand it. Variation necessarily leads to selection, and selection happen on one basis: "fitness", which as a term of art is defined to be a measure of successful reproduction- though it's a little complex, because that includes descendants. So for example a variation that leads to lots of children who are all sterile would have zero fitness.

    People are often confused by anthropomorphising nature. They'll say things like "Evolution takes the long view! Sure it selects for traits that aren't low-cost or optimized, because sometimes species need higher-cost 'features' to survive adverse times. So you get traits that aren't normally economical because every X generations, any individual without that trait gets wiped out by a natural disaster." But... evolution *doesn't* take the long view. It really does only care about *right now*. Every generation in which that natural disaster doesn't occur, animals with that survival trait are selected *against* in favor of animals that don't have it, because it's more efficient not to have it. That's why, by the time that disaster comes around again, most of the species lacks it, and they die off... leaving every survivor with the trait, which will then take many generations without disaster to again become uncommon. (Or maybe, it's entirely lost, and that's how that species goes extinct.)

    So when you write "not adapted purely to be low cost and efficient", you can do some handwaving about what you mean by "low cost" and "efficient". Life doesn't always optimize for low-cost and efficient reproduction. But for whatever reproductive strategy a given species is taking (which can be very high-cost child rearing, or very low cost "lay eggs and wander off") evolution will always produce, over generations, the most efficient and lowest cost realization of that strategy.

    There are of course tons of interesting factors that can produce surprising results. For example, the development of a bimodal ESS in a given species, so you have two different strategies, and thus traits, both being selected for simultaneously. But for each of those, you get maximum efficiency.

    You can also have a species trapped in a "local maximum", which is the most efficient state you can get given the maximum amount of variation possible in a single generation. Evolutionary optimization isn't guaranteed to develop the most low-cost and efficient possible solution, just the most low-cost and efficient one available given the variation available.

    Maybe the shortest way to say this is, while there are tons of interesting things that happen due to evolution, you will never see it do anything that *doesn't* drive lower cost or efficiency, assuming you're measuring the only thing that matters, fitness.
    [...]we are ignoring the incredible power of genetics to deliver life forms that aren't just efficient, they are wondrous, and usher in new worlds of possibility that wouldn't exist if life decided at some point that there should be no exciting future, just an increasingly efficient status quo.
    That's wrong twice. It's not the status quo if it's "increasingly efficient", and that's exactly what evolution does. What it doesn't do is "decide" anything, or care about the future. The future just happens. Evolution only does "now".

    Now if you want to talk about what humans are doing with genetics, that's a different story. We now have a group defining DNA data storage standards. Science Fiction becoming Science Fact in real time. So cool.
    watto_cobrablitz1

  • Apple TV+ secures deal for 'Murderbot' sci-fi series starring Alexander Skarsgard and helm...

    JustSomeGuy1JustSomeGuy1
    coolfactor said:

    In a world filled with so much violence and negativity, I'd like to see a different name chosen.
    Yes, a lot of people will likely skip it because their expectations based on the name will be wildly off target. And if the show were actually good, that would be a real shame. As it is likely to be... just as well.
    williamlondonravnorodom

  • Apple TV+ secures deal for 'Murderbot' sci-fi series starring Alexander Skarsgard and helm...

    JustSomeGuy1JustSomeGuy1
    This is a likely tragedy in the making. Foundation is one of the worst SF productions of all time, with virtually no connection to the original source material at all. Worse, the sheer level of stupidity and internal inconsistency in the plot is difficult to fathom. So I don't hold out much hope for Murderbot.

    This is really sad. Murderbot is such amazingly good source material. But since Murderbot's inner life, replete with sarcasm and humanism, is so much of what makes the books great, it's hard to imagine it ever translating well to the screen. It's a near certainty that we're going to get another senseless action-SF dud with empty characters.

