The timer starts from when you invoke it, though.

The 2 issues, which she may be caught in, are that it’s “speedy” from the perspective of a court, and that it really means “free from undue delays”.

There is no general definition of a speedy trial, but I think the shortest period any state defines is a month (with some states considering several months to still be “speedy”).

A trial can still be speedy even past that window if the prosecution can make a case that they genuinely need more time (like waiting for lab tests to come back).

It’s basically only ever not speedy if the prosecution is just not doing anything.

Actually most criminal defense attorneys recommend not waiving your speedy trial rights. Yes, the defense goes in blind. But so does the prosecution, and they're the ones that have to make a case.

The usual result for defendants that don't waive their speedy trial rights is an acquittal if the case goes to trial (between 50-60%), which doesn't sound like a lot but prosecutors are expected to win >90% of their trials. Additionally, in many counties they don't have sufficient courtrooms to handle all the criminal trials within the speedy trial timeframe, so if the trial date comes and a courtroom is not available the case is dismissed with prejudice. Nonviolent misdeameanors are the lowest priority for a courtroom (and by that I mean even family law cases have priority over nonviolent misdos in most counties), so those cases are frequently dismissed a day or two before the trial date. Consequently, most prosecutors will offer better and better plea bargains as the trial date approaches.

This is even more true for murders, which is why murder suspects don't usually get charged for a year or two after the crime.

Meanwhile people who can't afford new systems because of high prices don't buy them, but that only creates pent up demand while people continue to use their existing systems. Then as soon as RAM prices get back to what they used to be, all the people who have been wanting a new PC can suddenly afford one again and instead of having below average sales they get catch-up demand.

The theory behind capitalism requires people to take into account what they know when making decisions.

Suppose you have a business where many customers expect to be able to try the product before committing to buy it so the cost of paying for shipping for "free returns" has to be incorporated into the advertised price. Then you notice that a subset of customers have a better idea of what they want and never trouble you with returns, so you want to give them a discount to try to get more of their business.

That's capitalism working the way it's supposed to. The customers who consume fewer resources get to pay lower prices. But it's the thing this bill prohibits, isn't it?

And for that matter, the customer would have enough information to know the quality of the product before purchasing, but that is often not possible.

If you try to sell "return insurance" then some customers don't buy it but end up wanting to return it anyway and then leave you a bad review for not having free returns. That costs you more than charging somewhat higher prices and having free returns, so that's what you do instead. But now efficiency requires some other mechanism of allowing the people who don't do excessive returns to pay a lower price.

Also, suppose you actually did sell return insurance. Then you notice that a subset of the customers who buy return insurance rarely use it, so you want to give them a discount to try to get more of their business.

They’ll buy your entire life from a data broker and charge you more because yesterday you accidentally viewed some Lamborghini seat covers. They’ll calculate that you have less willpower on Thursday nights and change their advertised price from $10 to ON SALE $2 off $12. They’ll just do coincidentally use the same algorithm to determine their price as all the other stores do so they don’t have to worry about competing on price.

You're describing incompetence. You're not actually rich just because you viewed something by accident which means you're not actually price-insensitive and they just lost the sale to someone else. That has nothing to do with algorithms, incompetent companies put themselves at a disadvantage and make fewer sales than other companies all else equal, and the ones that are sufficiently bad at it go bust.

> They’ll calculate that you have less willpower on Thursday nights and change their advertised price from $10 to ON SALE $2 off $12.

They do that regardless of whether it's Thursday.

> They’ll just do coincidentally use the same algorithm to determine their price as all the other stores do so they don’t have to worry about competing on price.

This again has nothing to do with algorithms. They can do the same thing by just looking at the prices other merchants are charging and setting the same ones, and if you really want to prevent this then the law you want is the one that prohibits manufacturers from enforcing "no sales below MSRP" against retailers.

