I am pretty confident that Apple chose special security screws specifically to prevent users from opening their phones at home for a lark. The last thing they want is a user bringing in a device that has been damaged due to a broken seal, caused by a curious kid who found the Torx driver set at home.
This is just defending anti-R2R. It's more costly to buy and swap different screwdrivers for all the Apple repair, manufacturing centres, etc. Apple doesn't care about customers opening up their devices - they'll outright reject the claim. This is a bad take.
Of course they do. Apple is constantly putting more guard rails around their devices. When uninformed users mess up their devices they make a public stink about it and damage Apple’s reputation. Apple does not want this. This is the entire reason behind all the gatekeeper stuff in macOS.
What Apple does not care about is power users who want to crack open their devices and void the warranty. Those users can go out of their way to buy security screwdrivers. Apple has always done this, going at least as far back as the original Macintosh.
Wireguard is written by Jason Donenfield, a renowned developer with deep crypto knowledge. You can search him up and see for yourself. https://www.zx2c4.com/
I think its a fair article. How can you tell that AI has been manipulated to make outputs more appealing to make you do certain actions. You could argue that money <-> favor has been long exchanged, but in this case, we don't have someone to name and shame.
AI is a tool, and there are lots of open source models available, you can compare results easily. Corporations don't need to pay to degrade the models, they paid to degrade the internet and got the models as a temporary ad-on, at least until we get better at cleaning large data sets.
I think it comes off as petty to punch down, and wanted to let Mr. Eich know (out of respect) in case he didn't realize it. But if he realizes it and doesn't care, or just disagrees, that's his decision.
Punching down implies I’m up. How do you figure that? I’m not at Mozilla, not paying myself a seven figure salary, not ever engaging with the Davos set.
In any event, my comment laid out salient bits Rust history, which however much you might not like them, do not “punch” anyone.
You're a chief executive of a successful web technology and browser organization, while it looks as though Baker is being removed from the one you previously left.
I have no issue with the Rust facts, just that the context makes it look like you're being petty by further highlighting Baker's failure in a thread about what is effectively her removal, and I thought maybe you didn't realize that and would like to know. If you know and don't care, or disagree, then just disregard me.
>I’m not at Mozilla, not paying myself a seven figure salary, not ever engaging with the Davos set.
Mozilla's a dying organization kept on life support by Google and playing make-believe hero of the free web these days. Certainly tough to get much lower than that.
You are assuming facts not in evidence or provably false per public IRS 990 forms:
1. Mitchell was not as far as I know removed.
2. She has extracted over $20M gross pay including bonuses for the last several years. I’ll do the exact math later.
Let’s see how much her comp goes down in this year’s IRS Form 990, which will come out at the earliest in late 2025.
3. Mozilla has a ton of cash in the bank while Brave is still building a new business model. To say I’m doing better in any financial sense is cheeky. If you use Brave, thanks for your support.
Last thing: Mozilla will take years to die, and it could perdure as an NGO, even after Firefox. Don’t assume it will die quickly. We are all dying, in this world.
"Punching down" is a sophomoric dunce-phrase in any event, but even with the most charitable interpretation of that phrase, it's wrong. I was not punching, nor is your asserted direction "down".
Mitchell (along with all leadership) should not be immune from criticism, even (or especially, if the leader in part caused the downfall) if you wrongly believe that they were fired, underpaid, or running a "dying" outfit -- all of which as far as I know are false.
You are only getting Brendan's story, and why is Brendan going out of his way to attack Mitchell Baker? It strongly implies some powerful drive besides sharing information.
Whatever white knighting is, I'm interested in the truth, in the dangers of Internet mobs, and in fairness to anyone (including you). All are essential. Look at what our world has become as people disparage all that.
> the person who has destroyed firefox’s marketshare?
One aspect of that mob mentality: You skipped past having evidence and reasoning for that assertion; it's just assumed. And then you act out in anger that anyone would question the mob's assumptions.
Don’t ignore context. The comment to which my first comment above replied implied that Mitchell (for Mozilla) was due credit for Rust.
Your (1) is still planting a falsehood: Mitchell’s role when I sponsored Rust was not CEO, she did not have to approve or reject Rust, but she did assent to my advice that we make Rust an official project.
This is not an attack, it’s simply what happened. You are the one who keeps concern trolling, or whatever it is you are doing, to give Mitchell undue credit or to shield her from anything that could be taken as criticism.
> I can't think of any important things Mozilla has created since pushing Brendan Eich out 9 years ago.
Comment to which I replied, which you wrote:
> Rust, for example.
Let's recap, since you seem to have a very short context window or memory. Someone wrote they couldn't think of anything important Mozilla created after I left. You cited Rust. I testified that Rust started many years before I left and I was Rust's C-level sponsor and immediate colleague of its creator.
You then reappear after several nesting replies to imply I'm lying and have bad motives. After this, here we are with you ignoring your own false claim that Mozilla created Rust after I left. It seems to me, without ascribing motive, that you are the one with a weak grasp on the truth here, even the truth of what you wrote in prior comments on this page.
