the stock market goes up and down daily, but with a functioning economy it will overall be up. from a distance you are right, something that keeps going up keeps achieving new highs.
but, if you follow the market on a daily basis, you will be paying attention to the market swooning for periods of time, maybe with a small recovery and then another swoon. New "all time highs" do provide convenient notifications that the economy has now grown from before. Without new highs, your investments are treading water.
>and even the pre- and post-increment operators cleanly lined up with the PDP-11 addressing modes.
pre- and post- increment operators cleanly lined up with... the programmer's conceptualization and objectives--the index is/was frequently used in other contexts than loop bounds and indexing. if that's not your conceptualization, don't use that operator. whether you are on a PDP-11 makes no difference.
and just to make the point more firmly, PDP-11 didn't have a preincrement/postincrement pair of instructions, it simply had indexing with post-increment of the index or pre-decrement, i.e. one paradigm, not two. Or in other words, "stack" behavior.
>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.
but, if you follow the market on a daily basis, you will be paying attention to the market swooning for periods of time, maybe with a small recovery and then another swoon. New "all time highs" do provide convenient notifications that the economy has now grown from before. Without new highs, your investments are treading water.
reply