So if it got it right,
This is mostly a way to have branches within a specific release for various levels of CPUs and their support of SIMD and other modern opcodes.
And if I have it right,
The main advantage should come with package manager and open sourced software where the compiled binaries would be branched to benefit and optimize newer CPU features.
Still, this would be most noticeable mostly for apps that benefit from those features such as audio dsp as an example or as mentioned ssl and crypto.
I would expect compression, encryption, and codecs to have the least noticeable benefit because these already do runtime dispatch to routines suited to the CPU where they are running, regardless of the architecture level targeted at compile time.
That's a lot of surgery. These libraries do not all share one way to do it. For example zstd will switch to static BMI2 dispatch if it was targeting Haswell or later at compile time, but other libraries don't have that property and will need defines.
I think the title on HN is misleading.
Sadly I’m not sure what’s the short and clearest title :(
The video is very nicely made and it focus on sound systems / boomboxes frequency response and behavior of included filtering modes.
So when talking about EQs with “all forms” in mind, you should consider:
- EQ is merely combination of one or more filters.
- There are many common filter designs, the video isn’t about that, it also doesn’t mentioned Low-pass/High-pass/band-pass/bell or common structures, but it is only showing them.
- Filters made and behave differently
- Most filters (including the ones in the video) are done on the time domain (vs spectral one)
- Phase, this is the biggest missing piece in the video imho. Naive filtering is “smearing” the signal to achieve the different tone balance. By doing so, they also most likely change the phase (unless using linear phase filters)
You have a slight misunderstanding here about the phase shift bit.
Technically filters don't cause phase shift, phase shift causes filters.
That means in the analog world all realtime filters come with phase shift, if they didn't you wouldn't have a filter.
In the digital world there is a thing called linear-phase mode where clever people found ways of building filters that shift the phase of the whole signal the same way (involves running the signal through forwarwards and backwards through special filters). If you now have an audio program that deals correctly with the latency introduced by each effect, you can shift the rest by the same amount meaning you bought yourself a linear phase response with added latency (a small delay) on everything. Remember: Humans can't really hear phase smears unless they happen in relation to another thing that is in phase. This only happens when you mix two signals. The result of that mix is yet again a filter (e.g. comb filters).
With filters everything is a trade off all the time, but again phase shift is not a just a bad side effect of a filter, it is the mechanism by which it does the work. And sometimes the phase shift introduced cannot be heard.
And also linear phase isn't for free, besides the latency, it also adds pre-ringing, which especially in the lower frequencies can be very audible and annoying.
Yeah, there's a difference between linear phase (which you can achieve with a causal filter, i.e. one that is running in real-time) and constant-phase, which requires that you have more or less the whole signal before you filter it (you can approximate it to the extent you're willing to add more latency).
I mentioned the forward/backward bit as this was a way to achieve linear phase in analog times eith more conventional filters (although the cost here was even higher with the additional added noise floor due to tape noise ad the extra work involved).
> Phase, this is the biggest missing piece in the video imho.
It's why I like full-range speakers—no crossover. At most you might throw a cap on a super-tweeter (yes, even so-called full range need help on the top and bottom ends of the spectrum—so super-tweeters + sub-woofers). Complicated crossovers destroy the phase.
Without crossovers/EQ the more stripped-down full-range setup preserves what the Hi-Fi nerds call "soundstage". (A good full-range setup: imagine the "soundstage" you get from wearing headphones—but without wearing headphones.)
Those seeking a full-range setup (especially with a tube amplifier) are kind of adjusting for EQ simply by the type of speakers/drivers and placement. (And to be sure they're not going for a flat, studio-monitor response but what sounds good).
Well, I personally know of cases Apple did explicit patching for specific apps to keep them working / avoid breaking.
My simple guess is that slipped QA or wasn’t escalated from Apple’s feedback.
Considering the amount of electron apps, expecting all developers and all users to update all their app (and guessing which one is Electron based) isn’t good user-experience.
Let’s say the change is needed in the OS, you’d expect transition time.
Also, a good UX on OS would be to notify user this app is using some API in a way that could reduce experience. but guessing and expecting only the developer and user parties without the OS side is making less sense imho.
This will shape the future of computing with how Apple being treated as the reference for the whole industry. (I know this is Google here. But our reference devices are iDevices that was unfortunately always locked in the Apple provisioned codesign)
Our “pocket” computers are locked in. The next computing platform will be more wearable such as AR glasses. We’re expected to have 3 players in the upcoming iteration - Apple, Google. Meta due to vivid services needed for valuable glasses services.
