robaba
About
- Username
- robaba
- Joined
- Visits
- 25
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 553
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 228
Reactions
-
'M1X' MacBook Pro set to arrive in 'several weeks'
Yes it does take time to tape out the interconnects even assuming that they make ZERO changes to the core micro architecture (there are always changes). Then they need to create new masks, test the masks, and run a pre production test run. But all this is moot—production for the M1X has already been done this spring. They might have another batch coming, but what has already been produced has Firestorm and Icestorm cores. We don’t even have a name for the A15 performance/efficiency cores, let alone any indication that they have been mapped into an M-series SoC.
-
Apple investigating RISC-V instruction set architecture, job listing shows
Boy, I would be. Apple hasn’t really enjoyed working with open source consortiums in the past. They always want more access than Apple is comfortable providing.gatorguy said:I would not be shocked if Apple uses this to join up with Open Titan development.
-
Google making its own Chromebook CPU inspired by Apple's M1
You have a very strange definition of “commodity”. Chip design and chip fabrication are SERVICES and furthermore, they are highly expensive and proprietary services at that. If all cpus were the same and produced by huge numbers of players (thousands at least) then THE UNIVERSAL CPU could be considered a commodity, but this is not happening. After many many years of centralization and commodification (x86) we are finally getting diversity in Chip design once again. But the over reliance on ARM, to the detriment of developing new and innovative forms of computational logic and their corresponding implementation in discrete hardware, is not a positive thing. Apples brilliant implementation of proprietary logic blocks in the M1 are where their approach really shines. We need more of this, not just copy-cat “commodity” designs.designr said:
I probably wasn't very clear in what I meant.rob53 said:
I disagree. Google will simply try and copy Apple but won't be able to. Apple's M- and A-series chips/SoCs are not commoditized chips. They won't be available to other companies and even if they were, the other companies won't benefit from them because it's Apple's programming that makes these chips sing. Google will need to change Android to run exactly the same apis and other processes Apple is running to get the most out of their chip design. Remember, Apple only licenses the ARM architecture, nothing else (I believe that's still true). Everything Apple does to their chips is their design, not ARM's. ARM has their own chip designs but they don't work for macOS, iOS, WatchOS or TVOS. Intel, AMD and ARM designed chips are commodity items but Apple-design ARM chips are not.designr said:This appears to be more evidence of the commoditization of CPU/compute capability. More specifically the commoditization of two aspects: 1) fab, and 2) chip design. Much to Intel's chagrin of course.
The lower-level components become more and more commoditized enabling even more (and more powerful) higher-level products for us. No one cares about the specific chips, display technology, etc. in things like smartphones, tablets, TV "set-top" boxes, etc.
I wasn't suggesting that Apple's chips are/will be commodity chips. What I meant is that the chip-making capability (design + fab) has become commoditized. So the capability is much more widely available than it once was (and likely much less expensive too). At one point the CPU was a very large part of the value stack. That's less true now. The value is moving "up the stack."
-
New China restrictions limit minors to three hours of gaming a week
Communism is the workers controlling the means of production. Socialism is any system which regulates capitalism for the benefit of the workers. Yes, often this requires taxes to step in and create a social safety net outside of employers control.sdw2001 said:
Socialism is authoritarianism. It's a must-have. The U.S. is not a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Socialism is the government controlling the means of production. That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying. Maybe both. Those countries are not socialist. They have big social programs supported by high individual taxes. But they are fundamentally capitalist, even pro-business (business taxes are lower than ours).GeorgeBMac said:sunman42 said:seankill said:It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism.Well, “generally” leaves out Dubcek’s government in Czechoslovakia, which was trying to establish “socialism with a human face” in 1968…. until the Soviet tanks rolled in.
Most other cases, yes, authoritarianism (“the dictatorship of the proletariat,” usually run by an elite) was a central feature. As was state terror, an invention of Lenin and his cronies.
I have to say, nothing about the current Chinese government resembles communism in any way. It’s a party of, by, and for the extremely wealthy, with dictatorial powers to enforce their will.You said: "It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism."Communism without authoritarianism is "socialism".But China, like the U.S. is now a mixture of socialism and capitalism -- with all the benefits and drawbacks of each.They are difference mixtures of each, but still, a mixture.And, since last November or so, China has been reining in its capitalist corporations -- essentially to assure that they are serving the greater good and also not abusing their power.
There are no benefits to actual Socialism. It destroys liberty and prosperity wherever it's tried.
-
Researchers who built rudimentary CSAM system say Apple's is a danger
1-Apple did not end up preloading the software that Russia demanded, only allowed for users to selectively load programs upon start up if they chose to.rcfa said:The silly exculpatory listing of differences in the systems is useless.
1Did Apple leave the Russian market when Russia demanded the installation of Russian government approved apps? 2Did Apple leave the Russian and Chinese markets, when Russia and China demanded that iCloud servers be located in their countries where government has physical access? 3Did Apple leave the Chinese market, when VPN apps were requested to be removed from the Chinese AppStore? 4Did Apple comply when Russia demanded that Telegram be removed from the Russian AppStore? 5Did Apple leave the UAE when VoIP apps were outlawed there?
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, and NO!
And NO will be the answer if these countries require additional databases, direct notification (instead of Apple reviewing the cases), etc.
Once this is baked into the OS, Apple has no leg to stand on, once “lawful” requests from governments are coming.
2-Apple is quickly moving to end-to-end encryption with an independent, third party go between which would completely eliminate the threat of Chinese (or Russian, or UAE) access to encrypted files on servers.
3-New security system will be a built in VPN on steroids (end to end encryption, intermediate, independent 3rd part server shielding ID from Webhosts and sniffers, while preventing ISPs from knowing sites visited)
4-don’t know
5-see 3
THIS IS WHY THEY ARE TAKING THE STEP TO SINGLE OUT CSAM NOW—SO THEY CAN STAMP IT OUT, WITHOUT PROVIDING A GATEWAY TO BAD ACTORS, STATE OR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, WHILE ALLOWING AN UNPRECEDENTED LEVEL OF SECURITY / PRIVACY.
