rcfa

Intel’a and TSMC’s nm don’t exactly compare, because they use different processes.
If I remember what seems to be one generation apart, is actually comparable.

So intel’s 10nm is like TSMC’s 7nm

Of course TSMC/Apple already being at 5nm, intel is still one generation behind, they should be at 7nm using their processes, rather than at 10nm

IIRC intel stacks things higher, so they can get similar density with a seemingly one-generation behind process, but they also need comparatively wider traces due to the kind of 3D structure, or something like that. There was an in-depth article on that somewhere, of which I only remember fragments. Point being, intel is behind, but not as much as it seems, but they are being held back by a legacy chip architecture.

Eventually they may just have to do a new RISC architecture, but one designed to run a Rosetta-like software layer for x86 emulation particularly efficiently, i.e. quasi exposing microcode as RISC instruction set...

Contradiction in terms: any sort of periscope type camera assembly will have a significantly longer focal range, and thus require different lenses.

if anything, Apple could leave the existing three lenses as is and add a fourth lens, which then for the first time were an actual tele lens. (What Apple currently calls “tele” (a 50mm focal lens on 35mm film equivalent) is a standard “normal” lens in photography, while the others fall in the wide and ultra-wide categories respectively.

Glad I’m not using Outlook, because that would be the end of it. 

CPU instruction set architectures barely are relevant, that’s what compilers are for (sure, in times of slow computers, there were pieces of hand optimized machine code here and there for better performance, but hardly anyone is still doing that)

the big transitions are:

Mac OS 9 => Mac OS X ++ (proprietary to Unix based)
Carbon => Cocoa (utterly different API)
big endian => little endian 
32bit => 64bit (software can break because data structure sizes may change)

These changes matter A LOT more than if there’s some Motorola CPU or another, some intel, sparc, MIPS, hp-pa, or ARM chip in there.

NeXT had a quad-fat OS with quad-fat binaries, and it was “just normal”.

Dangerous? Security through obscurity is no security.

I want all exploits to be found, the more “dangerous” the better. I don’t need security holes covered up, I need them exposed.

Also, a device owner’s root access is not “insecure”, insecure is only if someone without credentials can gain privileged access.

So, in reality, EVERYONE should be getting these “special” iPhones as these aren’t “insecure”, they are just less obscure.