Ungo (a.delete@this.b.c.d.e) on August 31, 2022 1:10 pm wrote:
> --- (---.delete@this.redheron.com) on August 31, 2022 10:44 am wrote:
> > That's great. And when you send me the links to the talks and papers where Apple has disclosed
> > this info, I'll be all over them. Until then, what what do you suggest I do?
>
> I dunno about Chester, but it seems rather obvious: just stop. It's pointless to spend so many hours
> doing what you do. You cannot reverse engineer specific chip design details based on layman's misreadings
> of deliberately vague patents which may or may not even apply to the chips you're talking about.
>
> If you really love reading patents, carry on, just have some humility and grace about it. Stop pretending
> patent claims are unimpeachable facts when you haven't done the empirical legwork to prove they apply to the
> subject at hand.

Uhh, have you read my PDFs? I have in fact done a fair amount of "the empirical legwork to prove they apply to the subject at hand", as far as this is feasible. Obviously feasibility is extremely limited, especially as one leaves the core for the rest of the SoC.

I no longer have an M1 so I cannot perform specific tests right now, but I did as much as I could over the past year or so, all written up.