    Oh well. I can always read the books again.
    williamlondondanox

  • Russia tried to hijack some of Apple's internet traffic for 12 hours

    JustSomeGuy1JustSomeGuy1
    dewme said:
    JustSomeGuy1 said:
    Less ignorance, more facts.
    DAalseth said:
    Apple needs to sever all ties with Russia. Cut them off cold to updates, services, iCloud, AppleMusic, everything. Flip the switch without warning. You live in Russia your device is bricked and you are SOL. I know that Apple keeps talking about trying to protect their customers. It's too late for that. Until the general populace starts feeling the pain from Putin's war they won't put an end to it. Remember, that's what brought down the Tzar. The people get fed up with paying in blood and treasure for the Tzar's adventure in WWI. It's time for another revolution and Apple needs to step up and do their part.
    This would have zero impact on the situation described in the article. Had they already done so, nothing would have changed. Rostelecom could still have announced Apple's route(s) - which is an entire /8!!! - and everything would have played out exactly the same way.
    bobolicious said:
    ... is this a good reminder of the potential vulnerability of (especially large, high value) cloud services with so many potential attack vectors ...?

    ... is it the opposite of the concept of the internet in terms of communication reliability of multiple web connections ...?
    No, to both questions. This has nothing to do with attacks on cloud services. It's fundamental to all traffic on the internet. And the problem is exactly the multiple possible connections, in that the lack of a central authority for the net means there's no single source of truth for who is allowed to announce which routes. There has been an answer to that problem for over two decades, but it's not used everywhere, much to everyone's detriment. See http://irr.net, or google "radb". If the entire world used and enforced registration of routes in a route database like the RADB, this attack could not have any effect outside of Rostelecom's own customers.
    9secondkox2 said:
    Very serious and calculated move by Russia. 
    Also finding vulnerabilities in the routing infrastructure. 

    Russias war isn’t going to stop with Ukraine. That’s a strategic move to gain a massive nuclear power plant while advancing its dominance agenda. They e already threatened their own surrounding countries as well as the USA. And China is right behind with its unprecedented disrespect and threatening of the USA as it seeks to devour one of the most prolific product economies in Taiwan prior to its 2049 buildup goal. 

    Though Apple was vigilant, there is no doubt that some data was stolen. You have to wonder what kind of blackmail is planned for any incriminating info discovered, especially where apple using politicians, media, and big tech folks are concerned.
    This is extra ignorant. Just stop.
    1) This isn't a "vulnerability in the routing infrastructure". It is, unfortunately, a designed-in feature. It will continue to be the case until use of route databases is universally enforced.
    2) I have a LOT of doubt that any user data was stolen. In fact it's virtually certain that no data was stolen, as all of it was likely encrypted, though they certainly would be able to capture some metadata - for example, who was connecting to Apple services, and when. The scenario you envision is not the problem. It is conceivable that the metadata alone could matter in a specific case involving a high-value target, however. That's a reasonably plausible explanation for the whole event, in fact, though we'll likely never know.
    3) Off topic, but the notion that Russia invaded Ukraine just to get control of one aging nuclear plant is ludicrous.
    Thank you for providing a voice of reason on the topic.

    Considering everything they did left a very clear trail back to the source and was essentially done in the open makes it hard to get too excited about this. It’s essentially the same as someone giving the post office a change of address form to route your mail to their mailbox, all the while telling you and the rest of the world that they are doing so. Whether it’s amateur hour, cyber heckling, or just being done to create a distraction we’ll never know for sure. So while I’m not overly concerned about this specific incident, we don’t know what their next move might be insofar as they operate in an environment of state sponsored terrorism.
    You're welcome.

    I hate to say it, but the next step is obvious: Break the internet. All they'd have to do is start announcing lots of routes they don't own, from critical players like amazon and google.

    The endgame in that case is also obvious: They would be entirely disconnected from the internet. That's a bad result for everyone, but probably exactly what Putin will be looking for, long-term, so why not take advantage of that to do some really spectacular if short-term damage on the way out? It's like tossing a molotov cocktail over your shoulder as you leave a restaurant.
    dewmewatto_cobraDAalseth