Yeah im not an apple fan. (My brother would have a heart attack if I didnt say that. He loves them).

But the fact they controll both hardware and software means they can run on lower specs. They dont use it as well as they could. But android having to allow others to develop hardware. Provides a bit more ability for manufactures to implement less efficient drivers. This is why some higher spec low value stuff seems so slow compared to equal speced cheaper Samsung stuff etc.

Well nowadays yes. But when the term smartphone was invented. Really not.

The 1st iPhone was way lower spec then many high end phones of the time. Mainly Nokia but others as well.

Early androids and others def had no specific specs that differed them from other high-end phones such as Symbian Win CE (as crap as the OS was but then so was the smartphone mareted version recreated later on)

Seriously, marketing was the only thing that differed them from phones like the N95 and communicator etc etc.

And as I mentioned, the locked store front. That really seem to be the main difference but really I still find non-advantageous myself.

been a long while so my memory is likely flawed.

But I’m sure I remember someone getting doom running on a 95 in the 2000s some time.

Had one for a good few years. Moved from US back home to UK with it so lasted a good while.

Loved the thing. Hated when I had to give it up due to lack of support for newer software.

I still find it bloody hard to see how modern smartphone are technically different. When you consider early some android etc had keyboards etc. Basically, it’s just marketing and a more locked in app/program store.

Thats easy.

Some folks are insane.

And thank fuck for them. Doing dumb stuff like this has led to so much of the useful stuff we see and use now.

“Can I make this dumb idea work” is the very source of inspiration behind science. Never underestimate its value.

–

My relative sanity can be so disapointing to me ;)

Agreed. And when data like this is shared by honest consideration. It can help with moral.

But the tittle here is extremely false. And the lack of science in headlines can be dangerous.

I have been T1d for over 40 years. I was promised by doctors in the 1980s that e were close to a cure. I have seen friends die because of that hope. IE, thinking the cure is so close they don’t need to worry.

I had been a T1d for nearly 20 years when science discovered the autoimmune issue. And I realised. Not only are we not close to a cure. But we have absolutely no idea how to address the immune system attacking our own pancreas.

At the time. Sure, doctors honestly believed transplants might work. So those kids that failed to treat it like a lifetime condition. Sorry for the error. But the advice was at least based on the best knowledge of the time.

Issue is I still see doctors claiming we are a few years from a cure, more than 40 years later. When absolutely no positive research exists covering a cure for the immune issue. This has lead to a whole generation of T1ds like me and my brother who find articles like this insulting and dangerous. As we have seen, the harm false hope can cause.

Honestly, promise of better treatment is way more viable than promise of an unknown cure. When I was diagnosed, portable blood testing was impossible. Urine tests once a day was the best w could get. We had no fast insulin. So I had to inject to cover the whole da. And eat a little every 2 hours to prevent dying of hypoglycaemia. Honestly, not only were we unable to keep track and manage our level well. We had no idea what a non T1ds levels looked like over time.

Modern medicine has changed T1d treatment hugely in my lifetime. To the point where my life expectancy on diagnosis was about 45 years. And my health now. Means that really is not absurdly far off. The harm done in those first years of poor insulin and no blood testing out weighed much of the later good.

That is the story modern young diabetics need to be encouraged by. Newly diag T1ds now can expect to live as long as a non t1d if managed well. Teaching them that managing the T1d well now will lead to better easier management as the tech improves, and maybe in the future we will learn enough to actually address the immune issue. Will provide a better long term outcome to new T1ds today. Then getting hopes up for a cure just around the corner, dose. T1ds have a long history of negative humer and giving up the battle. Bad Science articles like this and worse still medicle professionals that fail to understand the actual; status of research. Maker that much worse.

This fails to answer the biggest question.

For most T1D is not about not producing insulin. That is a symptom. Not the desease.

Its a genetic condition where the immune system attacks insulin producing cells. Pancras transplants have existed since the 90s. In most cases the patients become t1d again the future.

As t1ds have already done this to there own insulin producing cells. How dose adding our own reprogrammed stem cells help long term?

While it may help long term. IE when we have a sullution to the autoimmune condition. It is at best a step towards a cure.

I will add as a narrowboater.