I think the public and personal contexts are getting mixed together here, to bad effect (as always).
It's a personal situation for you and I can't imagine how much s-t you have heard and taken over the years. You have the misfortune to be personally invested in a public issue, and I'm glad I'm not in your shoes. If we were at a dinner party, of course I wouldn't say a word about it - it would be rude to you and you know infinitely more about it.
But we're not at a private dinner; we're in a public context. People discuss public issues without being experts or researching every detail; they will get some things wrong or be imprecise. Also, they are just not as focused as you are - understandably - on the same things and at the same level detail. When I credited Mozilla with Firefox and Rust, I didn't specifically credit Mitchell Baker with it, nor did I care about that detail of who did what (also, I didn't talk about creation; much of the Rust development was after you - but I only say that because you care; I don't). That's really important to you and so that's what you focused on and I can see where you got that impression - it just wasn't important enough to clarify. It was a bit sloppy, but I'm not writing a dissertation or a contract.
You did inject yourself personally into a 'public context'; I don't think the anger is appropriate, nor your bullshit about my motives. What I wrote was a genuine complement to everyone at Mozilla, including you: It was reminding the world that Mozilla has done so far is spectacular - unreal, heroic achievements that changed the world, twice over. Mozilla is just Mozilla to me, not one person or another.
Still, I apologize that I wasn't more polite when I remarked about potential bias. I didn't respond directly to you, but I should have been careful to make it respectful - not because you are a big deal on some scale, but just the opposite: you're a human being. I knew you were around and regardless of context, I don't buy that public figures are free game for abuse. Good luck with Brave, another great idea that I hope changes the world.
I already said I was not going to speculate on your motives, after easily showing your false claim: that Mozilla created Rust after I left.
So the only "bullshit" about motives has come from you. And you are the only one who seemed emotional, if not angry, to the point you threw "attack" as a typical DARVO move. This is pure projection.
It matters who did what, when. Especially in view of Mitchell's power of the purse at Mozilla. Yes, she could have killed Rust, but it would have blown up in her face and she had no need to kill it. No, she does not get credit for creating Rust even after I left. The Rust team was working on spin-out well before they all left. As for Servo, it is better off out of Mozilla: https://news.itsfoss.com/servo-rust-web-engine/.
I’m an atuin user too, and think it’s great. It’s a significant improvement over the bash history configurations (incantations?) I used previously.
Where atuin really shines is in keeping a single unified history across multiple shell windows, which my incantations could never get to work correctly on all the platforms I use (zsh/bash on OSX/Linux/msys/cygwin/babun).
I’ve also enjoyed running SQL queries on my atuin-history to learn more about my own workflows to see where I can optimize.
You need to compare likes as much as is reasonable. I literally priced everything out on Newegg.
1. You certainly can, but that's the Corsair with the crappy components rather than one with good guts. If I were being completely fair, I'd be spending well over $300 to buy a GaN PSU.
2. Maybe you're different, but I'm not spending almost $500 on a high-TDP CPU only to cripple it with a crappy cooler.
3. I went with a midrange case. In truth,You can't even buy a case on-par with the MacBook Pro case. Even trying to get close would be in the $400+ boutique range.
4. I never mentioned what work was going to be done. If I were going to compare for LLM work and be competitive with Apple, I'd have to go WAY more expensive on the GPU.
B650E and X670E are for overclocking and you'd pay WAY more to get them over their non-E counterparts. x670 offers quite a bit more IO. Maybe that's more IO than Apple offers, but the cost difference for a decent B650 isn't very much (maybe 3-4% of build cost). Certainly less than upgrading the other things you mentioned.
I see nothing wrong with the CX750M PSU [0]. What do you consider good guts? Compared to the macbook charger, which gets fairly hot under load, I see it as more capable.
2. Cooler cost has very little to do with performance. Thermalright units compete with liquid coolers for a fraction of the cost[1].
3. What does a macbook case offer? Holes for ports and the keyboard, hinge for the LCD. The components themselves do the work. What does a ~$50 case [2] not do? Plenty of cooling, mounts all your components.
4. For llama.cpp text generation, an M3 pro does ~31 tokens per sec with the Q4_0 profile[3]. A 3070 does ~34 tokens per second [4].
WRT the motherboard, I'm not sure what did I suggest upgrading? I recommended cheaper parts than the original post.
I believe motorcycles are in a different category than cars for a few reasons:
1. If you are too fast to squeeze the brake lever, the tire carcass will not deform properly, giving you the the maximum braking potential. There's a large difference in braking performance just grabbing vs. applying in a controlled manner. You can look up motorcycling racing brake application for more info on this.
2. Breaking too hard can cause a stoppie (a wheelie using your front wheel). Done improperly, that creates a lot of fear in the rider.
3.If you lock the brakes and steer, you are likely to have the front end of the motorcycle dip, causing it to lowside.
