tht

comcastsucks said:

In case anyone is an idiot like me and doesn't know what the hell wet bulb temperature means, here's some relevant info from Wikipedia:

"The wet-bulb temperature is the lowest temperature that can be reached under current ambient conditions by the evaporation of water only.

Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (130 °F). The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F) – equivalent to a heat index of 70 °C (160 °F)."

IOW, wet bulb temperature is really used as a measure of when sweat doesn’t evaporate off your body anymore. Your body sweats to keep its internal temperature down. If that sweat doesn’t evaporate, your body doesn’t keep cool, and heat illness will start pretty quick. 

sbdude said:

Genuinely curious, why not include higher capacity memory modules if there's demand for it? I imagine the pin outs are the same for every capacity Apple uses, so why not include more than 192 GB for those tasks that demand greater amounts of memory? Or are M Series chips unable to address that much memory?

12 GB is the largest LPDDR5 package in mass production. An LPDDR5 channel only supports 16 GB memory capacity (I think). An M2 Max has 8 channels of LPDDR5. 8 x 12 = 96. An M2 Ultra is 2 M2 Max chips; therefore, 16 x 12 = 192 GB. Each of the "RAM packages" you see in the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra have 2 LPDDR5 channels going into it and inside the RAM package are 2 sets of 12 GB LPDDR5 packages. That's why they look bigger than the RAM packages in the M2.

Apple, for strategic reasons, has chosen to design around LPDDR memory. This architecture trades capacity for lower power and higher bandwidth. The regular "DDR" memory that is designed to be in DIMMs are slower and use more power.

In order for Apple to support more memory in the Max/Pro chips, they would have to design for DDR5 memory architecture, as well as LPDDR5 memory architecture. They aren't going to do that for 2 or 3% of Mac sales. No OEM would.

Virtual fitness content and Fitness+ is also anticipated for the next generational release.

I find this type of thing crazy. It's great if people are doing cardio with a headset on. Keeping on keeping on if it make you happy, but for me? Batshit crazy.

Don't people, like, sweat? If you aren't sweating, you are not working out. If I use any headset for fitness, the straps and seals will have to be put in the wash, and there would be a rather high risk of damaging the hardware with sweat too. Those hardware parts would have to be at minimum be able to be rinsed.

MplsP said:

StrangeDays said:

darkvader said:

You know, this thing could actually be useful (if it runs Mac apps) or completely useless and stupid (if it doesn't). 

I wonder which one will happen?

We already know you can look at a nearby Mac and pull them into the VP’s spatial computing.  As a desktop, or with the VP as a virtual display, and you can arrange each app window. 

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/06/06/apple-vision-pro-mac/

Ultimately @darkvader is right. Of course the same could be said about any new product.  VR has been ‘the next big thing’ for years but hasn’t really progressed much beyond gaming and other niche uses. 

Apple’s headset is not just VR, though and there is a lot of potential. In typical Apple fashion they put work into integrating it with macs and the rest of their lineup and focused a lot on the interface and usability. Hopefully it keeps progressing. 

I don’t have a use and can’t justify $3,500 for one but I’d love to try one. 

Edit: I haven’t read anything but I assume you can pair it with AirPods? The spatial audio and improved audio quality would be an awesome compliment to the headset. 

Heh, the first time I used a VR headset was in 1991. 

You can pair it with AirPods. You can see it in the intro video when the woman is on the airplane. It will likely work with all headphones that at least support spatial audio. Perhaps a limiter is headphones may need to support higher sample rate rate Bluetooth connections to keep latency at a minimum.

Apple's pass-through VR tech stack looks like it has crossed a vaguely defined level where mass market adoption is possible. The eye and hand tracking looks to have solved a baseline level of UI interaction, like touch and capacitive touchscreens for smartphones, while the R2 and realtime OS frameworks to drive frame rates have addressed motion sickness for a larger portion of the market than existing solutions.

The rest is driving down pricing. I'm thinking it's addressing a potential market size of the combined tablet and PC market where people can use it for entertainment and computing. The utility is there to overcome the difficulties with it being a heavy goggle set, and people will want to wear it even with all its bulkiness.

Apple however is too... opinionated. It really needs to have Terminal.app, just like iPadOS should have, and even iOS. Don't care how they do it, like running DarwinOS in it's own VM, but it is an important part of computing that they need to have on all their computing platforms. tvOS no, but visionOS? Yes.

It probably also needs a wired way to feed Mac displays into the headset to reduce latency. There will be a class of apps that M2, M3, etc, SoCs can't run, and letting a Mac splay all its apps all over the views inside visionOS will be necessary. One workflow that they can do is using a Mac's display and a virtual display inside the headset.

cgWerks said:

tht said:
The conclusions from the tweets would be easier to understand if the plots were shown as delta temperatures versus time across 20 to 30 years. Instead the plots are of daily temperatures across a year and 20 to 30 years of daily temperatures are coplotted. So, I'm not clear what these tweets are trying to say. From what baseline is the tweet referring to? What years is it talking about.

Is it possible for the delta temperature to rise so steeply? Absolutely, especially for localized regions of the planet. Is it possible for the global average temperature to rise steeply, yes. Here is a plot of global average temperatures using instrument data of the recent past:
...
The second tweet seems to making a steady state assumption of the atmosphere heating the oceans in a linear fashion. That's a great assumption over 10, 20, 30 year time frames. Year to year? Their will be dynamic effects. Like the first tweet, it's a nonlinear system wherein the oceans don't absorb heat from the atmosphere in a linear fashion. This is why El Nino years are hot and are the source of these big jumps in global average temperature. So "4sigma" anomalies don't have to follow one for one between ocean temps to air temps.

