The interesting part, for anyone who actually reads the article - the change was fixed in an RC and then reverted in the final release.
Which implies there was some regression, some issue, some incorrect behavior or negative impact. One has to wonder… what could it have been? What could the issue with having a more accurate clickbox for the corner of the window possibly be?
For example: imagine you have 2 windows, the lower right corner of one window almost touching the upper right corner of the other, so that the bounding rectangles overlap but the graphics don't.
With the inaccurate "false square" corners, you just had to check the bounding rectangles, to know which window to resize, now you have to check the actual graphics (or more likely, a mask).
I am not saying it is the problem, but that's the kind of thing that can happen. Or it may be a simple bug, like a crash, memory corruption, an unhandled exception, the usual stuff, but they couldn't fix it in time and it is better to revert instead of leaving the buggy code or pushing an untested fix.
Just revert the code back to pre-26! This is ridiculous, it can't possibly be this hard and if it is, it just points to the degradation in the quality of Apple software! This is maddening!
This is already the pre-26 bounding box, isn't it? It's the new graphics that don't line up. (Not a great excuse, but the graphics are here to stay at least for a little while.)
> the graphics are here to stay at least for a little while
And that's the reason why I won't buy a new Mac.
Tahoe and Liquid Glass are so horrible that they're going to lose customers because of those. They should realize what they did and just backtrack: it wouldn't be the first time they admit they made a mistake [1].
The magic mouse have been there, almost unchanged, since 2009. That is a lot for a tech product, and retiring a product after 16 years is not admitting to a mistake. For example, the Logitech G5 mouse and its direct evolutions were among the most successful Logitech products, and it didn't last that long.
No, it is not just refusing to admit that the magic mouse was a mistake, it is considering that it is the best ever. That USB port on the underside is still one of the great mysteries though, maybe it is some quirk of evolution, because it is certainly not intelligent design.
In addition to vertical scrolling, the Magic Mouse can do horizontal (or diagonal) scrolling, zooming in and out, and a couple of other tricks. This makes it worthy for the people who need this for their work. There are mice that can do horizontal or vertical scrolling -- but not both at the same time.
People who do their work on large documents (pics in Photoshop, videos, CAD, music, even Excel, etc.) use these capabilities every day, and they like their Magic mice very much. If you are not one of these people (software development, for example, can be done with vertical scroll only, for the most part), it doesn't mean it's a bad product -- all it means it's a product which is not for you.
I don't use Magic Mouse but am very far from expecting Apple to admit "the magic mouse was a mistake" though.
I am using Sequoia and the windows are definitely rounded! Though the radius is pretty small (the curved region is about a quarter of the mouse cursor area), so the fact you can drag it from outside the window doesn't look ridiculous.
I think it shows how difficult it is to ship a seemingly easy thing inside the Apple machine.
I'm more interested in how or why this bug was approved up be worked on so quickly after it was surfaced, rather than other longstanding and arguably more impactful bugs.
It's because the bug got publicity. Apple marketing prioritizes what does and doesn't get built. Someone saw bad publicity on the front page of HN and requested a fix.
The answer is probably a ho-hum combination of different teams work on different issues, and this one having annoyed one of the devs who could work on it.
macOS does have weirdness with windows that span multiple screens. I bet some of that kicked in to an unacceptable level. It can create incoherent moving/snapping, for example. Has been kind of crazy-making for a while, for my set-up where screens are not joined but adjacent in a triangular configuration.
Yeah, that's something that was unambiguously better back in the "Classic MacOS" days (probably starting with the Mac II). Windows could overlap multiple screens and they were always drawn correctly.
At some point in OS X in the switch to hardware acceleration, they started rendering windows on one screen only.
I get that you hardly ever really want a window spanning two screens, but when you accidentally misplace a window it would be handy to be able to see it on each overlapping screen so you can track it down. Right now you can put a few pixels of the title bar on the wrong screen, and the rest of the window just vanishes.
These regressions are weird given that modern hardware is vastly more powerful than a Mac II.
