Nutrition isn't the same as calories; you can have a more efficient diet in terms of recommended daily values of macro and micro nutrients without having to rely on "products" higher up the food chain.
Do you really think that the intersection of folks who are going to notice that images they've shot are over-processed/sharpened and folks who know how to get ProRAW files into Lightroom isn't a circle?
Not necessarily. Mostly. But people are sensitively to the result (too smooth) without knowing how to. Now you have. Solution some basic idea like how to access raw (specific apps or a setting in iphone) and which stage to turn to the left (camera raw I presume).
I've noticed the pictures from my iPhone look awful compared to my old pixel, and I know nothing about photo editing and there's zero chance I'd be willing to manually edit photos when the pixel is point-and-shoot
I credit a huge portion of my current career and general math and reading skills to having a couple CDs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JumpStart games early in my childhood. It's a pity I can't think of very many things that I would be comfortable pointing my own kids to and hope for the same effect.
What he's basically saying (I assume at least) is that we build things based on past engineering efforts. There's that one story about how train tracks are the size of a horse carriage during the roman empire era because of standardized size of roads at the time or something like that (too lazy to check it out).
If you need to use vehicles like trucks and cranes to carry ISS boosters over a highway to their launchpad, you will be constrained by standardized sizes that, after all, come from the size of two horses side by side (that dictated the size of carriages and hence that of roads that carry people, etc).
Not the OP, but after a few web searches I can say he/she was alluding to this [1]:
> When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah . The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but they had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
I have no idea if that's the real story behind it or not, but it sounds plausible enough. And OP's more general allusion to path dependence [2] is even more interesting, even though less anecdotic.
In terms of track gauge (the distance between the two rails), the most common gauge nowadays is standard gauge, 4'8½" or 1435mm. This gauge was chosen by George Stephenson, who developed the first practical locomotive--and having developed the first practical locomotive, he was a strong influence on a lot of early railroad engineering choices. But standard gauge was far from standard--in the early 1800s, every railway chose its own gauge and gauge incompatibility was the norm. As the railway networks grew and interconnection was more important, there was a push to unifying on gauges, and even large networks of different gauges switched in the names of efficiency (the southern US, then on 5' gauge, switched over 11,000 mi on track on May 31, 1886).
As for why 4'8½" was favored over other gauges... well, it wasn't. Stephenson appears to have relied on compatibility with wagonways of the coal mines he worked with. But there was equally no standardization of widths there as there was with early railroad gauges--you end up with track gauges that range about 4'-6'. And from the operations of railroads, it does seem that optimal track gauge is around 5' anyways. So the real reason for 4'8½" gauge isn't "that's the width of two horse butts", it's "that's a reasonable gauge for putting a wagon on rails."
But, to be honest, none of that discussion actually matters. You see, what matters for the SSRBs is not the track gauge, it's the loading gauge--that's what determines the dimensions of stuff you stick on cars. Loading gauge is far less standardized than standard gauge--whereas the US, Europe, and the UK all share the same standard gauge, they have wildly different loading gauges. Whereas the US standardized on a 10'8" loading gauge, Europe generally runs on 10'4", and UK on a paltry 9'6".
Finally, if you look at the dimensions of the space shuttle's booster rockets, they are ~12'2" in diameter. Recall that the standard US loading gauge is 10'8"--a foot and a half shorter than their diameter. So clearly the booster isn't even based on the standard-shape-of-a-railroad car, although that doesn't preclude it from being based on the actual practicable loading gauge of any route.
Still, the last line ("The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.") is complete and utter hogwash. The tunnel (I'm guessing Moffat Tunnel?) is probably about 13' wide, which is... a far cry from "slightly wider" than the railroad track at 4'8½".
The boosters can only be so wide because of the size of road and rails. The widths of which were based on wagons, which could have been pulled by two horses side by side.
Ok, I can see what you mean. This is also why when I made the comment about a "strategy" I put this in parenthesis "(in the sense that there can be a strategy to a game of luck)".
My intent was not to imply that each individual losing pull increases the odds, but more that if you just keep rolling the same two dice long enough eventually it's going to come up snake eyes. And this leads to people (especially gambling addicts) continuing to pull that lever after they are long past what they can afford. They know if they just keep pulling the lever (or more likely pushing the bet max button these days) that eventually it has to pay. But the reality is the casinos are predators that feed on that behavior.
Most casinos actually have a much higher takeout rate than the legally required minimums as well; it's very common that they are set closer to the 90-97% range. It's generally observed that a higher takeout will result in more money for the house. With a higher takeout people are more likely to keep winning a bit and feel like they are getting lucky, so they will actually spend more money than if the aren't hitting at all.
Yeah, I was a bit confused why they thought that is what I was implying. I was just trying to explain high level how it works. I previously worked on a couple of online "slot machines" and several of my former colleagues write software now for WMS on physical machines.
Ah, does not releasing full documentation not count as Apple "trying to get in their way"? Not trying to be snarky, genuinely trying to figure out how folks draw the line, since in my head, keeping documentation private smells like obstructionism.
Have you never been involved in the process of making internal information public? In most companies it's not just a case of whack that shit online, there's a lot of process involved in making sure it is fit for public consumption and nothing that legal, sales, product development, etc. don't want leaked is in there. This kind of overhead only grows with the size of the company and number of interested parties. You then have to justify expending that time and effort, and the ROI of making documentation public is.. not in your favor.
If it's obstructionism it's passively so. They've done nothing to actively obstruct. They've also done nothing to help. When they say they don't support it they're not kidding, they don't just mean capital-S support.
If I had to put a label on their stance, it'd be "chaotic neutral".
That's not helping Asahi. Apple never mentioned the reason behind the change (or even publicly acknowledged Asahi, as far as I'm aware), and non-Marcan sources have speculated that it was added to help Apple run hardware testing firmware. It's equally likely that Apple added this in as an alternate entrypoint for Bootcamp, which wouldn't work on Apple Silicon otherwise. In other words, people are applauding Apple for fixing the problem Apple created: a perfect allegory for developers in the 21st century, if you ask me.
Putting in all the effort to design a system that allows you to install an unsigned OS without it effecting the boot security of the MacOS partition is definitely helping Ashai, NetBSD and any other OS that would like to add support for the hardware going forward.
Also, designing the boot menu so that unsigned OSes can show up as valid choices or be set as the default OS.
As well as the EULA allowing the use of unsigned OSes.
>All of those things you listed also existed on x86 Macs
Nope. Security settings on the Intel Macs were per machine just like other PCs.
The system of allowing per partition security settings so the user could install an unsigned OS without it effecting the security when booted into MacOS is new on Apple Silicon Macs.
As the Asahi Wiki puts it:
>From a security perspective, these machines may possibly qualify as the most secure general purpose computers available to the public which support third-party OSes, in terms of resistance to attack by non-owners.
> non-Marcan sources have speculated that it was added to help Apple run hardware testing firmware
Those sources are wrong. Apple doesn’t need to add or release anything to test their own hardware, they have an in-house Linux that hardware bringup uses.
