Hardware is hard. It doesn’t always have the transparent composability that software has because you hit physics and the real world.
The example already given makes the point. Work has been great on the M1 but my understanding is that this has not translated all that well to e.g. M2, M3 and M4.
yes, the gif in the link[1] shows how it works, and a dupe issue[2] describes detailed "fully proper" fix. There's at least four dupes and one PR already, that situation kind of implies severity.
True, but remember what’s quiet to a human may be quite different to what’s quiet to a hedgehog. When reading about these things it’s surprising how often things that we might not consider - like how vibrations travel though the ground - can confuse wildlife in ways that we might not expect when viewed through an anthropomorphic lens.
Supply and demand might argue that if there was real demand for something like this that people were actually willing to pay a lot of money for, then the market would be all too happy to provide.
I think the inconvenient truth here is that when anyone has got close to doing such a thing the price has been high enough that it turns out nobody actually turns up to pay for it, not at least outside a small niche.
You have to have real options or people can’t make informed decisions.
I have a background in city planning, and in the US, you’ll constantly hear about how trying to make cities more friendly to pedestrians, bicycles, or public transit is a waste because no one uses it. But the truth is, most people will end up using the system you design. If you build a system just for cars, people will use cars. If you build a city around public transportation, people will happily use it. If you build a walkable city, people will walk.
Great analogy. I'm visiting a particularly car-centric city atm, and from the car driver's perspective, "nobody uses the bike lanes, I never see them, so why build them, it constrains traffic". Well ya, there's so much car traffic because it's car-first, and nobody wants to be around tons of cars, not even people in cars. It's like arguing that you never see cyclists on the freeway, therefore nobody likes biking and we should discourage it.
I live in a "walkable city". By walkable, I mean the old parts of the city that predated the automobile (and weren't destroyed in the name of modernization) are walkable. New parts of the city are completely unwalkable. If you came here, you would notice that massive numbers of people walk in the old parts of the city. Even the people who drive into the old parts of the city tend to walk once they are there. In the new parts of the city, virtually all of the pedestrians you see are on their way to or from a bus stop.
That said, there is more to a walkable city than a bunch of sidewalks. It also has to offer what people want and what they want must be easy to access. Something similar can be said about piracy. It wasn't streaming services that stymied piracy, it was cheap and easy access to legal sources of music and video. Even then, cheap was likely a secondary factor (as long as the price was reasonable).
It is both possible and feasible to drive in the old parts of the city. It is a North American city, so old is not that old. It just predates the automobile. Yet virtually all of the roads are plenty wide for two lane traffic, on street parking and sidewalks. What differs most significantly is land use patterns. More stuff (homes, businesses, schools, parks, etc.) are within walking distance. One could argue that parking is problematic, but that is true of the core of every city I've been in. Even the modern car-centric ones. It should also be noted that plenty of people drive in the old parts of the city, it's just that people have an opportunity not to and plenty of people choose not to.
I knew plenty of people in London who chose to walk 30+ mins. This is over other available options like ebike, bus, underground and taxi - simply because it is pleasant.
Streaming services were great back when they were separate from content producers and IP holders.
Once every media company became a streaming company and started using anticompetitive licensing practices in an attempt to drive viewership to their own platforms, the market fractured too much for it to be profitable.
Something smells “prisoner’s dilemma” about it: the best move for any individual streaming service is to have exclusive content (and the best-positioned players to do that are the studios), but when everyone does that, it decreases the overall profit available in the market more than it increases their slice of the pie.
That's the part that might not be true, unfortunately. If each individual content producer sees more return on their own streaming service than they did sharing revenue from one of the independent services, then that's better for them, even if the total pie got smaller. If that wasn't the case, you'd think we'd see some of them shut their services down and go back to independent services once their income drops.
Sacrificing a wide audience to extract more from the most dedicated portion of the fanbase isn't an entirely new concept, and it financially makes sense short-term (until you start losing some of those dedicated fans over time and don't have the mindshare outside your bubble to attract new ones).
Once Netflix isn't the only one that doesn't share their monthly subscriber numbers anymore, we'll know that they're beginning to at least question why they own everything instead of license their content out
Nah; copyright is a monopoly on specific media/titles. It breaks all of the “market willing to provide” mechanics because there is no free market for Star Wars, it’s Disney or FOAD.
Bingo. When distributors get exclusive rights to media, there is no competition anymore. You either do whatever the publisher wants, pirate, or go without.
The aggravating part about this: that was not the intention of the copyright clause. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Authors and inventors. Authors and inventors.
Not companies. Not entities, or even individuals, who purchased the "rights" and now "own" works. That has nothing to do with the intent here, which was to encourage actual authors and inventors to make more stuff. Walt Disney has been gone for more than half a century; he's not going to be able to come up with another Mickey Mouse.
"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron. Pray, tell me, which part of my brain does Disney own? Do they own the part that knows what Mickey Mouse looks like?
And it has only gotten worse since then. A copyright for a decade or two is completely reasonable, but "life of author, plus 70 years" benefits only large companies. Someone is violating your rights? Good luck suing them if you are an indie creator! Want to create a parody, which is totally legal? Sorry, you can't upload it anywhere - all the hosting companies decided to apply Copyright 2.0 instead!