Because in a market with a large number of retailers, the individual retailers all have the incentive to defect from a price fixing scheme, because increasing your market share from 0.5% to 20% by having the lowest price when those other idiots are refusing to compete on price is worth way more than having slightly better margins. This is why it's important that the number of competitors be large instead of small. Laws should be directed to ensuring that rather than trying to micromanage a consolidated market full of incumbents so large they can buy the government anyway.

What if that fake sale tactic only works on you when your willpower is low and they know it?

Price fixing by software is a real thing. I agree that ensuring lots of competitors is a better way to avoid it. How would Colorado do that?

What they're more likely to do is show you higher end products, because a rich person (or the person they hire to buy things for them) still has the capacity to compare prices for the same product and then charging more for the same thing still loses them the sale in a competitive market. Whereas if they show you the premium product instead of the base product because they've correctly surmised that you'll prefer the better product even if it costs more, is that even bad?

> What if that fake sale tactic only works on you when your willpower is low and they know it?

Then they still use it all the time because that's more effective than trying to guess when your willpower is lower and sometimes being wrong.

> Price fixing by software is a real thing.

It's a hypothetical thing where it works as long as everybody is using the same software. Like the other methods of price fixing, it stops working as soon as anybody does something different because then customers just start buying from them, and then we're back to needing to make sure there are enough competitors that that's what happens.

> I agree that ensuring lots of competitors is a better way to avoid it. How would Colorado do that?

In a lot of markets it's already the case but they're applying laws like this to them anyway. In consolidated markets, we largely already have antitrust laws and the main problem is a lack of enforcement, so maybe go chop up some large corporations.

There are also some cases when the courts issue a bad antitrust interpretation and then you need the legislature to pass a short bill that basically points to that case and says "no, the opposite of that".

These days you can do a much better job if you have data about your prospective customer. This is not a hypothetical. For example, Target was found to charge higher prices in their app if your location was close to one of their stores. Orbits and Delta have both been found to offer personalized prices as well.

https://retailwire.com/discussion/will-targets-dynamic-prici...

https://www.fastsimon.com/ecommerce-wiki/personalization/dyn...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/personalized-pricing-ha...

Price fixing where everybody uses the same software is a real thing. RealPage recently settled a lawsuit over this.

You seem to be taking a very Libertarian approach where you assume economics 101 wins out over anything more complex, but if you look at what's actually going on in the world this is not the case.

The thing where you get a discount for making a below-average number of returns is also dynamic personalized pricing.

> Competition isn't nearly as perfect as you say. It's very common for high-end stores to sell identical items at higher prices and still sell plenty of them.

High-end stores are often selling more than just the product. Some people put a premium on buying from a place they trust not to carry low-quality products so they can save time needing to exclude those themselves, or to not provide them with a counterfeit or not make returns a hassle if there's something wrong with it when they get home. I mean how would you explain anyone buying from them otherwise?

> For example, Target was found to charge higher prices in their app if your location was close to one of their stores.

It's pretty obvious why they do this. It's more expensive to keep stock at a retail store with premium downtown real estate than a rural warehouse, but if you do then you'll get sales from customers who want to see the product before they buy it or who want to get it today instead of waiting for it to be shipped. So stores have to charge higher prices than websites to cover their higher costs.

Which creates a problem for a company that has both a store and a website. If they charge higher prices on their website than other websites, customers shopping at home will use another website. If they charge lower prices on their website, customers will come use the store as a showroom or take advantage of same-day store pickup but buy the product on their phone while in the store to get the website price, using the store without paying the higher costs of having a store. This is already putting many retail stores out of business because people will use the store as a showroom and then buy the same product on their phone from whatever website has the lowest price, but at least then the store has the advantage that you can walk out of there with the product instead of waiting for shipping.

Now, is raising the website price while you're in the store a good way to fix this? Maybe not, because it kind of pisses off the customers once someone figures it out and you get bad press. But that's the argument that they don't benefit from doing it, which is no reason to ban it. You don't have to punish companies for things the market will punish them for itself. Whereas if it's actually effective to help them keep the store open so that people continue to have a showroom and same-day pickup, why are we trying to stop this again?

