>Their Silicon was written to be OS agnostic, Apple's was not.
i don't think that's accurate. the M series chips and memory architecture enable capabilities for the OS software to take advantage of, and the software and hardware teams get to collaborate to be ready for a simultaneously launch, but nothing about that is macos specific, just that they're on the same side of a walled garden.
Apple silicon has features specifically designed for macOS or software running on macOS. e.g.: Rosetta 2.
From Wikipedia:
One of the key reasons why Rosetta 2 provides such a high level of translation efficiency is the support of x86-64 memory ordering in the M1 SoC.[12] The SoC also has dedicated instructions for computing x86 flags.
So, Apple always adds one more thing to their hardware to enable their magic.
The reason Apple has the in house ability to run on multiple chip systems is because of their history going all the way back to Next and that little handheld from the early 1990s under Scully and all their work with Motorola and IBM over the years, that ability is what separates them from Microsoft who is having trouble getting Windows working with multiple CPU chips. Apple is simply better at it.
Windows NT was originally developed for Intel i860XR, then ported to MIPS R3000. 386 was its third supported platform. Danox is just a hopeless Apple fanboy.
>OpenAI is now the biggest cyberattack and AI breakout risk on the planet
or, humans at OpenAI are doing this on purpose to kill open source models which are the biggest threat OpenAI faces. OpenAI will benefit from govt regulation. As a major player, they will be part of the task force setting up the regulations, and will craft rules that are burdensome for small companies and open source models keeping OpenAI and Anthropic in their leadership positions.
Some of them may be wrong enough to try, be that hubris or lack of awareness about the world; but 95% of the world isn't in the USA, and China in particular has no reason to care what US domestic regulations are about… well, anything really, and while the EU is even more cautious about AI than the AI companies themselves, we also don't trust the US and open models are a sovreign solution for us to at least bootstrap with.
The point is that this type of stunt is far too unpredictable for any competent organization to try. If it was intended to "shut down open source", it immediately backfired.
And regardless of whether or not these rogue agent attacks are deliberate, OpenAI should be prosecuted and investigated for their role in allowing them to occur.
We can't open x links as X is suing privacy respecting proxies, so I can't assess which David Sacks you are talking about, but if you mean this guy [1] orbiting the likes of Thiel, Trump and Kennedy jr, than that isn't quite the endorsement you should be looking for.
Thiel thinks regulators are the anti-christ, doesn't believe in democracy and has surely not your or my interests in mind.
But yes, regulatory capture is surely a thing. At the same time, watch out for the siren songs from the overlords. If you come closer you'll hear their actual line: "rules for thee, not for me."
Regulatory capture has been one of the most consistent market failures in western economies, and an incessant threat from large and powerful companies.
I'm sorry if it's not sufficiently novel of a concept for you, but it is still a problem.
I wish that purchase/shopping search engines were entirely separate and removed from general search engines. "are you searching for information or are you shopping?"
when I'm searching for information, so often results are just flooded with pricing from sellers.
GP is in favor of unions and thinks they perform beneficial public services. They don't.
addendum: people who like unions because they balance the power relationship between employee and employer (i.e. the idiots downvoting me, idiots not because they like unions, but idiots because they are downvoting me) might see that as a public service, but it's not, that is a private relationship between employer and employee. it confers no direct benefit to other parties, that's why I said it does not provide a public service. You can't analyze economic relationships without qui bono
"Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the Devil; for which reason I have, long since, as good as renounced it."
– Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, describing how he stopped using sarcasm in his essays because it provokes hostility. He goes on describe the ironic person as a "pest to society."
>I don’t think the sexist comment at the end is appropriate for HN
I don't think the ageist comment in the headline is appropriate anywhere.
It is well known that memories and perceptions at every age are largely constructed more as "what makes sense" ("no, a gorilla did not run across the basketball court") than "as recorded" recordings.
the article and most comments here are focused in the wrong direction.
To me the real and only question is, can burying trash in landfills be made environmentally safe, and is it sustainable enough that we can do it for the next 100 years after which solar powered robots can mine those goldmines for new uses?
my time on earth is limited, and I'd prefer not to spend it handling trash; this waste of human life and potential is an irretrievable cost. I'd prefer not to even have had it dominating and skewing politics since the 1970s. Leisure time before you die is precious, that's something we can all agree on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup#Etymology
reply