Digital video is a big enough amount of data that replication at scale takes up a significant amount of netural resources and energy. That is true both for storage and transmission/streaming.
Supply and demand means that corporations attempt to maximise their revenue. If the cost of providing a good service eats into their profits, they will provide a bad service.
This idea that "markets will provide" is eccentric, and obviously empirically wrong.
Markets are there to extract value and reinforce power imbalances. Consumer happiness is reliably at cross purposes with that.
IMHO not really, supply here is the limiting factor since the constrain is in licensing the work. The goal of the right holders is not to maximize access to the work or those stated by OP, but to maximize profit for the company, which when at odds with those other goals still prevails.
e.g. someone calculated/believes that having a big catalog from Disney at X/month is more worth more for Disney than sublicensing to Netflix at Y/month.
I really wish we had laws that producers of content cannot also be distributors. That just creates perverse incentives to use content to lock people into their distribution platform.
If they had to be separate, that gives content producers the ability to cross license and those licenses to be better deals. We’d actually have competition in distribution companies as distribution providers would then be competing on price, quality, convenience, and other things that matter, not locking content away.
Yes I considered the same but decided to keep the point simple.
And I still can’t help but think that if there really was a large market of people willing to pay a premium for a more permissive access model then we might already see trends in this direction. My hunch is the most folk don’t really care and price remains the dominant factor.
The essential point of the article was that it’s higher prices that’s pushing people towards piracy (either through price rises or fragmented subscriptions). It wasn’t that it is the restrictive streaming model that is pushing people towards piracy.
I’m fact it was precisely this restrictive streaming model that was the one to finally beat piracy. At low prices, that’s already been proven and it’s higher prices that is brining piracy back.
Unpopular opinion here but I wonder how much of the justification for piracy in this thread, broadly around what is perceived to be unfair business practices (“if only the terms were fairer and I would pay”), would actually stand up if the terms were actually fairer but the prices higher.
Or how much is really just the simple rational economic idea that piracy is better value for money.
I personally buy physical media (BluRays and/or DVDs). But I often feel too lazy to deal with the content ripping, so I just download it.
I like Youtube Premium and I'm gladly paying for it, although I'm considering switching to an alternative YouTube client because the official YT App is crap. But then the creators will lose income from my subscription.
Sigh. I wish content providers just gave us API to get the content in exchange for payment.
>> having a big catalog from Disney at X/month is more worth more for Disney than sublicensing to Netflix at Y/month.
But sometimes that leads to really stupid things. At one time all Star Trek TV shows were on Paramount while all the movies were only on Max. I believe they're all owned by Paramount, but apparently the shoes are the big draw (the new series "Picard" was exclusively on Paramount) and they could get more profit by putting the movies elsewhere and collecting a bit more than if it were all on their service. GAK!
The uncertainly over a future rug pull is always real, but in reality I wonder if the actual reason for people's hesitancy is more than just that. In reality I suspect it's closer to one of simply identity and the ownership model itself. Just the very idea that core tooling you depend on is in the hands of a commercial company is enough to many back off in a way one might not be when the tooling is in the hands of a broader community that one can support on more equal terms.
@woodruffw I love your quote above that commits you to your open source base and I'm rooting for you. But how about an approach that commits you to this sentence in a more rigorous and legal way, and spin off your open source tooling to a separate community-based entity? Of course, upon that you can continue to maintain sufficient representation to make Astral's commercial products the natural progression and otherwise the model remains the same. That would be a significant transfer of control, but it is that very transfer that would get a overwhelming response from the community and could really unblock these great tools for massive growth.
I work a lot with LLVM/Clang and whilst i know Apple and Google are significant contributors I feel confident that LLVM itself exists outside of that yet accept that e.g. Apple's contributions afford them weight to steer the project in ways that match their interests in e.g. Swift and Apple tooling.
So refreshing isn’t it? It’s like having an OS that’s actually designed for you, not them. Imagine!
Occasionally I will boot into a Windows partition because I have to do something windows-only. I’m so out of the Windows world these days that I mentally have to prepare myself not to get too fired up with it all, just calm down do the thing and get out. :)
Agree that it’s a lot of effort to switch though, so good for you on making the switch!
I've found being able to read assembly more useful than writing it.
For those writing in compiled languages like C/C++ and particularly with an interest in performance it's been very helpful just to be able to read compiler output and see what it's generating. Takes the guesswork out of it, removing the uncertainty by simply being able to see what the compiler is actually doing. You can just write code and see the result, who knew!. It's actually helped my understanding of C++ in seeing the bigger picture.
Of course it's also much easier to learn just to read a little disassembly than actually write the stuff. I'm sure I'm not alone in that for me Compiler Explorer (https://godbolt.org) was my gateway into this. You can get quite far even if just knowing the basics (I'm no expert).
Perhaps a better way to phrase it is to simply say that politicians are elected, and are nothing without votes.
A politician isn’t even a practicing politician without votes. Democracy is ultimately driven by citizens. Of course politicians will do their best to influence public opinion (it’s their job) but are ultimately in service to it though elections.
It’s why what people think (and vote) matters in a democracy.
And back to the point, why voting with your feet (switching to Firefox) actually means something.