> Price fixing where everybody uses the same software is a real thing. RealPage recently settled a lawsuit over this.

The fun thing about attempting to fix prices is that it's illegal regardless of whether it's effective. It's completely possible to net lose money by withholding units from the market to the net benefit of the landlords not using the same software, while simultaneously causing legal problems for yourself.

It turns out that "a fool and his money are soon parted" also applies to companies.

> You seem to be taking a very Libertarian approach where you assume economics 101 wins out over anything more complex, but if you look at what's actually going on in the world this is not the case.

The reason those things are taught in Econ 101 is that in the common case that's what happens. Competitive markets actually benefit customers.

The primary things you need from the government are a) to prohibit anti-competitive acts so that competition actually exists, b) to punish fraud and c) to price externalities imposed on people who aren't party to the transaction (e.g. environmental pollution).

You generally don't need (or want) the government to prohibit companies in a competitive market from doing things customers could avoid by just patronizing someone else. If many customers with 100+ options are knowingly choosing one you think they shouldn't, it's more often because they're getting something out of it than because the government is smarter and less corrupt than everyone else.

Anyway, suffice to say that I disagree about the desirability of these techniques and the ability of the market to straighten things out.

We don't really want small companies to have to start blocking people in other states by default. That's not great for interstate competition.

Just because a rule was created after something bad happened doesn't mean that the rule is effective to prevent it from happening again. The most common result when they try to ban something without removing the incentive for it to happen is to cause it to happen less obviously. Then the rule (and all its unfortunate costs) gets credited with not observing the bad thing anymore, even though that's not the same as actually preventing it.

Notice that you can use the stock market in the same way as a prediction market. After that healthcare CEO got murdered the company's stock took a hit, as anyone could reasonably have predicted it would. That's a perverse incentive in line with betting that someone will kill the CEO. We don't really have a great way of preventing stock trading from creating that incentive, we mostly just rely on the fact that if you do the murder then murder is very illegal. But if that works for the stock market then why doesn't it work for prediction markets?

This is true in theory, but in practice the impact of any regular individual's actions on a company is probably going to be small and uncertain enough that it's difficult to make a healthy and reliable profit from. Even the very extreme example of murdering the United Healthcare CEO seems to have caused the stock to drop ~16.5% (assuming the drop is entirely due to the murder). That's like placing a bet with ~1/6 odds. You'd need to short a lot of stock to make that worth the risk of murdering someone (leaving aside any moral issues obviously). You could use leverage to juice those returns but that is expensive and risky, too. If you can afford to deploy enough leverage to make it worth it, you can probably find ways to make money that don't carry a risk of the death penalty.

I guess viewed in this way a bet on a prediction market is like a very cheap, highly leveraged bet on a specific outcome. So the incentives are much stronger as the potential reward for the risk taken is greater.

When they know exactly when something is going to happen, buying put options that are cheap because they're slightly out of the money seems like it would be pretty effective.

> I guess viewed in this way a bet on a prediction market is like a very cheap, highly leveraged bet on a specific outcome. So the incentives are much stronger as the potential reward for the risk taken is greater.

You seem to be trying to make this about leverage as if that's a thing that isn't available anywhere else.

Let's try another example. Some group breaks into the systems of some publicly traded company and gets access to everything. Now they're in a position to publicly disclose their trade secrets to competitors, publish internal documents that will cause scandals for the company, vaporize the primary and backup systems at the same time, etc. Anything that allows them to place a bet against the company gives them the incentive to do this; the disincentive is that the thing itself is illegal. Leverage gives them a larger incentive, but there are plenty of wages to place a leveraged bet in the stock market.

But you don't know exactly what would happen. You know what you will do, but not how it will affect the company's stock price. Maybe it will go down a little, maybe it will go down a lot. Maybe you kill the CEO on the same day as good news is published about the company, which offsets the drop. Or maybe the market just decides the guy wasn't that good a CEO anyway. So you bought a bunch of cheap puts with a strike price of 100, but the stock only drops to 101, and you lose everything. You can buy puts with a higher strike but they will be more expensive.

> Leverage gives them a larger incentive, but there are plenty of wages to place a leveraged bet in the stock market.

Yes, but they are expensive, is my point.

Generally, the disincentive outweighs the incentive. You can increase the incentive through leverage. But that also increases the costs, which increases the disincentive.

There may well be situations where the incentive outweighs the disincentive. But in the context of traditional financial markets I think those situations are likely very rare due to the risks and costs, whereas with a predictions market the risks and costs could be reduced, so it is more likely to happen.

You never know exactly what would happen. You know what you will do, but not if the CEO is going to catch the flu and not show up that day, or have better security than you were expecting, or have a great surgeon, or a spouse who is willing to keep them on life support until after your prediction market contract expires.

> Yes, but they are expensive, is my point.

Only they're not. There are many ways to bet all or nothing on something people generally expect to have a <1% chance of happening, so that you either lose $1000 or make $100,000. Under normal circumstances you could make that bet 100 times in a row and lose $100,000 and the counterparty is happy to take all your money, but if you're able to do something to change the outcome yourself then it's different, which is why it's the same.

Unless the one it comes with isn't as fast as the one you want, or they didn't integrate one at all, or you need more than one.

> Across all desktop PCs, the most common number of slots filled is one (a single GPU), and the average is surely less than one (systems using zero slots and relying on integrated graphics must greatly outnumber systems using more than one slot).

There is an advantage in having an empty slot because then you can put something in it.

Your SSD gets full, do you want to buy one which is twice as big and then pay twice as much and screw around transferring everything, or do you want to just add a second one? But then you need an empty slot.

You bought a machine with an iGPU and the CPU is fine but the iGPU isn't cutting it anymore. Easy to add a discrete GPU if you have somewhere to put it.

The time has come to replace your machine. Now you have to transfer your 10TB of junk once. You don't need 100Gbps ethernet 99% of the time, but using the builtin gigabit ethernet for this is more than 24 hours of waiting. A pair of 100Gbps cards cuts that >24 hours down to ~15 minutes. If the old and new machines have an empty slot.

He's not advocating from removing PCIe slots, but in practice, it's needed by way less consumers than before. There's probably more computers being sold right now without any PCIe slot than there are with more than 1.

Discrete GPUs generally consume two PCI slots, not three, and even the mATX form factor allows for four PCI slots (ATX is seven), which gives board makers an obvious thing to do. Put one x16 slot at the top and the other(s) lower down and use the space immediately under the top x16 slot for an x1 slot which is less inconvenient to block or M.2 slot which can be used even if there is a GPU hanging over it. This configuration is currently very common.

It also makes sense to put one of the x16 slots at the very bottom because it can either be used for a fast single height card (>1Gb network or storage controller) or a GPU in a chassis with space below the board (e.g. mATX board in ATX chassis) without blocking another slot.

CAMM fixes this, right?

> Actually, it's a detriment, because price-discovery-enforcing scalpers can rip RAM out of perfectly working computers and resell the RAM. It's way harder to scalp RAM that's soldered on the board.

Scalping isn't a thing unless you were selling below the market price to begin with which, even with the higher prices, Apple isn't doing and would have no real reason to do.

Notice that in real life it only really happens with concert tickets and that's because of scam sandwich that is Ticketmaster.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Nation_Entertainment

None of the things people care about really get much out of "unified memory". GPUs need a lot of memory bandwidth, but CPUs generally don't and it's rare to find something which is memory bandwidth bound on a CPU that doesn't run better on a GPU to begin with. Not having to copy data between the CPU and GPU is nice on paper but again there isn't much in the way of workloads where that was a significant bottleneck.