I found towpaths also have this issue with definition of surface.

I am legally blind. (Some vision but bad)

I have a few times tried to add more ditail to areas of towpath that will help the others like me know what to expect before mooring.

Seems anything that improves this will help in your issues as well.

Wow someone have enouth fuck about the fuck I gove. To write an app to monitor it.

Pity I dont give enouth fucks to install it.

Given all it wants to do is life up and down.

If we make tbe huge assumption it has any idea what is happening.

Your wife is likely its actual intent.

RAAAWR

More like “buck bawk” peck peck

Spiders setting up websites for extream identity theft?

Yeah that is often the issue.

It is rare a single company owns all the IP on code. So its common that companies are not releasing code because they cannot.

Yeah any reverse engineering of closed source code takes time. It’s a huge job on its own. Adding the need to avoid actions that may lead to legal issues.

Well yep, It’s very likely this may never round to a perfect replacement product.

But it still has value. For starters, it will encourage new open source projects to use it rather than the propria try version, long before it’s a direct replacement capable product.

So the effort is worth some excitement. At least a pack on the baxck and free beer for some of the guys trying.

Humans do something very Elephant.

Of course, it’s a bit of a petty detail. And is equally valid both ways.

But really goes to show how humanity has got so much wrong. We again and again discover animals doing things we have classed as uniquely human.

In every way, we decide humans are unique amongst animal spices. Seems to fail if we wait long enough.

And before any vegans use this to make some argument. Your choices are yours. But I am yet to see any other animal spices shame members for the diet they evolved eating. So maybe that will be the unique way to measure humanity that lasts. Because eating meat. Or even treating it with cruelty, ain’t one. if you doubt it, look at the insects that breed inside living animals. Many imprisoning the creature as their children grow, then eat it alive.

As much as I’d rather humanity be caring. This is not your argument against meat eaters.

Agreed. Most of us really do not think about this shit as often as we should. I know I am guilty of assuming he when typing. I know because I make an effort not to be. And notice how often I need to correct text. Being older than many developers. I just grew up with the assumptions. So like many my age needed my attention drawn to the societal indoctrination.

People politely pointing it out is important. As is people volunteering to help correct older documentation.

The direct numerics of moors law may not be definite.

But the principal it defines is. In the future computers will have much more power then they do now.

The reason modern GPUs use things like shaders etc is to allow them to archive massive manipulation of data in more efficient ways specific for the task desired.

Honestly this is why I mention time scale as the main thing that will make this possible. How modern gpus or other specialised processers do the task is less important then what the game code is asking the gpu to achieve.

The idea that at a unknown future date. The CPU GPUs or what ever future tech we have. will never be able to run fast enough to read current cpu or gpu instruction sets. And generate the effect defined using future techniques is not viable as an argument. The only questions are how long and is anyone going to have the motivation to reverse engineer the large but finite instruction sets used by secretive hardware corps today.

Not so sure about that. When you consider time spans.

Currently we can emulate the majority of early games consoles. So theoretically with time and Moors law any hardware will be emulate able in a few decades. With enough information.

The advantage of open source software. Is it can be used with the original binaries to reverse engineer the instruction set even if the original manufacturer wishes to hide it. So with will and effort even the most complex hardware will be able to be emulated on future much faster hardware.

True.

At least in poverty stricken nations. Oh and the US. But most of the rest of the world is a little different.

Sure in the early days of developments wealth helps in all nations. But it just tends to be a matter of time before new medical tech makes it to all the population in most 1st world nations.

The US is really pretty unique being one of the wealthiest nations but not having universal health care.

I sorta agree.

Unfortunately modern science is slow to change ideas it has accepted in the past.

Neil Degrass Tyson did an interesting talk on the % of religion in science. Based in the US. And it basically indicated that the higher you get. The lower the odds you belie in religiose ideals.

But the levels were pretty high until the top. And still not 0 then.

I personally think (opinion not fact) this has left us with a community. That hesitates to challenge science on religion alone. IE we don’t see ideas thrown out when it is clear religion was involved in forming them. But instead only when clear evidence refutes them.

In my less the humble opinion. This leaves science with a few old wives nuns tails. That are still followed 400years after the 1689 acceptance of the scientific method.