Given that the video is fully interactive and lets you move around (in a “world” if you will) I don’t think it’s a stretch to call it a world model. It must have at least some notion of physics, cause and effect, etc etc in order to achieve what it does.
Pixel by pixel, time-slice by time-slice, in a 2D+T convolution. You provide enough examples of videos of changing point-of-view, and the model reproduces what it is given.
Yes, it reproduces what it is given by modelling the rules of physics, geometry, etc.
For example, image generators like stable diffusion carry strong representations of depth and geometry, such that performant depth estimation models can be built out of them with minimal retraining. This continues to be true for video generation models.
I’m not sure about “dumb them down”, I suspect it’s more like “subtly influence popular opinion”.
My husbands TickTock feed is full of things like “10 things Americans do that Chinese think are weird”, “10 reasons Chinese cities are in the 22nd century” etc etc.
I personally don’t think that’s propaganda - most of it is factually true and would be pushed to the front of any fair algorithm because it is engaging. But I can kinda see the concern, even though I disagree with the outcome.
if (big if) you trust the execution environment, which is apparently auditable, and if (big if) you trust the TEE merkle hash used to sign the response is computer based on the TEE as claimed (and not a malicious actor spoofing a TEE that lives within an evil environment) and also if you trust the inference engine (vllm / sglanf, what have you) then I guess you can be confident the system is private.
Lots of ifs there, though. I do trust Moxie in terms of execution though. Doesn’t seem like the type of person to take half measures.
the ripgrep codebase is ultimate “pour a drink, settle into your coziest chair, and read some high quality software” codebase. Just click around through it and marvel.
Interesting, how many seconds of 2Gbps transfer do I get before I reach my monthly cap and they start throttling me?
Jokes aside, I'm curious how this is even possible over decades-old cable. I get there's a new DOCSIS standard, but I'm less interested in the protocol and more interested in the simple physics of it. How can a simple coaxial cable cram so much bandwidth?
Happy ex-Comcast customer as well (as much as it pains me to say it, ATT has actually been pretty good to me with their fiber) but your numbers seem to go against a 1 TB limit but even the gigabit pro plan already includes the "unlimited data" option which allows you to go well past that. They never would say what exactly "fair use" was but it was at least above 15 TB/m from what I could tell of not getting kicked off.
Oh interesting. When I was in California, my 1 Gbps plan came with only 1 TB of bandwidth. They did sell "unlimited" as an additional upgrade but IIRC it was $50/month.
> How can a simple coaxial cable cram so much bandwidth?
A large amount of spectrum to work with and a high spectral efficiency. Wikipedia lists DOCSIS 4.0 as having 1.8GHz of bandwidth, and DOCSIS 3.1 as ~10bits/Hz. Assuming DOCSIS 4.0 is as least as efficient, thats about 18Gbps.
The story you're thinking of is about Brian Wilson, the creative force behind the Beach Boys and one of the only real artists of the time who could arguably be considered a peer of The Beatles.
Personally I've never seen a really strong source for that story, only anecdotes. I think it's an oversimplification to say "Strawberry Fields" made Brian Wilson insane. Instead, he was in a mental decline already. The pressure of "Brian Wilson is a genius" was getting to him:
There's a similar story with stronger sources, though. If you want to know about Brian's state of mind around that time, listen to his song Heroes and Villains. Basically, Brian worked on this song like it was his magnum opus, trying to reach the level of Sgt. Pepper. Quoting from Wikipedia (sue me):
> For Wilson, the single's failure came to serve as a pivotal point in his psychological decline, and he adopted the song title as a term for his auditory hallucinations.