The "weird" thing Apple is doing is using normal DDR5 with a wider-than-normal memory bus to feed their GPUs instead of using GDDR or HBM. The disadvantage of this is that it has less memory bandwidth than GDDR for the same width of the memory bus. The advantage is that normal RAM costs less than GDDR. Combined with the discrete GPU market using "amount of VRAM" as the big feature for market segmentation, a Mac with >32GB of "VRAM" ended up being interesting even if it only had half as much memory bandwidth, because it still had more than a typical PC iGPU.

The sad part is that DDR5 is the thing that doesn't need to be soldered, unlike GDDR. But then Apple solders it anyway.

the bottleneck in lots of database workloads is memory bandwidth. for example, hash join performance with a build side table that doesn't fit in L2 cache. if you analyze this workload with perf, assuming you have a well written hash join implementation, you will see something like 0.1 instructions per cycle, and the memory bandwidth will be completely maxed out.

similarly, while there have been some attempts at GPU accelerated databases, they have mostly failed exactly because the cost of moving data from the CPU to the GPU is too high to be worth it.

i wish aws and the other cloud providers would offer arm servers with apple m-series levels of memory bandwidth per core, it would be a game changer for analytical databases. i also wish they would offer local NVMe drives with reasonable bandwidth - the current offerings are terrible (https://databasearchitects.blogspot.com/2024/02/ssds-have-be...)

It can be depending on the operation and the system, but database workloads also tend to run on servers that have significantly more memory bandwidth:

> i wish aws and the other cloud providers would offer arm servers with apple m-series levels of memory bandwidth per core, it would be a game changer for analytical databases.

There are x64 systems with that. Socket SP5 (Epyc) has ~600GB/s per socket and allows two-socket systems, Intel has systems with up to 8 sockets. Apple Silicon maxes out at ~800GB/s (M3 Ultra) with 28-32 cores (20-24 P-cores) and one "socket". If you drop a pair of 8-core CPUs in a dual socket x64 system you would have ~1200GB/s and 16 cores (if you're trying to maximize memory bandwidth per core).

The "problem" is that system would take up the same amount of rack space as the same system configured with 128-core CPUs or similar, so most of the cloud providers will use the higher core count systems for virtual servers, and then they have the same memory bandwidth per socket and correspondingly less per core. You could probably find one that offers the thing you want if you look around (maybe Hetzner dedicated servers?) but you can expect it to be more expensive per core for the same reason.

Apple needs to solder it because they are attaching it directly to the SOC to minimize lead length and that is part of how they are able to get that bandwidth.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43266848

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43267075

The premise of the connector is that it attaches to the board in a similar way as soldering the chips (the LPCAMM connection interface is directly on the back of the chips) but uses compression instead of solder to make the electrical connection, so the traces are basically the same length but the modules can be replaced without soldering. There is no reason you couldn't use two modules to get a 256-bit memory bus. It sounds like AMD designed Strix Halo to assume soldered memory and then when Framework asked if it could use CAMM2 with no modifications to the chip, the answer was yes but not at the full speed of the CAMM2 spec.

CAMM2 supports LPDDR5X-9600, which is the same speed Apple uses in the newest machines:

https://www.micron.com/content/dam/micron/global/public/docu...

The Max chips have a 512-bit memory bus. That's the one where the comment you linked suggests putting one module on each side of the chip as being fine, and there is no M4 Ultra or M5 Ultra so they could be using LPCAMM2 for their entire current lineup. The M3 Ultra had a 1024-bit memory bus, which is a little nuts, but it's also a desktop-only chip and then you don't have to be fighting with the trace lengths for LPDDR5 because you could just use ordinary DDR5 RDIMMs.

This is still going to have higher parasitic resistance and capacitance than a soldered connection. That's why it's not just a drop-in replacement for soldered RAM. You'd either have to use more power or run the RAM slower.

> one module on each side of the chip as being fine.

It's fine if you've got space to spare. It's not very practical for a laptop form factor.

>but it's also a desktop-only chip and then you don't have to be fighting with the trace lengths for LPDDR5 because you could just use ordinary DDR5 DIMMs.

