Proguard was heavily influenced by the needs of early Android devices, where memory was at a real premium. Reducing the size of static tables of strings is a worthwhile optimisation in that environment
The announcement doesn't actually say they are removing the Rosetta emulation. Rosetta 2 as a complete snapshot of macOS system frameworks is not the same thing as what is now called the virtualisation framework
Generally speaking of Rosetta means Rosetta 2 since Rosetta 1 is deprecated. It is very difficult to say what they are meaning.
The deprecation is mentioned in the context of Rosetta translation environment [1]. Rosetta for Linux uses same wording [2].
For example, Docker at least used to use this same binary translation internally year ago (the same tech as deprecation is mentioned). I don't know how it is today.
> So maybe there is hope that the core x86_64 binary translator will stick around for things like VM and emulation of generic (linux? wine?) binaries
It's mostly for their game-porting toolkit. They have an active interest in Windows-centric game developers porting their games to Mac, and that generally doesn't happen without the compatibility layer.
A couple of generations ago, the majority of people transacted entirely in cash, and the only government ID they carried was a drivers license (and the women and children didn't even have that).
I can't help the feeling that everything in our lives and finances being tied to our permanent government-sanctioned identity has a chilling effect on deviance. No longer can one skip across state lines with a crisp hundred in ones pocket if one's deviance becomes widely known...
I'm not 100% sold on the direct relation, but just to brainstorm some more.
A society wide panopticon would not just decrease deviance, it would also increase overall stress, and disproportionally allow people who are shameless - willing to lie and bluster - to get relatively more attention.
Or, the likelier explanation, is that health insurance prices are highly regulated and have to get their prices approved by a government official(s), and B) they don't have a lot of pricing power due to the competition and they are not colluding.
See almost any of the proxy filings and you will see much of the compensation is based on hitting targets other than just revenue, and most of the compensation itself is equity:
Surely lisps don't have drastically more special characters as other languages? A few more parens, sure, but less curly braces, commas, semicolons, etc
Also feels like making sure the tokeniser has distinct tokens for left/right parens would be all that is required to make LLMs work with them
Don't get me wrong, they do work with lisps already, had plenty of success having various LLMs creating and managing Clojure code, so we aren't that far off.
But I'm having way more "unbalanced parenthesis" errors than with Algol-like languages. Not sure if it's because of lack of training data, post-training or just needing special tokens in the tokenizer, but there is a notable difference today.
1. Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.
In the case of the shooting examples the idea is to destroy the clay pots or damage the target. Baseball isn't quite on that level. I'm not sure what a gun can be aimed at without intent to damage it.
2. Intense force or great power, as in natural phenomena.
A gunshot definitely feels like an intense force. You could argue it for a strike from a baseball bat but it's quite relative and of course you can strike gently much more easily than you can shoot gently.
> In the case of the shooting examples the idea is to destroy the clay pots or damage the target. Baseball isn't quite on that level. I'm not sure what a gun can be aimed at without intent to damage it.
The point of clay target shooting isn't to destroy something, it's to build a skill and test yourself against an impartial system. That's what Duck Hunt captures and what made it popular. It's why shooting is a sport in the olympics.
Plenty of social reasons too, beyond hunting and self-defense, it can serve comradery and grounding. Some folks practice archery. Some folks fish. Some folks practice martial arts which they hope never to have to use in anger, but which they find calming, centering, and empowering.
> Plenty of social reasons too, beyond hunting and self-defense, it can serve comradery and grounding. Some folks practice archery. Some folks fish. Some folks practice martial arts which they hope never to have to use in anger, but which they find calming, centering, and empowering.
I'm not debating that. I have no moral issue with shooting a clay duck, I just see using explosives to shoot anything as an act of violence. I would say the same about fishing and archery. There seems to be some confusion here about the moral aspect of this, I'm not saying it's anti-social or anything like that, only that the use of guns is inherently violent.
All tools have potential use for violence. Hammers are as good at smashing heads as building houses. Even nuclear weapons have been used for constructive purposes. No tool is inherently good or evil, safe or violent. Those are properties of verbs. Everything is in the application and choices of the user.
Blaming a tool does seem like a convenient way to avoid personal responsibility.
Again I'm not making a moral argument here. I'm not talking about good and evil. I'm talking about violence and non-violence. A gun being used for "a good purpose" doesn't make it less violent.