> In the September/October 1967 issue of Crawdaddy!, journalist and magazine founder Paul Williams wrote that the song "originally had a chorus of dogs barking, cropped when Brian heard Sergeant Pepper, and was in many ways - the bicycle rider - a far different song."[39]
> Wilson held onto the final mix of the song for about a month. On the evening of July 11, 1967, he was told by his astrologer (a woman named Genevelyn) that the time was right for the record to be heard by the public. Without informing Capitol, Wilson called his bandmates and, accompanied by producer Terry Melcher, traveled by limo to personally deliver a vinyl cut of the record to KHJ Radio.[72] According to Melcher, as Wilson excitedly offered the record for radio play, the DJ refused, citing program directing protocols.[77][78] Melcher recalled: "Brian almost fainted! It was all over. He'd been holding onto the record [and] had astrologers figuring out the correct moment. It really killed him. Finally they played it, but only after a few calls to the program director or someone, who screamed, 'Put it on, you idiot!' But the damage to Brian had already been done."[79]
And this is all the tip of the iceberg. To have an even better understanding, you'd need to listen to the Smile! sessions, and the eventual 2004 "completed" recording of Smile!.
Personally, I think Brian was a genius (well, is; he's still alive, though not looking too good these days, sadly). But unlike The Beatles, who were four friends with an unbelievably tight bond (even after their breakup), Brian had no one else in the Beach Boys who could match him. And I think it was a weight on his shoulders, and that combined with the drug use (and likely a stroke at some point, which is obvious if you ever hear him speak post ~1968) brought his downfall.
to be fair Dennis and Carl could put out some amazing work, like the Carl produced all i wanna do or dennis penned Forever. But I don't think it negates your point just wanted to add to it.
Is there any company even remotely close to competing with Starlink in the "global satellite ISP" space?
I remember reading somewhere that literally most of the satellites orbiting earth are Starlink satellites. As in, more than half of all satellites are Starlink.
Obviously that statistic does not mean they have a successful business, that there's enough of a market, etc etc.
But one can imagine the types of services you can supply in just a few years to customers when you have by far the largest satellite constellation in the sky, with global coverage, and the ability to launch dozens of new satellites at low cost.
Other providers are in the works, but they don't work as fast as Starlink and don't have their own rockets to launch them in. Which is good. BlueWalker 3, a prototype for a new internet satellite provider, is brighter than 99.8% of all stars visible from Earth. They're planning on launching 70 more of them.
There are about 5,000 Starlink satellites and about 8,000 satellites total. For the past few years, the number of satellites has been increasing by 30% every year. Starlink can launch 50 satellites in each Falcon 9, which can fly every week. Eventually Starlink will have about 42,000 satellites in orbit. Other mega satellite networks are being planned which could raise the total to over 400,000 satellites.
They can have millions, they don't plan to have more than 12k up at the same time. 40k is the estimated cumulative number for the currently planned lifecycle
Not sure about overall prospects for successful business, but current revenue is a lot higher than I realized:
> The Wall Street Journal reports that Starlink's revenue for 2022 was $1.4 billion, up from $222 million in 2021. It is not known how much profit or loss the division made, but SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell said in February that Starlink is expected to turn a profit this year.
Everyone in my neighborhood pays $120/month for it, myself included. It was an absolute game changer. Honestly I think most people in my neighborhood would pay even more for it. It's so much better than the options it replaced. I don't think many people understand how frustrating it is to live in a slightly rural area without good internet options, so many of these areas have been ignored by normal ISP's for forever.
The most likely competitor is Kuiper but they're way behind. There's also OneWeb but they've had a lot of business issues. They're not selling service direct to consumers AFAIK. China is planning a constellation but I don't know much about it and I would never use an ISP from China in any case.
SpaceX's reusable rockets give them kind of an insurmountable launch cost advantage for now, and also for the foreseeable future assuming Starship achieves second stage reusability.
Both comments that you've made in this story have been horribly off the mark. The reason for reusable rockets is: they're cheaper than non-reusable rockets. As a result, no one can compete with SpaceX's pricing. And that other comment where you implied that SpaceX doesn't have much of a target market only demonstrates that you have no idea what the quality of internet service is outside of metropolitan areas or how many people live in those areas.
Oh, I know quite well how bad internet and mobile coverage can be outside metropolitan areas. All those areas so, well the vast majority, can be supported by terrestrial internet using either 5G or fibre. SpaceX has thus to be cheaper than those terrestrial solutions in order to compete.
