You might not like the 27% cut, but that’s only fair, and I explaind this time and again about Apple apps and services. Like iMessage, the App Store is a proprietary Apple technology.
Yes, it’s a storefront that makes apps available on iPhones. And the iPhone would be worthless without them. But the apps themselves and the revenue streams they generate for developers would not exist without the iPhone, iOS, the infrastructure that supports them, and the years of development Apple has put in. All of that cost money to make, and Apple is now just capitalizing on all that.
Anyone in Apple’s place would do the same thing. And indeed, other marketplaces have similar commissions.
WTF kinda bullshit is this? If there was literally any other way to install an app I would agree, but there's not.
Yes, it costs money to run the app store. Probably about 1% of that 27% would cover it.
Yes, it costs money to build iphones and iOS, but Apple is not a charity. They don't hand them out at the mall. They charge exorbitant prices for them.
If you are a developer, what right does Apple have to seeing your finances for all purchases made in the app that they sold on their store?
It's a commission for sales that came from the app, meaning from Apple's platform, where they have roughly one billion above-average income users with a reputation for buying apps and subscriptions.
It's also worth keeping in mind that there are different ways of monetizing platforms, none of which are necessarily morally better or worse than the other. Microsoft's IDE, Visual Studio, is $45 or $250 per user per month (so $4500 annually for a team of ten). Xcode, Apple's IDE, is free. A business can offer its apps on the App Store, which also serves the files, for a grand total of $99/year.
Nice! I hope this will create a similarly great FOSS privacy-first ecosystem as F-Droid has done for Android. Some of the apps on there are really high quality. And amazingly small and efficient. It's really cool how much you can do if you don't waste 90% of your time spying on the user. Which goes for Android and iOS store apps almost equally.
For example, ask GPT4 for an example of cross site scripting in flask and you'll have an ethics discussion. Grab an uncensored model off HuggingFace you're off to the races
Requires cuda. They’re essentially large mathematical equations that solve the probability of the next word.
The equations are derived by trying different combinations of values until one works well. (This is the learning in machine learning). The trick is changing the numbers in a way that gets better each time (see e.g. gradient descent)
This is the original paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.13386
I, uh, studied quantum physics at the undergraduate level several years ago and can confidently say that I am thoroughly lost trying to understand what they are talking about.
I consider myself a science enthusiast, having studied it a bit and following the news. I'm not at all an expert, and don't contribute to science, but I like to think I know about science. I thought I understood quantum entanglement, but I'm lost when they start talking about measuring the particles without entangling with them.
The best I can come up with is that this new theory suggests that what we perceive as time is just our observation that things change state in a way that seems like a linear progression but the state change observed is due to particles being entangled/interconnected (?) and not as a consequence of time as some sort of force. Then and now are illusory mechanisms of coping with non-illusory change of our surroundings but that coping mechanism/perception isn't a physical thing that is an underlying cause of the change we observe (because it's being caused by subatomic particles being instantly affected by their entangled partner particles elsewhere in physical space)?
I am in a car driving 100km at an average of 50km/h and get to my destination having experienced 2 hours of time. I am in a car driving the same 100km in the opposite direction at a average of 100km/h and get to my destination having experienced 1 hour of time. The same trip driving slower means my experience is more time passing across the same distance (time passes at an accelerated rate for me, comparatively), and driving faster means I experience less time passing across the same distance (time passes at a decelerated rate for me, comparatively) - given that both things are taking place in the same place, obviously it isn't time that is changing to cause my differing experiences of how much time passes, it's my physical actions that explain my differing experiences of how much time passes. I think they're saying that this holds true for entangled particles anywhere - what is perceived as relative time differences is actually just an observation of things behaving comparatively differently in the physical sense?
The researchers who wrote the paper only mentioned possibly applying the tech to very small things like wearables and Iot applications where a large capacitor might be relevant. It’s the journalist summarizing it that makes the wild claims about phones and cars, which don’t tend to use capacitors for a bunch of reasons, not least of which is that they tend to be physically twenty times larger than a given battery of the same capacity.
If people are able to deal with batteries anywhere near that large, then I’d imagine most of them would choose twenty times the battery life/ range over being able to charge fast enough overload a wall outlet/ small power plant.
More of an actual comment, good. More efficient capacitors in both speed and heat certainly helps in charging devices of all sizes. Of course it wouldn't be charging large batteries in seconds, but that doesn't mean no improvement.
No, it doesn’t effect devices of all sizes, only devices that might use this specific bulky capacitor, all other devices will show exactly zero improvement because there is no real point to mixing capacitors in with a large battery. Being able to quickly get three minutes of charge per whole hour of battery capacity you replace with capacitors just isn’t that useful because you might as well just stay plugged in for an extra few minutes and get the same charge plus that extra hour before needing to find a charger at all.
As for EV’s the problem is even more pointless, as being able to go a half mile the street from a charger massive enough that it can output a small power plants worth of electricity is similarly to specialized of a use case to be worth the loss of range and greater degradation of the rest of the battery.
Almost every electrical system on the planet uses capacitors. Especially high power systems. Of which evs are.
"No real point in mixing capacitors in with a large battery" ?? That's done literally all the time for both filtering and for intermittent high power output. Like when I say almost every electrical system uses caps, I mean almost every electrical system.
Obviously nearly every electrical circuit board uses capacitors in some respect, especially for filtering and smoothing, but it is extremely rare for them to be used for bulk energy storage outside of things like adjusting power factor.
Given we are talking about charging times, which are primarily limited by the batteries charge current vs degradation curve and not at all by the various small capacitors in the charger’s electronics, there is fundamentally no effect on charge times unless you are replacing the energy storage medium itself with supercapacitors.
We can already supply enough dc power to charge an EV battery at its maximum designed curve via dc fast charging stations, which involve some contractors and shunts but actually don’t even involve any size of capacitors at all in the car itself on the HV side.
Or you know, reducing thermal load by using broadly more efficient capacitors allowing you to shove more current in the car. Or by meeting grid scale requirements for car charging by smoothing out the grid impact of a bunch of charging at once. Or any number of benefits.
Ultimately this certainly benefits car charging. It benefits all electronics. No you won't be getting two second car charges with this.
Again, there are no capacitors car side to be produceing thermal load in the first place during dc fast charging in the first place, and that thermal load is not the primary barrier to how much current can go into the battery without degradation anyway. After all, if it was we would just upscale the cars heat pump and be charged in five minutes.
Car charging is not coordinated to the point where they all plug in within a few seconds, and if it was a few second randomizer on when eqch timer actually starts charging would accomplish the exact same effect without hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in new grid scale capacitors and inverters.
This is also unlikely to become a significant problem because a lot of the grid is moving to battery backed solar and wind, where the limit is price per megawatt hour and as such said batteries can provide far more current than the grid could consume. You might be limited by inverter capacity, but storage capacitors are also fundamentally a DC technology so you would need them anyway.
This may turn out to have benefits for electronics that rely on already specialized supercapacitors, but it can by definition not have any impact on processes that are not currently limited in any way by capacitor technology like battery bulk charge current, the thing that actually limits how fast a car can fast charge.
Not really trying to argue, just trying to help explain the high current DC battery systems I have experience with and to someone how seems to have some conceptual understanding of what individual components do, but not how and why they are used or where the limitations come from.
Them being confidently incorrect doesn’t help of course. :)
That being said you haven’t really given me much to work off of as to where these misconceptions are coming from beyond a journalist confusing applications for batteries and capacitors and this really seems to be going nowhere, so bye.
So an electric car might hold 100 kWh. To charge that in 1 minute you would need 6000 kW of power, or 6 MW. Typical "rapid" chargers today do 350 kW and these are the kind that are difficult to find. A nuclear plant makes around 1,000 MW so if you had 166 cars charging at once you would overload one.
Any recommendations from the community for models? I use ChatGPT for light work like touching up a draft I wrote, etc. I also use it for data related tasks like reorganization, identification etc.
If you really want to, put the license in your profile specifying it will be used for all your comments, but on Voyager it really clutters up the comment with a big link for every comment.
It's not just "sideloading", it's Apple being forced to break its vertical integration with the App Store. The point is that the App Store cannot even be a "preferred" source for apps, much less the only one, and that includes having a perfectly workable iPhone with the App Store not even installed ever, because you did not choose it from some list at first start, and you're rolling with some third party store exclusively.
In theory, it should look like Windows and its browsers, or even more free, because what Windows does now with Edge is also illegal over the DMA and Europeans will soon be able to uninstall or not even have Edge installed on their Windows devices.
I’m hoping this ultimately makes Apple open their operating system and leads to Apple letting users dock their phones and let it launch traditional macOS
I think it's a step towards a world where that makes sense. Not this time, but maybe next time.
This law very carefully includes only select software, they are carefully trying not to disrupt the market too much. For example, this is the law that mandates Facebook Messenger must support third party clients, where I should be able to send messages to it from a third party app and receive responses through an open API. So does WhatsApp and a few other messaging apps.
It doesn't include iMessage though, because nobody cares about iMessage in the EU market. I am interested where this goes in the next decade. Hope they keep unshittifying tech.
I agree with you but they're not going to see sales go down and decide to make less profitable decisions. Like Netflix, people said they were going to stop paying for it because the price hikes and the account sharing but they're making better margins now.
We need to stop only boycotting and seek legal action. Antitrust Apple.
I have to say I thought that was kinda a pipe dream, but Samsung DeX is surprisingly useful and I use it a lot when I don't have my personal laptop around but I do have a docking station (which happens a LOT in today's hotdesking environment).
Just plug it in and access to all my personal computing stuff is there <3
We present an implementation of a recently proposed procedure for defining time, based on the description of the evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems, according to the Page and Wootters approach. We study how the quantum dynamics transforms into a classical-like behavior when conditions related to macroscopicity are met by the clock alone, or by both the clock and the evolving system. In the description of this emerging behavior finds its place the classical notion of time, as well as that of phase-space and trajectories on it. This allows us to analyze and discuss the relations that must hold between quantities that characterize the system and clock separately, in order for the resulting overall picture to be that of a physical dynamics as we mean it.
"evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems"
Bare with me here because I am not an expert. I think what they're getting is the same as how gravity doesn't exist. Vsauce did a great video on that, but the general notion is that because space time is curved, objects traveling in streight lines will appear to be drawn closer to one another. "Gravity" isn't fundamental, warping spacetime is. Nothing changed but our understanding of it, which does matter for some more complicated areas.
I think this is similar. Just like gravity "doesn't exisit", it's just an emergent phenomenon: they're saying so is time. They're saying time isn't fundemental, except that it's an expected phenomenon that would arise from other factors, those factors being proposed to be some entanglement crap I have zero ability to talk about.
And I'm putting some words in their mouth with "time isn't fundemental". What they're really doing is proposing a new definition that better fits observed phenomenon/models.
And still, none of this explains why we still have daylights savings time.
bgr.com
Top