I was more hoping this would open up another pathway (in addition to Crossover 23 and GPTK) for Apple Silicon computers to be able to play modern games. Doesn't sound like that's the case.
I have found GeForce Now perfect for the Apple’s new devices. Since the client is native code, you don’t even notice that game is running in cloud.
And <10ms latency, at least for me.
And you can play 7 hours in battery the best graphic games out there, with 1000nit display…
Yeah, I've been using this for a while and it's awesome! Sadly some of the big publishers don't opt in their games (Activision Blizzard, Bethesda) and some of the indie devs don't bother either.
I get this. I've been programming Python (mostly) for the last few years, and it's honestly great for getting things done in places where most of what we're asked to do boils down to sticking lego bricks together.
However, I'd strongly disagree with the assertion that lisp is a shallow rabbit-hole. It's probably one of the deepest I've ever been down. There's a good half-century of history there (much of which is even recorded!) - you'll end up learning about four or five different object systems and probably implementing your own, for example - and, even if you want to ignore the past, the accessibility of every level of a lisp system means that I probably know more about how SBCL turns my code into electricity than I ever will about Python, despite never having used the former professionally.
Big big, very deep rabbit-hole filled with a lot of very interesting rabbits.
I've only used Forth briefly, but one of the things I loved about it is that it almost has the opposite of a type system - everything is just 'memory' - but you just build words around that and barely even notice.
I've seen people recommend C as a way to "get closer to the hardware", but I think we all know that that's not really been a thing for longer than most of us have been alive. Forth, though? Maybe!
It's never even occurred to me not to do this. I wonder if that's just because I grew up on the internet before geolocation methods were widespread/good.
I think that signal processing is really only 'FPGA territory' because most people who need to do custom signal processing don't also have access to large scale chip design and fabrication capacity. For Apple, it could just be a matter of "we built a custom chip because that's kind of what we do now - might as well tell people about it". I agree that I'd definitely love to hear more, though!
> I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT infrastructure.
I find it interesting that people only ever say this when talking about free software initiatives. Nobody moans about software getting 'political' when talking about closed-source companies enforcing intellectual property laws that were literally written by politicians.
> I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT infrastructure.
>> I find it interesting that people only ever say this when talking about free software initiatives. Nobody moans about software getting 'political' when talking about closed-source companies enforcing intellectual property laws that were literally written by politicians.
I'm sorry, but I find your extremely selective quoting offensive. You are distorting the meaning of my comment, in fact turning it into its exact opposite. You even left out the first two words of the sentence you are quoting just to make your point.
I said "In general I prefer..." followed by two paragraphs justifying why I think that this general principle doesn't apply to open source and to this project in particular.
If your 'general principle' doesn't apply to the most important and popular software in the world (open source) then perhaps it is not very general, and not very principled.
My general principle is that political opinions as well as political conflicts and fault lines should not determine access to IT infrastructures.
Now, open source licences themselves as well as distribution platforms such as public git repositories guarantee access to some very important global IT infrastructures.
Perhaps you can see why my general principle cannot apply to open source in the same way it applies to other things that fall under "their politics" - the rather sloppy term I originally used.
It's the same reason why the principle of tolerance cannot apply to tolerance itself in the same way it applies elsewhere.
I think principles are always contradictory in the absolute. They only make sense as directions along specific dimensions and can rarely be applied to themselves.
> My general principle is that political opinions as well as political conflicts and fault lines should not determine access to IT infrastructures.
Then you're going to be disappointed, because politics is intrinsically intertwined with software and IT infrastructure. The fact that so much IT infra is built on top of open source and free software means that discussion is inescapable.
The fact that corporations need to track the licensing of the software they use (both for proprietary and open source software) is enough proof of that.
Regardless of what you said in your later paragraphs, statements of the form "I prefer to keep politics out of X" are often naive, as is the case here. Unfortunately, politics is everywhere, and ignoring that only serves to ignore important aspects of reality that can affect outcomes you care about.
Politics is a part of IT infrastructure, full stop. Ignoring that won't make it go away. The discussion on this post is proof of that.
Volokh made this query of ChatGPT: “Whether sexual harassment by professors has been a problem at American law schools; please include at least five examples, together with quotes from relevant newspaper articles.”
The program responded with this...
Also even in that prompt, “please include at least 5 examples… with quotes” is just asking ChatGPT to hallucinate (since it can’t properly answer otherwise). And then the reference to “American law professors” narrowed the field. I don’t get how this is even half-way to a story.