Markets where satelite based solution are the only option include maritime, desaster areas, aviation and remote areas without inhabitants. Everything else, Starlink competes with, e.g., 5G. Just how competitive Starlink is, nobody outside SpaceX knows for a lack financial data. And since the use of reusable rockets only got traction when SpaceX created in-house demand for them, well, I am sceptical regarding the economic viability of it.
As I said, it can be typical Musk goal post moving, a viable business idea or a combination of those two. And by the way, Uber was cheaper than Taxis for a long time by selling a dollar for cents, and the same as Uber SpaceX has access to capital other ISPs just don't have. Doesn't mean SpaceX ia serving a market, remote areas, existing ISP are neglecting for decades by now.
I've seen people claim SpaceX is charging too much. Now you're claiming they are subsidizing launch i.e dumping to keep other launch competitors out.
In parts of Asia and Africa where SpaceX operates, they match or beat prices of competitors today. And of course they beat other sat competitors on pricing.
In the US there's parts of cities and suburbs where wired service is available but unreliable or hard capped with overages.
Reusability helps with reliability. Also allegedly helps with cost and cadence.
Kind of yes, kind of no. As with everything, their prices are a mix calculation. Meaning they charge what they can, with mass LEO launches being cheaper than high orbit scientific and government stuff. What SpaceX does in my opinion is subsidizing LEO launches using reusable rockets with Starlink launches.
You seem to completely underestimate how expensive it is to install fiber across say, the entire midwest, and completely overestimate the quality of 5G coverage/investment in the same area.
The question is not if there are competitors in the "satelite ISP" space, but rather how Starlink compares to other ISPs. Reason being that the market where Starlink, or satelite communications in general, have a unique selling point is rather small, especially compared to the global communications market.
We'll see, so far I think Starlink is SpaceX's way to keep investor money flowing, valuations high and the point of general profitability (pinky promise) in the future without raising any eye brows.
Iridium and Globalstar are in this space. As I understand it, the cost is much higher, and the data rates are much lower.
Hughesnet, Viasat and others offer internet services via satellite from geostationary orbits, and may not offer global coverage; similarish costs, lower data caps (as I understand it), and much higher latency. Mostly targeted for fixed location broadband connectivity, where there's no terrestrial option (because almost all terrestrial options are better in all dimensions)
Clearly rural broadband has a reasonable market. Focusing specifically on cellular phones: my iPhone lets me send emergency SOS messages via satellite and doesn't use Starlink. This means that at least the "emergency calling when out of cellular range" piece of the market has competitors (and they're cheap enough that Apple can include two years of service in my phone's price.) I'm not sure how big the discretionary texting/calling/browsing-while-out-of-cellular service market is.
By Itanium effect if anything, because AST at least has actually demonstrated the technology. Musk is just setting up a website and he already hits HN frontpage...
Somewhat? The build quality of a Tesla, even a Model S, resembles that of a Corolla at best. The dash creaks, there's unexplained rattles, the wind howls if things aren't sealed properly, and if you try to address anything with a Service Center you often get told 1) they can't find it, or 2) they found it, but it's "within spec".
I'm more of referring to materials, although later generation (Y and 3) seem to be using softer plastics tho some rattles are still there. I haven't driven Corolla for a while, but compared to decade old Mazda - only real leather is what I miss, else it's like every car 3 decades before.
/r/LocalLLaMA/ is such an interesting mix of academia/researchers (it was called out in a recent paper, regarding context length, IIRC) and odd anarcho-futurist weirdos. And I kind of love it for that.
Ha Stable Diffusion is very similar I notice. People understanding and thriving in new techniques and advanced workflows, mixed in with people who want to generate boobies in new ways.
I found they can be very unappreciative of their data sources for training. Any mention that scraping art from art sites like DA without their consent was unethical is met with arguments about how its exactly the same as a human looking at art and replicating the style.
They refuse to even acknowledge why those people might be annoyed their work was used without their consent or compensation to put them out of work.
Which implies there was some regression, some issue, some incorrect behavior or negative impact. One has to wonder… what could it have been? What could the issue with having a more accurate clickbox for the corner of the window possibly be?
reply