So to you a flare gun is violent? It's a gun. Takes 12ga cartridges / shells. It can certainly be used to kill someone, but is designed and intended for saving lives. Is a knife violent? How about a letter opener? What about rope? Does it become violent only when certain knots are tied in it? How does this violent / non-violent object dichotomy work for you?
Violence, to me, is a verb someone can do to someone else, very specifically, with just about any object since the discovery of the rock and pointy stick.
> Violence, to me, is a verb someone can do to someone else, very specifically
That's fine, I already shared several dictionary definitions which differ from what it is "to you." To answer your questions above I would refer you again to those definitions.
I see no answer in your comments to my question about the knife / letter opener dichotomy, or about when a rope becomes violent or not. That's why I asked a direct question about your system of thought, your perceptions. They are common tools, they should be easy answers.
In the system of thought I've expressed, this is easy: all are tools, all have potential violent and non-violent uses. Depends on the intention and choices of the user.
In the system of thought you've expressed, I'm asking about these specific objects, because the words you've provided aren't sufficient for me to tell if they are violent objects or not. I'd like to know how it works for you. How you perceive it. If you're referencing a previous comment could you quote it? I'd like to understand what you're trying to say.
Sure. Would you usually describe a letter as having been "violently opened?" The regular magnet of using a letter opener doesn't involve violence, even while the object itself has the potential for a violent use.
But a loaded gun can only be fired violently. A clay duck can't explode non-violently when struck by a bullet. Nothing can be struck by a bullet without violence.
> The regular magnet of using a letter opener doesn't involve violence, even while the object itself has the potential for a violent use.
This sounds like you agree with my assessment, that violence is not inherent to the object, but a function of it's user's intent.
> But a loaded gun can only be fired violently. A clay duck can't explode non-violently when struck by a bullet. Nothing can be struck by a bullet without violence.
And yet you're back to assigning violence as an inherent property of an object here. Seems you are using two different and opposing systems of thought simultaneously.
Sometimes in my area of the US, people will fire guns into the air in reverie. Which most people would not describe as violent. Rather, celebratory. Rescue flares don't strike me as violent, but are fired from guns. Spin launch's projectile is another great example of something fired from a gun without violence.
On the other hand, if a person stood in the path of any of those while firing, the results could be quite gruesome, energetic even. But I wouldn't describe them as violent unless there was associated ill intent. Accidents are not typically described as violent.
You seem to be making some sort of qualitative argument about weapons (bullets, arrows... fishing rods?) vs non-weapons (baseballs), but I'm not seeing what makes archery categorically different from, say, playing darts, or shot-put (in all cases, a sport involving rapidly accelerating a projectile towards a goal of some kind)
No, not about weapons, about effects. Fishing is violent because it harms fish, not because a fishing rod is categorised as a weapon. I don't think archery is categorically different than darts. Shot-put is somewhat different in that nothing need be damaged in performing it but you're right that the launching of the projectile could be seen as violent. The former two meet both definitions of violence whereas the latter meets only one. The thing with a gun is that any use of them involves violence of multiple kinds.
This is a fairly recent transition in gun use - it's not that long ago that their primary use was in feeding people (both through hunting, and through keeping predators away from livestock/crops)
> In most times and places, I'd guess the military had many more guns than civilians
My understanding is that the mobilisation for the Civil War is the only time in US history that military stockpiles of firearms have outnumbered civilian gun ownership (although possibly also at the height of WWII).
Though large standing militaries (versus recruiting large numbers of civilians into militias) is a fairly recent phenomenon, so the calculation is often not as cut and dried as one might expect.
> How tf else did you honestly expect black-boxes to get built, by self-mangling machine code spit out by a sentient AI god?
I'm not quite sure why everyone seems to want the AIs to be writing typescript - that's a language designed for human capabilities, with all the associated downsides.
Why not Prolog? APL? Something with richer primitives and tighter guardrails that is intrinsically hard for humans to wrangle with.
I was wondering about prolog myself and turns out 1) prolog isn’t that amazing in practice (cutting is a skill I never mastered properly) and 2) unification is what type systems do, so in essence typescript et al has kinda-prolog embedded anyway - IOW our wish has always been fulfilled, we just need to squint a bit.
I get that makes people more comfortable, but if we're truly looking for a blackbox implementation of a spec, they could just as well directly emit something like JVM bytecode, and not worry about silly human needs like linters/formatters/etc
reply