Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Bud's comments login

It's unfair to pretend that all journalists have the same level of professionalism (or lack thereof) with regard to sourcing.

They don't.


I ran a stack of Apollos in the 90s at the U of Iowa. Student hobby thing. We bought them from university surplus. Had a DN5500, a DN4500, and a DN3500. Ran email, a telnet BBS, and web services on them.


Soldered? It's not soldered. It's part of the actual SoC. Could we please update our research to more recent than 20 years ago?


It's soldered to the package. The actual RAM components are the very same discrete BGA ICs that would normally be soldered to a motherboard, but they've soldered them right next to the SoC die instead for tighter signaling.

https://i.imgur.com/Y3PLp33.jpeg

Anyway results are what matters, and the module in the OP has bandwidth figures half way between the M3 and M3 Pro while retaining upgradability.


The switch to ARM Macs only happened 3.5 years ago, plenty of Intel models still in service that would benefit from a RAM upgrade if it weren’t soldered


The ram is soldered into an Intel Mac for the exact same reason that it's soldered into an ARM Mac.


To make upgrades incredibly expensive, allowing them to have the same product generate revenue as both an expensive mid-range machine as well as a ridiculously expensive "professional" machine. Why make different products when you can sell the same product at different prices?

In case of intel macs, the soldered RAM should have made the device and RAM options even cheaper, as the BOM is simpler. The only real argument against soldered RAM was DDR5 in SODIMM being bad - which LPCAMM2 fixes.

If they didn't use it specifically to price gouge, the soldered RAM wouldn't have been a problem. 64GB of RAM costs practically nothing at market prices, so they could honestly have had a single SKU with max RAM without notable price change over entry level - heck, maybe the BOM reduction would even sponsor it.

... But then they'd lose their mechanism to drain companies with deep pockets for necessary upgrades. Being sensible and fair is not profitable.


2002 was actually quite late in the Palm era. The iconic Palm V, for instance, dates back to 1999. And BlackBerry had a mature smartphone by 2002. Nothing compared to an iPhone of course, but quite capable.


That's for a court to decide. It's certainly reasonable to guess that that court case is coming. The only question is how soon.


This is cool, but it'd be nice if they had evaluated Apple Watch, which is far more common than the devices they measured for. I've been tracking sleep for years with mine. My sense is that it's pretty accurate, but the problem is, I'm asleep during the time in which I could attempt to verify this! ;)


This whole thing definitely looks highly anecdotal, rather rare, and basically 100% certain to be a bug. No way is Apple quietly forcing Sonoma upgrades on purpose; this wasn't intentional. Apple Support's responses to some affected users appear to confirm this.


Overuse of water is unverifiable? No it's not. Alarming reduction of water available in soil for plants is unverifiable? No it's not. Rising salinity in fresh water supplies is unverifiable? No it's not. Global temperature increases and increased volatility in weather is unverifiable? No it's not. Alarming increases in extinction of species is unverifiable? No it's not. Increases in CO2 and other pollution are unverifiable? No, they are most certainly not.

What are you even talking about?


Please cite support for your claim that effects of surpassing these boundaries are linear.

The people who actually know the science in these areas do not agree with you. Specifically with regard to global warming, the science has been clear on this for decades now: past around 1.5C, we risk cascading effects that could be uncontrollable. This is really fairly common in natural systems: if you mess it up, past a certain boundary effects accelerate and are uncontrollable.


The science has been clear? Phrasing like "we risk" and "that could be" don't inspire clarity.


Science if pretty clear that if you build a house out of flammable materials with no regard for fire safety, it could burn down and kill everyone kill it.

What you are doing is the equivalent of complaining that your house didn’t burn down this month and therefore fire safety is fake science


Non-discreteness does not imply linearity. Seems like a nitpicky point to make, but in fact the difference between linearity and other types of continuous growth can easily be the difference between a non-issue and an unprecedented catastrophe.


Or maybe he was talking about Trump nominating a new FAA head who illegally retaliated against a pilot who was a whistleblower at Delta regarding safety concerns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/business/stephen-dickson-...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: