By: Ungo (a.delete@this.b.d.c.e), May 23, 2022 9:01 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
--- (---.delete@this.redheron.com) on May 23, 2022 6:49 am wrote:
> Ungo (a.delete@this.b.c.d.e) on May 23, 2022 2:05 am wrote:
> > Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on May 22, 2022 8:46 pm wrote:
> > > I knew there were ranges of encodings that could be used as licensees wanted for new stuff like
> > > AMX, I just hadn't realized Apple was also extending existing facilities like NEON.
> >
> > Maynard only has a patent to cite here. There's no known opcodes, no reverse engineering,
> > and Apple files patents on tons of things they don't actually ship.
>
> It's true that patents are not dispositive.
> However the dismissive attitude of so many towards them strikes me as just one more
> step in the denialism that we've been seeing about Apple since pretty much the A7.
You're so strange, Maynard. I own two different M1 Macs. They're amazing. Not perfect by any means, but performance per watt is off the charts and absolute performance is extremely good. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be in denial about?
Thinking that Apple has done some impressive work doesn't obligate me to go along with your spin on things. Opinions contrary to yours aren't attacks on Apple, that's the self-absorbed superfan in you talking.
> On the one hand plenty of what I've found in patents has been
> validated, either by my explorations or by those of others.
> On the other hand, when you look at enough of these things, you start to see the patterns,
> the patents that seem like something out of left field unrelated to the rest of the corpus
> vs the patents that seems like a natural continuation of so much else.
On the third hand, you're the guy who once got really angry at me just because I dared suggest that in production Mac hardware, unlike the A12Z DTKs, Apple might put Rosetta support into the efficiency cores, not just the performance. I don't remember exactly what your pretzel logic was, but what I do remember was the broader message: 'I, Maynard, have declared that Apple couldn't possibly want this, so shut up you ignorant fool'.
You were, of course, completely wrong. Am I in denial about something if I remember that, and am inclined to think that maybe your ideas shouldn't be accepted uncritically, without reservation? Or if I remember all the times you've bitterly attacked subject matter experts here for telling you the truth about the thing they're SMEs in?
> Ungo (a.delete@this.b.c.d.e) on May 23, 2022 2:05 am wrote:
> > Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on May 22, 2022 8:46 pm wrote:
> > > I knew there were ranges of encodings that could be used as licensees wanted for new stuff like
> > > AMX, I just hadn't realized Apple was also extending existing facilities like NEON.
> >
> > Maynard only has a patent to cite here. There's no known opcodes, no reverse engineering,
> > and Apple files patents on tons of things they don't actually ship.
>
> It's true that patents are not dispositive.
> However the dismissive attitude of so many towards them strikes me as just one more
> step in the denialism that we've been seeing about Apple since pretty much the A7.
You're so strange, Maynard. I own two different M1 Macs. They're amazing. Not perfect by any means, but performance per watt is off the charts and absolute performance is extremely good. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be in denial about?
Thinking that Apple has done some impressive work doesn't obligate me to go along with your spin on things. Opinions contrary to yours aren't attacks on Apple, that's the self-absorbed superfan in you talking.
> On the one hand plenty of what I've found in patents has been
> validated, either by my explorations or by those of others.
> On the other hand, when you look at enough of these things, you start to see the patterns,
> the patents that seem like something out of left field unrelated to the rest of the corpus
> vs the patents that seems like a natural continuation of so much else.
On the third hand, you're the guy who once got really angry at me just because I dared suggest that in production Mac hardware, unlike the A12Z DTKs, Apple might put Rosetta support into the efficiency cores, not just the performance. I don't remember exactly what your pretzel logic was, but what I do remember was the broader message: 'I, Maynard, have declared that Apple couldn't possibly want this, so shut up you ignorant fool'.
You were, of course, completely wrong. Am I in denial about something if I remember that, and am inclined to think that maybe your ideas shouldn't be accepted uncritically, without reservation? Or if I remember all the times you've bitterly attacked subject matter experts here for telling you the truth about the thing they're SMEs in?
