samrod

dysamoria said:

shev said:

Shame. Love a bit of lobbying, brilliant system

Brilliantly corrupt. The term is plutocratic oligarchy.

Lobbying is actually a foundational avenue of voicing public interest and concerns to legislators. Nothing corrupt about lobbying as it's fully legal. While we may dislike when wealthy, powerful entities do it, we don't seem to mind when civil rights, environmental, and consumer protection groups engage in lobbying.

bennettvista said:

It's still a basic flaw. Computers are tools meant (in this case) to serve creative individuals - writers, photographers, filmmakers, artists, etc...  You can still read a letter that Ernest Hemingway typed in 1930 or a photograph that Ansel Adams made in 1940, but you can't watch a film created in Final Cut in 2009 or a story written in Word in 1989.  There will be more lost works of art in the digital era - either because the file can't be opened or the work remains lost on some hard drive without the dead owner's password.

Of course you can watch movies cut on FCP 2009. You just can't open the project file and edit them. Also, I think modern versions of Word can open all older versions' documents.

Nice article DED. But In this epic between Apple and Samsung, I'm surprised you didn't mention Steve's 2002 announcement that Apple will invest $100 M in Samsung Semiconductor to secure display supply. That point marks significant contrast to their current relationship. https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-invests-100-million-in-samsung/

Curious about the massive discrepancy between the "2018 Mac Mini i3 CPU only" at 8m 51s and the "5,1 Mac Pro" at 51m 14s, both without T2/QS. Is it possible to break down the differences between T2 and QuickSync performances and which settings are required for each?

I hope Apple doesn't transition Macs to ARM chips. The benefit of having a POSIX *n*x running on the same hardware as the rest of the world is hard to overstate. The thinking with the transition is that since ARM chips are so powerful sipping such little energy on iOS devices, imagine the workhorses they'd be on desktops? Sure? Maybe? But this would only be a short-lived advantage until the same physical obstacles affecting Intel come up. The reason to transition is that progression on the Intel architecture has decelerated. But this is universal and will affect the ARM architecture as well. The laws of physics won't give Apple's ARM engineers any advantages over Intel engineers. ARM may have a head start, but it WILL hit the same limits at 4nm process with yield problems, etc.