Given how few desktops Apple sells compared to laptops, I seriously doubt that they'd want to use a completely different memory configuration just for their desktop systems.

This isn't accurate. A compression interface can have the same resistance as a soldered connection.

There is a small infelicity with DDR5 because the DDR5 spec was finalized before the CAMM2 spec and the routing on the chips isn't optimal for it, so for DDR5 CAMM2 requires slightly tighter tolerances to hit 9600 MT/s, which is presumably the trouble they ran into with Strix Halo, but even then it can do it if you design for it from the beginning, and they've fixed it for DDR6.

> It's fine if you've got space to spare. It's not very practical for a laptop form factor.

The modules take up approximately the same amount of space on the board as the chips themselves. It's just a different way of attaching them to it.

> Given how few desktops Apple sells compared to laptops, I seriously doubt that they'd want to use a completely different memory configuration just for their desktop systems.

DDR5 and LPDDR5 are nearly identical, the primary difference is that LPDDR5 has tighter tolerances to allow it to run at the same speeds at a lower voltage/power consumption. When you already have the design that meets the tighter tolerances, relaxing them in the system where you're not worried about 2 watts of battery consumption is making your life easier instead of harder.

All the information I can find suggests that CAMM2 will have higher parasitic resistance and capacitance than a soldered connection. Do you have a source for this claim?

The issue isn't just reaching a certain speed, but doing it at the same power consumption.

>The modules take up approximately the same amount of space on the board as the chips themselves.

They do take up more space, as anyone can easily check. Modern laptop motherboards can be very small, so this is significant.

>DDR5 and LPDDR5 are nearly identical [...]

What I mean is that Apple isn't going to want to invest any resources in adding the option of external RAM just for the relatively tiny desktop market. It's not that it's technically difficult; it just doesn't make sense from a logistical point of view.

Isn't that also because that's world we have optimized workloads for?

If the common hardware had unified memory, software would have exploited that I imagine. Hardware and software is in a co-evolutionary loop.

Part of the problem is that there is actually a reason for the distinction, because GPUs need faster memory but faster memory is more expensive, so then it makes sense to have e.g. 8GB of GDDR for the GPU and 32GB of DDR for the CPU, because that costs way less than 40GB of GDDR. So there is an incentive for many systems to exist that do it that way, and therefore a disincentive to write anything that assumes copying between them is free because it would run like trash on too large a proportion of systems even if some large plurality of them had unified memory.

A sensible way of doing this is to use a cache hierarchy. You put e.g. 8GB of expensive GDDR/HBM on the APU package (which can still be upgraded by replacing the APU) and then 32GB of less expensive DDR in slots on the system board. Then you have "unified memory" without needing to buy 40GB of GDDR. The first 8GB is faster and the CPU and GPU both have access to both. It's kind of surprising that this configuration isn't more common. Probably the main thing you'd need is for the APU to have a direct power connector like a GPU so you're not trying to deliver most of a kilowatt through the socket in high end configurations, but that doesn't explain why e.g. there is no 65W CPU + 100W GPU with a bit of GDDR to be put in the existing 170W AM5 socket.

However, even if that was everywhere, it's still doesn't necessarily imply there are a lot of things that could do much with it. You would need something that simultaneously requires more single-thread performance than you can get from a GPU, more parallel computation than you can get from a high-end CPU, and requires a large amount of data to be repeatedly shared between those subsets of the computation. Such things probably exist but it's not obvious that they're very common.

No it isn't:

https://www.newegg.com/crucial-32gb-ddr5-7500-cas-latency-cl...

CAMM2 is new and most of the PC companies aren't using it yet but it's exactly the sort of thing Apple used to be an early adopter of when they wanted to be.

It's the new thing. All three of the DRAM manufacturers intend to produce it:

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20240916PD207/samsung-lpcamm...

And it's called "CAMM2" because it's not even the first version. Apple could have been working with the other OEMs on this since 2022 and been among the first to adopt it instead of the last:

https://www.techpowerup.com/294240/dells-ddr5-camm-appears-i...