Meta already shows how you don’t really own the device by what’s running on it.
It’ll be very sad if next generations most used form of computing will be able to run only border-controlled software.
We live in very confusing times.
Democratic countries start acting more and more like big brother.
Its also concerning to read the quote: “necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.”
Where Canadian telecommunication is almost a duopoly and had major outage a few years ago without any claims of bad actors.
So it has been on the upswing recently but my understanding is that in the US we have been doing pretty much as much surveillance as technology (and also generally the 4th amendment) practically allows since at least WWII, and especially during the Cold War. Many law abiding people opposed to government policy (e.g. civil rights leaders or anti-war activists) have always been surveilled with dubious cause.
The current “workaround” to the 4th amendment is to simply have private companies who do surveillance and then buy bulk data from them.
ICE does this with location data from mobile apps. They simply buy from a private vendor the information about where specific people are. Then they go detain them.
Some real life friends of mine are on a work crew with some migrants. ICE pulled their truck over, asked the migrants to identify themselves (with different names than they’d been using), they complied, and ICE drove off with them after detaining them.
I asked “Did they have their mobile phones with them?” “Yes.” People literally are carrying around a tracking device, voluntarily, with apps installed on them, voluntarily, that report their location to government authorities who want to detain them.
What's the connection between being an illegal immigrant and having a valid ID?
In my experience as a traveller, any ID from any country is good enough to get a mobile contract. Some countries might check VISA status too, but any valid temporary VISA is generally enough.
The United States is a country that doesn't require any form of identification to have a phone number. You can buy a "burner phone" at any Walmart, with prepaid minutes and no contract, in cash.
It always starts with the left, not the right. Read "The True Believer". It's not the poor folk that start a revolution. They are too busy trying to survive to do anything else. No, it's the idle bourgeois. They are the most unhappy as what they seek is just out of their reach.
This is one of those weird cold war american things that has not aged very well. Why would a philosopher be a good source for this instead of an anthropologist, an economist, a statistician, or a student of comparative revolutions? Is that really how it should go down?
You put your philosopher making unprovable assertions against theirs and just say "well it's true I don't know very much about the redshirts and redeemers or the guatemalan civil war as such, but I do have the eternal wisdom of the philosophers."
You can in fact, read the work of a variety of scholars on the comparative study of revolutionary movements in a variety of languages and ideological bents. And what we can see is that anyone that says "it always" while being unable to even identify the majority of countries on a globe is speaking in bad faith, or else genuinely has never given their own thoughts the most cursory and basic inspection.
Everyone has the right to their own metaphysics, but it's not clear what you expect speaking ex cathedra to accomplish.
> Why would a philosopher be a good source for this instead of an anthropologist, an economist, a statistician, or a student of comparative revolutions?
(Not commenting on the actual claim above you.) Philosophers often make popular sources for supporting evidence because you can find a philosopher that supports most any position. Your question is exactly the one that should be asked as there are usually more objective sources.
A few fascist movements sprang out of leftist movements, or had some small overlap in rhetoric with the left, but by and large the most repressive Western governments have come firmly if not exclusively from the right.
So sure, if you ignore all Communist countries and lump in Islamist countries with the western 'right' you can make that argument.
Back on earth, its always the left that is motivated by ideology. The only right wing governments who turn authoritarian do so for money and power, not ideology. The ideology of the right (in the west) is specifically designed to be against that.
That's why the biggest body counts always come from the left. At this point, Communism and all wars combined are running neck and neck for the cause of the most violent deaths. Somehow, you lefties always forget that.
Answer the complete demolition of your "non ideological" nonsense, why are you silent, why did you fucking vanish from the replies? Man up send reply a rebuttal or own your failure.
1. When discussing "the most repressive Western governments", we exclude Communist and Islamist regimes by definition. The West refers to North America and Western Europe, where no Communist or Islamist government has held power. You can't reasonably claim the Western right is less authoritarian by pointing to non-Western examples.
2. The claim that "it's always the left that is motivated by ideology" ignores that right-wing movements are frequently driven by ideological commitments: religious conservatism, ethnonationalism, free-market fundamentalism, and so on. Authoritarian right-wing regimes often justify their actions through explicit ideological frameworks.
3. What mechanism in right-wing ideology "specifically designed to be against" authoritarianism are you referring to? Current consolidation of executive power in the US, rollbacks of institutional checks, and expanding surveillance capabilities suggest otherwise. If right-wing ideology inherently resists authoritarianism, how do you explain broad right-wing support for these trends?
4. Body counts correlate with state capacity and willingness to use violence, not economic system. Authoritarian regimes across the political spectrum have committed mass atrocities. Capitalist regimes have overseen famines (Bengal, Ireland) and genocides just as Communist ones have. The common factor is authoritarianism, not left vs. right.
Both extremes don't listen and arguments always fall on deaf ears, especially when perceived as ideologically different. Merits of the argument are irrelevant. Most don't evolve past"My dad is stronger than your dad", it just morphs into "my God is better than your god", or in more recent years "my politics/policy smarter than your policy".
The people at the top want the same thing: to remain in rule. They agree the best way is oppression, they just don't agree who the oppressors should be.
People in the middle usually all want the same thing: better lives, but can't agree which oppressors are the lesser evils
I meant more generally, that the ruling/politico class is the same everywhere. They'll weaponise ideology they think will get them more votes. They're basically just wealthy and powerful reprobates playing us all for emotional fools.
As for the concentration camp thing you brought up, I know it's hollow words on the Internet, but I'm sorry that it's happening. I live in the UK and tend to avoid news halfway across the world that I can't do anything about. It tends to make my (already precarious) mental healthy worse.
As for the Twitter thing... I think Twitter (or any privately owned social media platform) is free to ban people. I think going to jail for hollow comments made on the Internet is not okay though.
But also, these things are kind of orthogonal anyway.
And for context, I'm what most people on the right would call a libtard: gay, neuro divergent, and the cherry on top is that I'm also a filthy immigrant. So it goes without saying that I strongly disagree with a lot of the stuff said by the"hard right", but silencing/cancelling people won't help improve the situation. It just breeds more contempt and leads into authoritarianism. And it makes the people in the middle question why is the other side so afraid of oppositing ideas.
Authoritarian systems are bad whether right or left leaning. I come from a country ravaged by left leaning authoritarianism that's still recovering from that aftermaths (economically, politically, etc) even if I was born after it.
The zeitgeist changes, so just because it's in my "libtard" interest right now, it doesn't mean it will always be. The left becomes right and vice versa. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
So who will pay for universal healthcare? And if we spend on universal healthcare, what do we give up in return? If we don't exploit resources and capacities, we have less money to go around. Standards of living suffer, mostly affecting the very same people who want free healthcare.
People who want universal healthcare exercise magic money thinking, even though others keep trying to explain that there's no free lunch. It's always other people or other sources who should bear the burden because they cannot afford healthcare for their loved ones. It's obvious why others don't want to pay to everyone else.
Being banned from Twitter is not oppression, but canceling a late night TV show is. You may want to pull your skirt down, your hypocrisy is showing.
I live in France, we have Universal Healthcare here. We individually spend less than you Americans on healthcare, as the costs are distributed across the entire population. The state also acts as a single buyer, giving them more leverage against labs, and we don't have to pay our tithe to parasitic insurance companies either. Finally, we live longer than you, so clearly our system is superior in every way. Stop rehashing the same old republican soup about "no free lunch" or "magical thinking".
15K+ people with no criminal records detained for no other reasons than because they displeased the racist masked thugs made armed force by the Trump admin. But oh no, someone somewhere might get "cancelled" and never be able to speak ever again in public because of left meanies complaining about them online (something that actually never happened).
I do not think that it makes sense to call the Communist governments as "left".
Almost all Communist governments did not obtain the power by a political fight between "right" and "left", but by being installed in power by foreign invaders (in most cases by Russians).
Typically the first action of all Communist governments has been to imprison and/or kill all "leftist" politicians of that country, this having a higher priority than any actions taken against "right-wing" politicians.
Even in Russia, the Bolsheviks and Lenin obtained the power only due to the support of the German war enemies, which they paid back by removing Russia from the war.
The Communists that have been in power have never been any kind of "right" or "left" politicians, they have been just a class of hereditary parasites that have exploited those societies, by controlling everything that was of any value in that country, while claiming that they do this for the good of all people.
The Western politicians are crooks who succeed to fool the feeble minds into voting them. I contrast, the Eastern communists were just slave masters, who did not need any kind of skill, except of displaying loyalty to their immediate boss.
