crowley

Xed said:

crowley said:

Xed said:

crowley said:

Xed said:

crowley said:

Xed said:

caladanian said:

Makes sense. Professionals don’t like experiments and like to wait for a well established matured technology before they shift horses. 

You think Apple designing and using their chips is an “experiment”? We’ll that’s one fucking  long abd established experiment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_silicon

Professionals tend to view their workstations a bit more sensitively than your average consumer electronics.

Because someone wants Intel in their workstation it means that Apple designing their own chips for well over a decade is just an immature experiment. Got it!

Apple hasn't shipped a single workstation with their own silicon.  They've only been shipping Macs with their own CPUs for 6 months.  I'm sure it'll probably be fine, but it'll definitely be an experiment.  The trash can Mac Pro was also an experiment, because that form factor hadn't been done before, so I imagine there's a few people still feeling a little sore from that.

By that measure than any change becomes an experiement. Are you saying that professionals never buy new Macs? Are you saying that no one who uses their Mac for work bought a trashcan Mac Pro? How about professionals who focus on video and photos? Did no one buy the Pro Display XDR because it was an "experiment," as you put it, despite being superior in its abilities?

The simple fact is that Apple is transitioning from Intel to ARM, and when they have all the parts ready and in place to make the transition for a Mac type they're going to fucking do it despite your foolish, anti-Apple, "professionals want real processors", derp derp argument.

That's not my "argument" at all, calm down.  Are you a first adopter?  I'm not, and many people don't want to be first adopters, because any big shift is liable to see problems that need to be worked out.  Some people also wait to update iOS and macOS until they hear if there are bug issues.  The M1 shift has gone pretty well so far, but if my livelihood depended on my machine then I think I'd be even more reticent to buy into a branch new system until I knew that it was established and stable.  Especially since Apple's history with the pro workstations has been spotty at best.

So no, I'm not being anti-Apple, and nor am I saying "professionals want real processors".  I'm saying that when it comes to businesses and making money, many people are risk averse, so Mac Pro customers in this area may appreciate seeing a bit more bedding in time with the M-series before they make the move.  I have no idea how prevalent that thought is, but I'm sure it exists.

Note that Apple refreshed the PowerMac G5 in later 2005, after the Intel transition had started, and it was the final Mac to be updated, probably precisely to give a similar kind of assurance that the platform was good.

Sure it is. You didn't initiate it, but you supported it. Again, Apple designing their own chips is neither immature nor an experiment in the way the OP stated and the way you have backed it up.

Xed said:

crowley said:

Xed said:

crowley said:

Xed said:

caladanian said:

Makes sense. Professionals don’t like experiments and like to wait for a well established matured technology before they shift horses. 

You think Apple designing and using their chips is an “experiment”? We’ll that’s one fucking  long abd established experiment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_silicon

Professionals tend to view their workstations a bit more sensitively than your average consumer electronics.

Because someone wants Intel in their workstation it means that Apple designing their own chips for well over a decade is just an immature experiment. Got it!

Apple hasn't shipped a single workstation with their own silicon.  They've only been shipping Macs with their own CPUs for 6 months.  I'm sure it'll probably be fine, but it'll definitely be an experiment.  The trash can Mac Pro was also an experiment, because that form factor hadn't been done before, so I imagine there's a few people still feeling a little sore from that.

By that measure than any change becomes an experiement. Are you saying that professionals never buy new Macs? Are you saying that no one who uses their Mac for work bought a trashcan Mac Pro? How about professionals who focus on video and photos? Did no one buy the Pro Display XDR because it was an "experiment," as you put it, despite being superior in its abilities?

The simple fact is that Apple is transitioning from Intel to ARM, and when they have all the parts ready and in place to make the transition for a Mac type they're going to fucking do it despite your foolish, anti-Apple, "professionals want real processors", derp derp argument.

Xed said:

crowley said:

Xed said:

caladanian said:

Makes sense. Professionals don’t like experiments and like to wait for a well established matured technology before they shift horses. 

You think Apple designing and using their chips is an “experiment”? We’ll that’s one fucking  long abd established experiment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_silicon

Professionals tend to view their workstations a bit more sensitively than your average consumer electronics.

Because someone wants Intel in their workstation it means that Apple designing their own chips for well over a decade is just an immature experiment. Got it!

Xed said:

caladanian said:

Makes sense. Professionals don’t like experiments and like to wait for a well established matured technology before they shift horses. 

You think Apple designing and using their chips is an “experiment”? We’ll that’s one fucking  long abd established experiment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_silicon

davidw said:

crowley said:

tnet-primary said:

 a virus that 99.9% of people recover from.  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

Estimated 610,356 deaths from estimated 34,368,072 cases.  That's about a 1.8% fatality rate.  And that doesn't include people whose recovery comes with life-changing effects.

So no, it does not appear that 99.9% of people "recover" from it.  Even with statistical variance, the numbers would have to be off by an order of magnitude for that to be the case.

That can be construed as spreading "misinformation".  

The 35M cases are only confirmed cases, not how many people actual got the virus. Since many that got the virus and survive were not tested, the 35M cases is a very low number. Just because a person got Covid, survived but was not counted as a confirmed case, doesn't mean that it should not be counted when determining the mortality rate of the virus. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/06/964527835/why-the-pandemic-is-10-times-worse-than-you-think ;

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210208142434.htm

Of the course, the more than 600K deaths do not count deaths that were not reported as Covid deaths or it was unknown that Covid cause the death. But it also counts a Covid  deaths as anyone that died while infected, even if the virus did not cause the death. 

What made Covid much more deadlier than the common flu was not that it had a much higher mortality rate, but that it had a much higher infection rate. That's because very few had any immunity too it. Unlike the common flu. 

Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 more frequently developed acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, septic shock, or haemorrhagic stroke than patients with influenza, but less frequently developed myocardial infarction or atrial fibrillation. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza (15 104 [16·9%] of 89 530 vs 2640 [5·8%] of 45 819), with a relative risk of death of 2·9 (95% CI 2·8–3·0) and an age-standardised mortality ratio of 2·82. Of the patients hospitalised, the proportion of paediatric patients (<18 years) was smaller for COVID-19 than for influenza (1227 [1·4%] vs8942 [19·5%]), but a larger proportion of patients younger than 5 years needed intensive care support for COVID-19 than for influenza (14 [2·3%] of 613 vs 65 [0·9%] of 6973). In adolescents (11–17 years), the in-hospital mortality was ten-times higher for COVID-19 than for influenza (five [1·1% of 458 vs one [0·1%] of 804), and patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight.