250 MB is exactly the sort of bloat you'd expect from this sort of daft web-browser-wrapper application, and Apple get it there. 1.2 GB, on the other hand, is 5x as much, and completely insane even when you start off with daft as your starting point.
Apple weather is fully native from what I understand. I suspect the 250MB comes from the video backgrounds they play. Arguably that would be a reasonable thing to sacrifice on low memory systems, you'd barely notice.
- ~34-40 MB of memory as general heap memory that was otherwise unaccounted for (this seems to mostly be stack memory and threading-related stuff, and the actual application logic)
Nice find and summary. Of I'm not surprised to see the ~75MB for the high graphical fidelity of the app.
I am however surprised that 10MB is Swift language runtime - with ABI compat this is supposed to be shared, and that the weather daemon is >6MB (surely this is just a simple API client?!).
Oh yea, something worth mentioning is that my analysis did not consider what memory was shared or not. That might influence the actual numbers. I believe the amount of memory used by the weatherd daemon also includes code and not just the heap memory, so the libraries that weatherd loads would be included in that.
I think this depends on perspective. Compared to an Electron app, it's significantly better. Compared to a hand-optimised app implemented in a low level language it's not great.
I've not done a lot of Swift/iOS/macOS, but I have a passing familiarity. These numbers are basically what I'd expect for a normal app. In other words I think the relative optimisation comes from the fundamentally better technology choice rather than from being particularly careful about performance.
Yea this is what I meant. I guess a more accurate phrasing would be "feels reasonably optimized." Qualitatively in terms of (lack of) graphical stutters and whatnot the macOS one feels very smooth.
I wonder if the same is also true of other high-spatial-complexity activities like rock climbing and professional dancing? (Exercise level would of course be a counfounding varable to be eliminated in these cases.)
This is a really weak argument. High-quality government websites exist, most notably the British gov.uk system. All this is beside the point - the current age verification proposals are wrong, and attempt to solve the wrong problem in ways that look very much as if they are primarily intended for surveillance rather than child protection.
'Child safe' internet access by default with a very low bar to let adults enable their devices to access the public internet is the solution. The UK's mobile providers already offer this by default - all you have to do is to call your network provider and ask for the restrictions to be turned off, and you have full internet access. Any legislation to create 'child safe' filtering should mandate that vendors provide ways for adults to turn the filtering off, easily, quickly and no questions asked - and that it should be viewed as the responsible moral default for adults to have full access to the world in order to be able to exercise their responsibilities as citizens, not some sort of option for degenerates. Whether you do this device side or network side is a technical detail.
The other sane way to do this - and what we should have done from the start, instead of providing kids with full access to the adult world by default - would be to have created 'child safe' devices to provide children with filtered access. Parents could then be in charge of whether they want their children to have that access and at what age. However, that boat has sailed.
Interpreting the Second Amendment in a sane way might be a start. Its wording seems clear to me: it establishes the need for a well-regulated militia as necessary to the security of the state, and grants the right to bear arms in that context. No aspect of the current situation is "well-regulated", nor are citizens, apart from a tiny number of fringe groups, organized into militias, and those that are could scarcely be called well-regulated.
However, the current intpretation seems to be solely in terms of the end of that sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", with no context at all, and I think in a way that has a quite different meaning to what was intended.
And yet, when you come down to it, the right of the people to bear arms is not absolute and is "infringed" all the time in that sense; you don't allow automatic weapons to be used without special licenses, you don't allow small children to buy guns, you don't allow felons to own them. So it seems that the right to bear arms is not totally unrestricted; it's just a matter of where you draw the line, and I think the first part of the 2A is clear about the context in which that line was meant to be drawn.
I don't have any issue with an armed citizenry for national defense. Look at the Swiss; they are legally required to be armed, but in a highly regulated fashion, exactly so they have a citizen army ready to roll at any time.
This seems to me to be what the founders had in mind, not a free-for-all in which guns are available to all in an uncontrolled way.
The impression I get as a non-American is that the "well-regulated militia" bit is more or less ignored - like you're meant to register with your local militia in order to have a gun, but no-one actually checks up on it?
So why not tighten that up?
Define a well-regulated militia as being one that requires, say, 200 hours of training to join, followed by a further 100 hours a year thereafter. Include annual proficiency testing and mental health assessments. Mandatory RFID tagging of all weapons. Minimum standards for safe gun and ammunition storage, backed up with regular inspections. Insurance for damage or injury to third parties. If you fail any of that, you're turfed out, and not allowed to have a gun.
Really basic minimal steps like those would have a greater impact than any weird chemical weapons drone system, and if you make the militiae themselves pay for it, it would be essentially cost neutral.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Technically, it could be argued that the Militia clause is descriptive of one particular application of guns, not prescriptive of their every Constitutional use. But there has been endless disagreement on this subject.
The founders didn't think we ought to have a standing army, either, and a militia of ordinary citizens was their answer. So I guess first we will need to bring back militias made from ordinary citizens, first, and then we can debate how that changes the applicability of the amendment. Not to mention the definition of well-regulated, which I think (hope) most people interested in this issue understand.
Windows XP and MacOS System 7 had pretty good looking GUIs. Since then, modern keyboard-and-mouse UIs have not really improved that much; it's mostly been just evolving and polishing styling. All the real innovation has been on touchscreen devices.
Algorthmic improvements in inference could make all that kit redundant very quickly - there are already moderately capable models that can be run on phones or laptops with specifications that are currently high-end but will be mainstream in another year or so.
This will lead to a superabundance of power-hungry compute power in the hyperscalers, and it's not entirely clear what can be done to consume it all and still run at a profit unless they manage to make ever greater gains for ever more compute-hungry models that cannot be run on consumer devices, unless they refresh their hardware at ever faster and more expensive rates.
The joke about data centers used to be that their core business was selling power at a loss; this may end up being true of the hyperscalers next.
I think Farage will probably win, but it will be a lot closer than he would like. While they will make no difference at all for his hard-core supporters, the financial allegations will be discouraging for at least some of his voters and will reduce his turnout, all serious anti-Farage tactical voters will vote for Binface as the most likely protest candidate, and a nontrivial number of voters will vote for Binface just because it would be funny to do so - Britain is the country of Boaty McBoatface, after all.[0]
According to the bookies, Binface is currently 8/1 to win (about 11% probability), and Farage 1/8 (about 89%), with the rest of the candidates nowhere. There's probably something Bayesian you could do to estimate the probability of various margins from that, but it's going to be uncomfortable for Farage no matter what - winning over Binface by an embarassingly small margin will not enhance his image, particularly if there is going to be another byelection called soon after with the financial issue continuing to be in the spotlight. The only way this works out favourably for Farage is if he scores a crushing victory over Binface with an increased voter share relative to his previous election result, and I think the odds of that are slim.
> Turn the volume on the typical El Niño impacts up to eleven, then watch the collective infrastructure of modern industrial civilization crumble. Watch as flooding storms wash away roads and cities. Watch as trailing storms create new inland lakes, swamping farmland. Watch as fires raze forests and grasslands. Watch as heatwaves turn temperate regions into unsurvivable hellscapes. Watch as crops fail and dams burst. Watch as the shelves of your local grocery store gradually, then suddenly, go empty.
The language is too strong for the context. Author uses religious imagery, prognosticates about an Armageddon scenario, and does so based on a relatively short time series.
This is intentional repetition. More specifically, anaphora [1]. You may not personally like it, but it is a rhetorical device used to emphasize a point. This one also comes with a nice progression: storms, storms, heat, heat, farmland, groceries.
This substack article also comes with additional graphs, a much better story flow (data is progressively introduced and explained before reaching the final plot), and was posted 2 days before the OP. I agree with GP that it is significantly superior to the OP (which is likely AI slop). Thanks for posting it.