> I do not think that it makes sense to call the Communist governments as "left".
Oh? What an interesting attempt at a retcon. So folks on the left are socialists, but not as socialist as communists? Poor Marx must be spinning in his grave.
> Almost all Communist governments did not obtain the power by a political fight between "right" and "left", but by being installed in power by foreign invaders (in most cases by Russians).
Except for Russia and China, the original communist countries, of course. Even India was influenced, although to a lesser degree. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Islamic fundamentalists support the Republican Party in the USA, the AfD in Germany, Reform UK in the UK, etc? Please. They definitely do not exist on the same one dimensional political spectrum constantly harped on about in the West.
Furthermore, I will put it to you that there are a great many people in the "center" who are tired of hearing about the "left" and the "right", have varying opinions on hot topic issues from both sides, and do not fit neatly into these classifications. They just aren't out there screaming in the streets and on the Internet.
Hey, if you don't believe me, go to your local library or university and use their journal databases to search for studies on whether or not religious fundamentalism like Islamic fundamentalism is a right-wing. You might even learn something!
How is religious fundamentalism not right wing? I mean what are you even thinking? The fact they don't exist appreciably in the West doesn't suddenly make them not right wing? Christian nationalists and theocrats are rightly considered far right and therefore naturally so should Islamic fundamentalists.
> Back on earth, its always the left that is motivated by ideology.
Is it? I don't really remember the last time I've seen right-wing discourse that wasn't centered around moral panic, whether terrorism, immigration, reactionary anti-leftist worldviews, or the opposition to LGBT rights, women's rights, abolitionism, or whatever else is the current threat to all of western society. Not to mention all the damn religious fundamentalism.
Also, in the EU, Croatia with Orban, Poland with PiS, and a few others I can't name off the top of my head are all far-right parties following Russia's playbook, with mass social media campaigns, turning state media into propaganda machines, replacing top government positions with cronies, etc.
Also, it seems extremely bad faith to compare thinly veiled attempts at seizing power with vague promises of "communism" to every single instance of anything left-aligned ever. Might as well start comparing every single right-aligned thought to Nazi Germany, it's roughly just as accurate of an argument.
The way it seems to me is that the right is about preserving the status quo, moral panic, and worship of strong(or more like loud macho) male leaders, while the left is about not-always-well-considered attempts to better the world whose main problem is that there is indeed a lot of empty virtue signalling and misprioritizing of policies around the place, especially among the center-left which is like 90% of the large "leftist" parties.
If you go back in time just 40 years, the countries you did (and didn't) mention, were all governed by communists. With considerable body count. Right-wing regimes in Europe after WW2 have negligible body counts compared to communists, and if you want to include WW2 and pre-WW2 times, then communists are still worse, even if you count all victims of Germany and/or NSDAP, incl. Holocaust/Shoah, towards right-wing violence.
Just because communism didn't happen in your country doesn't mean in didn't happen elsewhere, and there are still some of us who remember exactly what it was and will protest when someone attributes violence and/or authoritarism only to right wing.
Okay? It still has no real relation to present-day politics and doesn't constitute any kind of good-faith argument about either worldviews or policies that are currently bi-partisan.
this just sounds like a disagreement on what left and right means, like which extreme is at either end, many people put fascism and nazism on the left because we are currently further right of them while still being left of anarchism, authoritarianism is a leftist thing, “minarchists”, libertarianism and then anarchism farthest to the right, it’s a measure of authoritarianism where the further left you go the less freedom there is, not the same as left-wing and right-wing in terms of the US Congressional politics
In China you expect this because you get 5% GDP growth every year, housing that actually gets more affordable, government-subsidized growth industries and jobs. In Canada you get all the totalitarianism with GDP growth less than inflation, skyrocketing housing, and a zip line directly from Waterloo to Market Street.
It's not confusing at all. It's the same trend we've been having for ages and that most people have cheered for because they were usually dunking on their political rivals, the "evil enemy (TM)" or "protecting the children/against covid misinformation", etc.
Only when people start recognising that was all bullshit and demand their freedom can we collectively fight back. Resist your impulses to go with the propaganda and call every dissenter a conspiracy theorist.
Recognize authoritarianism is extremely common and it happens in "democratic" countries which are absolutely shielded in bureocracy.
Good things are good and bad things are bad. It's not contradictory for someone to like a bill that says "if you try to convince the population vaccines are bad, your internet service should be terminated" and also dislike a bill that says "if we say so, your internet service should be terminated"
Sadly, our current age of computing is getting locked in devices.
