That’s interesting because I would’ve thought having strong local compute was the old way of thinking. I run huge jobs that consume very large amounts of compute. But the machines doing the work aren’t even in the same state I’m in. Then again maybe I’m even older as I’m basically on the terminal server / mainframe compute model. :)
If your goal is to sell more MBPs (and this is marketing presentation) then, judging by the number of comments that have the phrase "my M1" and the top comment, it seems like M1 vs M4 is the right comparison to make. Too many people are sticking with their M1 machines. Including me.
It's actually interesting to think about. Is there a speed multiplier that would get me off this machine? I'm not sure there is. For my use case the machine performance is not my productivity bottleneck. HN on the otherhand... That one needs to be attenuated. :)
My guess is the only reason to open and upgrade a computer is if one needs (or wants) to be on the bleeding edge of what local compute is capable of on a day to day basis. With the advent of cloud compute the number of use cases that meet that criteria shrinks every day. With the iMac there is a price premium but what the users is paying for is a computer that just gets out of their way. For them the computer is simply a means, not an end.
I agree the overall math is easier in the frequency domain, especially because you don’t know which frequencies are problematic so best to look at all of them, but I think the concept is best explained at first, in the time domain.
Here’s my attempt in a couple of sentences.
It takes time for the signal to propagate from input to output in any real circuit. If that time is a substantial fraction of the period under consideration then the input of the amplifier, which includes the feedback signal, cannot effect the output before it has moved. And if the delay through the amplifier is just wrong relative to the signal period one can end up in a dog chasing its own tail situation and the output oscillates.
The rest is just math. :)
P.S. this explanation also explains why we use phase and not seconds to measure the delay of the circuit. Because everything is relative to the input signal period and if we use phase we get that for free. No extra divide.
As someone who makes HW for a living, please do make more Rube Goldberg machines of black box LLMs. At least for a few more years until my kids are out of college. :)
Depends. If the competing universities degrade into glorified coding boot camps they’ll probably get thier lunch eaten in turn. And graduates need to be getting reasonable job offers as well.
I suppose, but the 3D printer requires consumable inputs. So without active shipping that printer is going to have a very limited lifetime. There’s always a corner case, like having to 3D print on Mars or something, but thats a niche of a niche.
It is a bit unfair though as one is comparing new MCU to ancient parts. For example the TLV9301 is a updated version on the 741 and is superior in basically every possible spec, but people still use the 741 out of habit. And if you need a lower power discrete timer, the 555 is not the best way to do it in 2024. There are a huge number of options.
For art projects I totally get using a MCU. You're probably only making one and the product is the art. The engineering just gets in the way so minimizing man hours, which includes the time to learn to do the thing, is critical. It will be tough to beat a MCU on that metric.
There's still plenty of analog control out there, it's just all hidden away as parts can integrate the sensor, controller and actuator, all in one magic IC. And it can definitely be lower power and cheaper, in volume. The main weakness is the NRE is higher than the typical MCU project so it's not really seen in low volume or hobby level stuff.
"Numerous economic analyses have shown that these measures raise domestic steel prices and harm steel-consuming U.S. manufacturers, including by disadvantaging them against foreign competitors with access to lower-cost (less-tariffed) steel inputs."
I suppose there's something to the argument that steel is a security priority and protecting it is worth some cost, but there is definitely a cost.
mips64!? That's a blast from the past. It must be some kind of legacy hw that's getting current software updates in some kind of really niche use case. Or academia. :)
Like previous you, I have to admit I'm skeptical but would be happy to be wrong.
Putting aside whatever "true sustainability" means, it's unlikely that it's a money thing. It's probably more related to the efficiency of individuals in organizations as they grow, and Apple is already quite large.
Obsolete doesn't mean that the computer needs to be thrown away immediately. It means that Apple will no long allocate a portion of its finite software resources towards this machine.
Also, keep in mind that even if Apple did continue to invest software resources into the older machine, the application vendors probably wouldn't as it costs them money too. And applications can have security holes and breakages just like everything else.
It’s more like no one outside of Google has been able to reproduce Google’s results. And not for lack of trying. So if you’re outside of Google, at this moment, it’s vapor.