Not that I have anything against women

Ahh, the misogynist’s “no homo.”

While I agree with what you’re saying, Disney didn’t change the gender or racial identities of the characters he’s complaining about.

Ms. Marvel, Monica Rambeau, and Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel are all very well cast for their roles. They’re practically plucked out of the pages of the comics, and match on race and gender identity from the source.

And Black Panther is about a super hero protector of a nation of black people. The answer to this racist’s question is literally in the name of the movie.

Yes yes. Apple Bad pls upvote me.

But in this case I pointed out some things that are wrong with the DOJ’s complaints, one thing that is valid, and asked questions about two that nobody, and my searches, have answered. They seem to also be completely wrong on the DOJ side.

I doubt you use their products or will be affected by them being altered in any way, but I do and will, so this case interests me as do the details.

Right?

The complaints that they did list, many aren’t valid anymore. But they didn’t call out a lot of common complaints.

Let me put it this way, superapps rely on harvesting and exploiting massive amounts of user data for profit, which is much worse than anything that Apple does. That aspect should be banned.

The quality of the service or content they provide is not my preference, but that’s not what I was referring to as hot garbage in this case.

Apple already announced that it’ll be supporting RCS sometime this year. Cloud streaming games have been available on iOS for years now, but prior they had to be a Web App and as of earlier this year that is no longer the case. Now they can be a regular app in the app store.

Superapps are hot garbage and should be banned. But WeChat exists on iPhone so I am honestly confused about this one. What features is it not allowed to have?

The NFC and wallet issue is a thing still.

The watch thing is a head scratcher. What API does Apple Watch currently use which 3rd party watches don’t have access to? Because it seems like Apple is being blamed for other companies not making better products.

They are saying that a hardware AI would be able to replace your GPU’s functionality, so yes, it would be the thing that game developers would use to output pixels to your screen.

It’s a bold statement in a way, but there’s solid reason behind wanting to make this happen.

Generative AI is currently capable of creating images that contain extremely complex rendering techniques. Global illumination, with an infinite number of area light sources, is just kind of free. Subsurface Scattering is just how light works in this model of the world, and doesn’t require pre-processing, multiple render passes, a g-buffer, or costly ray casts to get there. Reflections don’t require screen-space calculations, irradiance probes, or any other weird tricks. Transparency is order independent because it doesn’t make sense for it not to be, and light diffuses or diffracts because of course it does.

Modern high-end GPUs are hacks we have settled on for pushing information into pixels on the screen. They use a combination of a typical raster-based graphics pipeline, hardware accelerated ray tracing, and ai upscaling and denoising techniques to approximate solutions to a lot of these problems.

There are definitely things that developers would need in order for AI hardware to replace GPUs, such as any kind of temporal consistency, and significantly more control over the resulting pixels.

And to get both game developers and consumers to transition over you’ll need it to first be part of even low end GPUs for quite a while.

It’s not a terrible idea at its core. It’s definitely not 5-10 years out, though.

Still waiting for this game to release, then.

The management of cities already is a Lovecraftian horror.

There are lots of medicines that can help, but none of them should be taken without working with professionals.

Please be careful pf taking any medical advice from strangers on the internet that isn’t “you need to talk with a licensed professional.”

Even suggesting diet and exercise and vitamin D can be harmful advice under the wrong circumstances.

Doesn’t it require a separate process to be using the cryptographic algorithm in the first place in order to fill the cache in question?

If it’s done in-process of a malicious app that you’re running, why wouldn’t the app just steal your password and avoid all of this in the first place?

An efficient and fast version of this in Javascript would be worrisome. But as-is it’s not clear if this can be optimized to go faster than 1-2 uninterrupted hours of processing, so hopefully that doesn’t end up being the case.

Some of the other comments mentioned “nuance” as a thing that gets you downvoted, and I think that is related to your comment.

I kind of wish Peach would be given a game that has some teeth to it.

She just feels like a character that has earned the right to give us a Celeste-level-challenging platformer experience by now.

This looks cute and simple, which has a market for certain.

Yup, but they’re probably as likely to beat you up to get your passwords.

That’s the sentiment I was going for.

There’s reason to care about this but it’s not presently a big deal.

It depends, some M-devices are iOS and iPadOS devices, which would have this hardware issue but don’t have actual background processing, so I don’t believe it’s possible to exploit it the way described.

On Mac, if they have access to your device to be able to set this up they likely have other, easier to manage, ways to get what they want than going through this exploit.

But if they had your device and uninterrupted access for two hours then yes.

Someone who understands it all more than I do could chime in, but that’s my understanding based on a couple of articles and discussions elsewhere.

This requires local access to do and presently an hour or two of uninterrupted processing time on the same cpu as the encryption algorithm.

So if you’re like me, using an M-chip based device, you don’t currently have to worry about this, and may never have to.

On the other hand, the thing you have to worry about has not been patched out of nearly any algorithm:

https://xkcd.com/538/

It’s just not true to state that the industry uses CGI to avoid paying people who learned and honed the craft.

The actual, pivotal, moment for this choice was done solely because CGI looked better. This was during Jurassic Park:

https://beforesandafters.com/2020/03/15/the-oral-history-of-the-dinosaur-input-device-or-how-to-survive-the-near-death-of-stop-motion/

It also really depends on the film’s Director’s creative control and budget.

My favorite film of all time is Everything Everywhere All At Once and it was almost exclusively practical effects. This was both a stylistic choice and a budget-conscious one. CGI is not always the cheaper route:

https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/everything-everywhere-all-at-once-visual-effects-1234716610/

Most low budget movies use practical effects over CGI, because at lower budgets it is way more accessible. But all you need to do is watch any low budget horror movie to see how bad practical effects can rip you out of the story just as much as bad CGI in higher budget films.

So I would say that good CGI costs a lot of money but both looks better, and can do more, than practical effects. But films that craft around practical effects are absolutely valuable and bad CGI pulls people out of the storytelling just like bad practical effects would.

That will be $199 million, please!

While it’s not a direct answer, I was at one point during the pandemic trying to flesh out my classic cinema knowledge, and so it picked an arbitrary task of watching all the Best Picture Academy Award winning films ever in chronological order.

I didn’t get to the 60s but you might look at the list there?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture