My searches are mostly for esoteric error messages that I tweak a dozen times to get Google to stop returning unrelated results. Then I usually give up, get lunch, and the answer comes to me when I sit back down.
Ultimately, the developers on Asahi are trying to play catch-up with massive GPU driver teams comprised of dozens of talented engineers. It’s not feasible to catch up, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
> Bitmaps take memory, but are quite efficient from a runtime perspective because they aren’t encoded.
Memory and bandwidth. To decode/display an image it's got to be loaded from storage. In the case of a Retina display iPad that's 2048x1536px. With a 24-bit color depth that's a 9MB bitmap to load from disk (SSD or whatever).
I just did a test with ImageMagick. The same 2048x1536 image encoded to an uncompressed Windows bitmap is 9MB while the same image as a PNG (PNG24, zlib level 9, with adaptive scanline filtering) is only 4MB. That's less than half the data to load off disk.
Unless CPU power is at an absolute premium you're probably better off with an image with lossless compression rather than completely uncompressed.
> Unless CPU power is at an absolute premium you're probably better off with an image with lossless compression rather than completely uncompressed.
Really depends on the exact situation. If your image decompression algorithm runs at 100 MB/s, but your disk bandwidth is 250 MB/s and you have plenty of space...
Assuming the on-disk version of a graphic is compatible with your particular GPU. Even within the same manufacturer two generations of GPUs might not use the same image format.
A generalized on-disk representation is safer and likely more forwards compatible.
This is just a small microcosm of what’s going on in the cable TV world. Many channels are raising their fees, but the cable providers are very reluctant to raise the price charged to end users. Instead, cable providers are opting to drop channels. This is leading to an increasingly fragmented cable TV market where it’s impossible to get all the channels you may want to watch. For instance, Comcast just dropped MSG, which is a channel for NY-based sports. The only alternative many people have is to use FuboTV, but Fubo has dropped Adult Swim for the same reason. So now it’s impossible to get both MSG and Adult Swim.
Gonna take 5 years for this market collapse to sort itself out, and by then they will realize the younger consumer has already moved on even from live sports, the last thing holding them to cable/broadcast television.
A few years back my cable provider got in a tiff with the local CBS affiliate about programming fees.
Each side blamed the other and neither side was willing to compromise. The cable provider dropped the channel in retaliation and for some 2 years we had no CBS. (Naturally there was no discount in the monthly cable bill as a result of this “principled stand”.)
no, I don't, I think Gary Gensler is uniquely dangerous and that the oversight is inadequate. Its not about JP Morgan. Its about him exercising his craftily accumulated power. Would have totally flown under my radar if it was just the SEC for now, or just the CFTC for now. But the simultaneous thing rings the alarms for me.
Normally people say that power is being wielded dangerously when the power is used to do something disagreeable. Simply enforcing the law correctly doesn’t seem dangerous to me.
More perceptive people separately consider the means and goals. Just because power is currently being used in a way that you agree with does not imply that the power is not dangerous. See "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" and "think of the children" as distractions to keep people complacent while excessive power is accumulated. After that, the excuses become unnecessary and the power can be used for any goal, aligned or unaligned with the people.
You still haven’t given an example of how coordinating the two agencies can lead to a bad outcome. If all that can be done is enforce the law, then there is no issue. You keep implying something extra-legal can be done through the coordination, but aren’t providing any specifics.
oh, context is important then. those agencies are bullies. many times they operate under broad and ambiguous fraud/compliance statutes that don't specifically codify the infraction they disagree with. this puts all market participants in a constant guessing game with them, some more than others. so its Christmas and they want a kickback before the end of the year, whatsapp bro? send the money to our Miami field office, kthxbai.
that's a feature and not a bug because a regulatory agency without leeway and too strict formal requirements in reality has no ability to deal with actors who know how to maneuver around them and is toothless.
That market participants don't know how far an agency can go is equivalent to Israel's nuclear policy, little bit of ambiguity and uncertainty has a deterrent effect. And if anything given how routinely market participants still abuse every little trick they can regulators aren't scary scary enough.
And no offense but you've got "fintech, commodities and digital assets" in your bio, are you by any chance making money off some underregulated crypto scheme and have been at the receiving end of regulatory action?
Hahaha good catch, no, have not been sanctioned by a financial regulator :) like, I would be defensive about that but its a routine question every financial institution asks during onboarding or account creation
I’ve felt similarly about these agencies long before I brushed against their purview
How else would you subdue someone? You can’t expect all cops to be able to go 1-1 or even 2-1 with someone to subdue them physically. Cops also have guns strapped to their sides that can be reached for. I’m not justifying their behavior, but when I try to imagine subduing someone, I’m not really sure how I would do it. There is definitely room for tools that make it easier.
Usually the argument is "do not try to subdue them, try to de-escalate". Obviously that is not always possible, but before worrying about how to deal with the objectively complicated cases of subduing a belligerent person without hurting them, we should probably focus on the much more common problem of police escalating instead of de-escalating situations.
That’s not really an answer to the question. It would be nice if all situations could be de-escalated, but that’s obviously not the case. De-escalation also has its own risks for the officer. Again, not saying I support what happened, but it seems so hard to manage a situation with a belligerent person when I imagine trying to do it myself. Even doing something relatively benign, like removing a loitering person, is not something I’d want to attempt.
Nightclub bouncers do this all the time. They don't have weapons or legal immunity or a fat pension or even a good salary. It should not be beyond the capability of police officers.
There’s a fair number of videos from eg the UK where they do exactly this. The usual playbook seems to be: get a few people distracting the guy from the front, and another few rush them from the back whilst distracted and hit them with batons or just jump on them.