I think his point is that it isn't possible for the earth's atmosphere to be responsible for that kind of impact on ocean temperature change, so there has to be another source. Exothermic heat.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/

If that is the case, it kind of messes up all this atmospheric & sun-energy coming vs going calculations. If this warming also releases the CO2, then maybe the levels are rising despite the small amount of additional impact we're having via fossil fuels.
(Where this really 'jumps the shark' for me, is they are building carbon-capture plants in Alberta - and advertising it. This really illustrates the scale problem. If a carbon-capture plant can make any meaningful impact, the impact was negligible in the first place. One has to wonder if these people have ever taken a cross continent flight. The concept that 100s of years of all humanity using fossil fuels in accumulation is more believable until one runs into something like this.)

This is what I mean when I'm saying the overall system is much more complex. Kind of like 1000 calories of broccoli doesn't equal 1000 calories of Twinkie. The models are just way too simplistic.
...
The above article would say it is coming from changes in the earth's core. Certainly the massive shifts in earth's climate history weren't due to CO2 production.

As a lay person looking at both sides of the debate, this seems like different groups arguing over what inputs are doing what, and which things they are including (or not) in a super-complex system, rather than straight-forward simple physics, as we're being sold.

The same physics still applies. CO2, methane, N2, O2 all have various heat transfer characteristics, all verified experimentally. This kind of stuff, electromagnetic radiation absorption, is modeled down to the molecular level. Any new model of the planet's climate has to include these properties. It doesn't go away because of a new input. So, if there is a new boundary condition - a new input - it still has to use the heat transfer physics of the constituents of the atmosphere, the solar radiation from the sun, albedo of the planet, the heat transfer physics of the oceans, land, and poles, etc.

The linked article forewarns: "Please note as well, the idea that ‘climate heat must be coming from under the ground’ alone is not a theory per se, as the mere notion of proximity bears neither mechanism, definition, parsimony, explanatory predictive power, nor test-ability – all necessary components of hypothesis." The article gives itself an out by claiming that it is making the case for further research which the author seems to be the originator of, but why should anyone continue after reading that?

This "exothermic core thermal of climate change" is definitely model-able. It's a fluid physics problem like modeling the atmosphere. The much-used animation in the article looks like it comes from a numerical simulation. So model it, make some predictions, and look for data to validate or falsify the model. What the article presents is basically nothing. Is there anything there that is actual data?

The lines of reasoning (observations) put forth in the document is weird:

Observation 1 regarding the pandemic not slowing down the "rate" of yearly CO2 growth in early 2020 doesn't look supported by his plots. The plots have some crazy y-axis reference range, which you have to ignore, and I assume the yearly data is plotted consistently. If so, the 2020 data shows there was a pandemic lockdown effect, while the article says there isn't any. 2020 CO2 ppm levels were lower than prior years, and the May peak was flattened out with CO2 ppm rising in the summer over prior years.

Observation 2 regarding that CO2 is rising faster than temperatures. The CO2 rise data is a touch quadratic in the presented plot. The article puts a linear line through 1964 to 2016 global average surface temperature data to show that the trend doesn't match. The 2017 El Nino year wasn't included in the linear fit. Well, no years after 2016 were included in the fit. Not only that, you could fit a quadratic through the temperature data from 1964 to 2022 that would look exactly like the quadratic of the CO2 line, and the fit would basically be just as good as a linear line.

Observation 3 regarding an albedo measurement from CERES. The plot presented shows the modeled albedo trend within the accuracy of the "measurement". One should get better measurements when you see that.

There are lots of "circumstantial" observations, with a lot of them just plain unsupported by the plots shown. Observation 4 regarding sea level change is a nothing burger, article accepts that sea level is rising, and is really a lead-in narrative point for the exothermic core theory. Observation 5 regarding Schumann resonances and magnetic pole movement is another lead-in for the exothermic core idea.

Observation 6 is the core of the proposed exothermic core observation? Not even a hypothesis right now. The proposal is the higher density core material is moving radially outward, increasing the heat of the mantle and transferring more out to the asthenosphere, the lithosphere and oceans. I'm skeptical of this until a numerical model proves otherwise. It's a buoyancy based system where hot lower density fluid will rise, and as fluid in the mantle cools, it's density increases and will sink. A higher density, hotter fluid from the outer core rising? Prove it by modeling the physics, otherwise that violates buoyancy.

Observation 6 is also where the article makes a prediction, maybe. That is, maybe makes a prediction. Over the last 6 years, Earth's rotational velocity is headed towards being faster (shorter days by milliseconds) than some unspecified average in Exhibit 6A2. Are you going to give him a mulligan if the 2023-2024 El Nino years end up being the hottest on record? Exhibit 6A2 is predicting a "cooling period". This is also where "the "warming" from March to May is 50% of delta from the average from 1982-2011" tweet came from. In the web article is SST from 60N to 60S and it says 32%. Guess what, the December of 2015 to February of 2016 was also 50% to 100% of the warming, at the time, over the prior year too.

Note that in Observation 6 that Exhibit 6A2, the article proposes a cooling period, yet just few paragraphs later, the article essentially claims the opposite by saying the warming is too high for climate models and it requires this exothermic core theory.

Observation 7 tries to provide evidence for the exothermic core idea. More mantle heating should have more volcanoes and eruptions. Exhibit 7A shows a plot where the data shows a slow downward trend from 2008, but the "quadratic fit" of the data is incorrect and shows an upward trend. You would have to impose some creative limitations to even get a quadratic to look like that for that data.

I guess I could go on, but will await your response. Once again, model the fluid dynamics problem, get results, make some predictions, get some data to prove or disprove.