That’s a thing on 13” MBP as well, it happened to me. I needed to use some super antiquated BT USB adapter and provide the digital equivalent of an indigenous rain dance in order to revive it. Apparently Apple was just straight up replacing motherboards because of it but I really didn’t want to be without my machine for a week plus during peak COVID.
>The SoC has access to 16GB of unified memory. This uses 4266 MT/s LPDDR4X SDRAM (synchronous DRAM) and is mounted with the SoC using a system-in-package (SiP) design. A SoC is built from a single semiconductor die whereas a SiP connects two or more semiconductor dies.
SDRAM operations are synchronised to the SoC processing clock speed. Apple describes the SDRAM as a single pool of high-bandwidth, low-latency memory, allowing apps to share data between the CPU, GPU, and Neural Engine efficiently.
In other words, this memory is shared between the three different compute engines and their cores. The three don't have their own individual memory resources, which would need data moved into them. This would happen when, for example, an app executing in the CPU needs graphics processing – meaning the GPU swings into action, using data in its memory. https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/19/apple_m1_high_bandwid...
I know; I was talking about the computer the person I was replying to already owns.
The GP said that they already essentially have 64GB+8GB of memory in their Intel MBP; but they don't, because it's not unified, and so the GPU can't access the 64GB. So they can only load 8GB-wide models.
Whereas with the M1 Pro/Max the GPU can access the 64GB, and so can load 64GB-wide models.
I can recommend it, very well written and structured, but note, that it is a work of fiction based on historic events. (and some historic events gets changed)
As expected, they don't respond to the letter, but just take the opportunity to climb up on their free speech soapbox. Warner's letter doesn't suggest anything that would further threaten Gab's platform, just asks them not to shred the evidence of crimes that were committed on their platform.
They did, if you recognize that they're playing the exact same game as Warner.
If Warner's office wanted to most rapidly and effectively ensure records are preserved by Gab, what would he have done? How many steps are there on the spectrum between (e.g.) contacting the capitol police to ensure that they have/will send such a request, and writing an open letter from a senator?
If gab were to respond to the body of Warner's letter, rather than play the game, it would say "Dear Senator: If you think there is any chance we didn't already get this request two days before you got around to sending your letter, you should focus the power of your office on fixing your federal law enforcement agencies."
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle, or at least getting uncomfortably close to it. That's not allowed here—it destroys the curious conversation that this site is supposed to exist for. When accounts cross that line (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for more explanation), that's when we start banning them, regardless of which politics or ideology they're banning for.
It's my understanding Trump supporters are mad their concerns aren't taken seriously. Most court cases were dismissed on technicalities, without looking at the provided evidence or testimonies.
We're in some really messed up limbo situation here. Reading all these back and forth comments, I can't even fathom what legitimate "evidence of fraud" would even look like other than super blatant ones. It's not like we'll find some guy holding a gun at a polling station and forcing people to vote one way.
If fraud is happening, and the people doing it don't want to get caught, then you won't find any blatant evidence unless they're sloppy. And even if they're sloppy, at most you'll find hints of what occurred. We have plenty of those.
But somehow in this whole back and forth mess, various facts/stories/details/testimony with various levels of validity/credibility that seem to question the integrity or hint at fraud occurring, are being dismissed with constant repetitive calls of "where is the evidence"?
"Someone pulled up cases out from under a table, so I can conclude it's full of fraudulent ballots.".
God damn, maybe I should just say I have this box full of bitcoin wallets in USB disks, someone want to give me a billion dollars for them? And yes, it's enough that you believe me without looking inside the box. Or checking the validity of those wallets.
"We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes."
>>Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
If you look at the populations of these various counties it isn't puzzling at all.
It used to be that the tech companies where champions of free speech, the ideal. It changed when generation woke entered their workforce. There has been a generational change brought on by changed values in American universities. That's what really is happening.
> We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.
Even though a larger share of Millennials favor allowing offensive speech against minorities, the 40% who oppose it is striking given that only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) and roughly one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
What a retconning farce this is. 40 years ago you could not publicly endorse recreational drug use, atheism, or interracial marriages without a substancial block of society chastating you as an incorrectable heathen.
Values change, what people find acceptable and what they do not find acceptable changes.
>What a retconning farce this is. 40 years ago you could not publicly endorse recreational drug use, atheism, or interracial marriages without a substancial block of society chastating you as an incorrectable heathen.
Imagine if the value that changed was that we treated people with different opinions with respect instead of changing the opinions that get you run out on a rail.
I'm not 100% sure either. I think maybe GP is suggesting that rather than being stalwart champions of free speech as you implied, boomers are just more racist and want to be free to say racist things.
Fortunately for all of us, it's not the general population of millenials or boomers who decide what speech the government gets to prevent; it's experienced justices, who tend to take the constitution much more seriously than the average person.
The statistic that 40% of millenials want laws preventing statements offensive to minorities is kind of baffling to me. Do you think they just don't understand the constitution, or do they want it rewritten to allow this kind of law?
Thats an interesting definition of capitalism that excludes the part where the capital was accumulated. Probably that's why the libertarians say "free market capitalism" in order to exclude the mixed market and autocratic versions.