Or just distract them for a long while and wait for more backup and people with shields.
> How else would you subdue someone? You can’t expect all cops to be able to go 1-1 or even 2-1 with someone to subdue them physically.
Why not? We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors and carry people to safety; and a large part of their downtime is upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that. We hold all soldiers to the standard of being able to haul huge packs over miles while being shot at; and a large part of their downtime is also constant upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that.
And, in fact, by closest analogy, we hold all EMS personnel (and also orderlies for in-patient wards) to the standard of being able to bodily subdue people who are in a state of violent delirium, to get them strapped onto a gurney. And, again, we expect them to work out to achieve and maintain the requisite level of physical fitness.
So why can’t we hold all police to the standard of having the physical strength to bodily subdue people, and expect them to do the required upkeep on their physical fitness to enable that?
(Yes, the people police are dealing with sometimes have weapons. Mostly they do not. Even in America; even in the most gun-carrying parts of America, they mostly do not. The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule. The expectations for police should be built around the requirements to carry out the general-case tactic [physical subdual of unarmed offender], not the requirements to carry out the exceptional-case tactic [armed takedown of armed offender].)
And note that I’m not suggesting police go in and wrestle people to the ground. They should be using tools, like man-catchers. It’s just that those tools are just multipliers for the effectiveness of physical strength, and so you still need to be highly physically strong to make effective use of them in a one-on-one or two-on-one confrontation.
> We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors
Doors don't fight back.
> The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule.
If the person you're trying to subdue has a concealed weapon, this will get you killed.
If they are hesitant, then they should be better trained. There are enough "moves" to subdue and fixate someone without suffocating or killing them. The real question should be: Why is police in other countries capable of doing this?
I know that intelligence is not sought out in police candidates, but I think we need to be requiring a basic elementary school level of education, such as knowledge that "alcohol is flammable, and we don't apply electricity to flammable things". I mean the problem isn't just tasering; it is tasering someone drenched in alcohol. Kids know alcohol will burn, so were they trying to burn him to death intentionally, or are these officers really going to claim to be that stupid?
But that's what police in a lot of countries, for example in Europe, are doing. Go 2 on 1 or call for backup and stall. If that is not possible they use peperspray and batons.
Perhaps people could be respectful toward authorities and follow directions when a stressful situation is happening. Deal with issues at a later point as appropriate.
This comment is, with respect, wildly delusional. There are many instances of the "authorities" (the police) murdering people after issuing conflicting instructions, or even when people follow their instructions anyway.
Furthermore, many of the people in said situations are often mentally ill (and thus require healthcare, not the police), or intoxicated.
Please make your substantive points without name-calling. It never helps, and in the case where you point is correct, it's actively harmful—because in that case you're discrediting the truth and reinforcing people in rejecting it.
Almost none of the reasons have anything to do with releasing the source. You can release the source but still maintain central control. They shouldn’t even have posted this. Obviously they want to make money from their products, and that’s fine.
It sounds like their idea of open source is something along the lines of "slap a MIT license on it, throw it over fence, and hope random nerds on the internet finish it while we wait idly."
> You can release the source but still maintain central control.
Until someone with a larger budget than you forks it and uses their immense resources to force you out of the market. Then you liquidate your company and someone else gets the rights to maintain your fork.
I think this is an underrated point that has been more noticeable with AWS in particular. Their own CentOS spin, their own ElasticSearch distro, their own elastic cloud, etc.
Even if you’re worried about this, there are source-available licenses like SSPL or Elastic License v2 explicitly designed to prevent this, and which have seemingly been successful at doing so. The exact choice of license would depend on the kind of thing you’re worried about.
I mostly agree, at least in the current day where the powerful companies in context are [x]aaS companies, but now you’re going down a road where people will argue whether OSI/FSF are legitimate gatekeepers of the definition of “Open Source”
That’s exactly why I used the phrase “source-available”, not “open source” - because those licenses aren’t recognized by the OSI. I’m actually of the opinion that if AGPL is open source, SSPL is too, no matter what some dorkwads as the OSI say. But I’m employed by a company that uses the SSPL, so I try to use the generally accepted phrasing to avoid being accused of “sowing confusion”.
When people say "I'm sure" I'm always just floored. Why are you so sure? Have you spoken to these supposed cloud providers and had them tell you this?
Here's one I'm sure about: no one cares about Mathematica except a couple of schools, professors, and finance wonks who've clung to it since the early days of CAS. The language is wacky enough that no mainstream user would prefer it (even with all of its built-ins) over Matlab or scipy. And I say this as someone that has developed things in Mathematica.
The irony certainly is that wolfram uses open source libraries (and there were some twitter threads that they might be aying a bit fast and loose with the acknowledgement of LGPL licenses)
I think what he has in mind is not "open source" per se, but the way open source projects tend to organize development—distributed development, unpaid volunteers, open communities, etc. He wants the Cathedral, not the Bazaar—and that's fine; there's no reason everything should be developed by a community of volunteers. But, as you say, there's nothing to stop them centralizing development but releasing source code.
(Plus, I think putting Stephen Wolfram at the top of a Linux kernel-type project is unlikely to work well at all.)
Why are they evil? Or at least more evil than humans? Humans have eradicated wolves almost everywhere due to the danger they pose humans, particularly children. How is this situation different? The monkeys are even targeting the very same species that humans have long targeted.
I think you’re generalizing way too much. Java is old. The libraries are old. There is a lot of bad old code out there, and very little glory in fixing it.