Not only most computing today is SoC with closed drivers but it's actively locking the user.
Ironically it all started with Cydia and "hacking" the iPhone until executives understood they can make a cut.
The EU did help to some extent by requesting Apple to enable non-appstore apps. but sadly, instead of doing the right thing of simply having a user switch that allows me to decide if I want to put my device at risk, they went with provisioning that seems to be agreed.
So now, we're getting the same slap from Google/Android which I must say very strangely gets blessing from very specific governments:
> The requirement goes into effect in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. At this point, any app installed on a certified device in these regions must be registered by a verified developer.
wait i live in singapore. this sucks, i loved using fdroid and didnt want to take the risk of rooting + flashing a custom rom. i felt the impact of the 'security' the moment i switched from my oneplus nord ce to 13r, i lost access to most android/data folders even with shizuku
this is just so annoying in general for me, i might have to go the custom rom route then
per the FAQ: Faded text means that a comment has been downvoted. You can read the comment in normal text by clicking on its timestamp to go to its page.
> In UK though, everything is run over proof of address and it's quite annoying for new immigrants(legal or not) because its circular.
The circular issue is quite similar to Spain. Where in order to obtain residency you need an address. But for being able to rent, most likely you’ll need a bank account and ideally a Spanish identification number. But for having a local bank account you need an address.
Similar to the above. This needs to be broken in order to get residency.
In Portugal it gets even worse, because many landlords still ask for a guarantor willing to take responsability over the rent.
My experience in a few European countries was also circular, the only thing that helped was that I could use the work contract and a letter from HR to break the cycle, however this naturally only works when the job is already secure before coming into the country.
There is a way to get into the Spanish bureaucracy quite painlessly! Its NIE blanco. You can get it in any Spanish embassy, before even getting to Spain. With that you can create a bank account or job hunt.
That won’t work entirely.
The NIE blanco is a PDF so it does reduce complexity later as you have a number predefined.
But many services and people might ask you to show physical NIE. And also without address you’ll be able to open a foreigner bank account which is different than local.
Actually, the Macho file format was multiarch by design (On Windows we're still stuck with Program Files (x86))..
Anyway, before dropping 32bit, they've dropped PowerPC.
Another consideration, Apple is the king of dylib, you're usually dynamically linking to the OS frameworks/libs. so they can actually plan their glue smarter so the frameworks would still work in native arch.
(that was really important with PPC->Intel where you also had big endian...)
In the reddit there's a link to another article related and there's response from Laliga (If I got it right):
> Desde LaLiga también advierten que "aquellos clientes de Cloudflare que puedan sufrir bloqueos en sus webs, pueden dirigirse al email afectadoscloudflare@laliga.es con el fin de hacer llegar a Cloudflare que el contenido ilegal alojado en la IP de su misma web no tiene su autorización".
So they eventually made an email to report if you're being affected by their blocking.
What they do if receive such an email, it is to bully and threaten the owner of the webpage saying that their web is hosted in the same IP than pirates streaming and they would take legal action.
There are two points I feel are worth focusing and I’ve experienced similar:
- Linux is fast. Few years ago I wanted to run Linux and used my MacBook Air 2013 (one of the best machines I’ve had). It was amazing how Ubuntu ran so sleek especially comparing to the MacBook Pro 2018 with macOS.
- x86_64 feels less portable than arm.
Since I got MBP from my work I’ve also got another machine for Windows. I’ve went with 13” MSI Perstige with 125H which was the latest back then offering hybrid cores (performance + economy).
It’s 1kg is amazing and the OLED is also nice.
But in order for the machine to actually compile and be snappy I need to ensure it’s not dropping to 0.4-0.8Ghz and then it easily gets warm and noisy.
The MBP 2021 also shows age. But even with more frequent fans and 80% of original battery it outperform the younger MSI since day one.
TL;DR
* Unless you need specific software, Linux distros are great and fast. Much more joy (imho) than Windows.
* SoC/ARM is still rare but it would be much more interesting comparison to current Macs in terms of portability (fans, battery life)
And if I have it right, The main advantage should come with package manager and open sourced software where the compiled binaries would be branched to benefit and optimize newer CPU features.
Still, this would be most noticeable mostly for apps that benefit from those features such as audio dsp as an example or as mentioned ssl and crypto.
reply