Maybe not privacy in general but this is about location privacy.
If you have a smartphone in your pocket, then, for better or worse, you're carrying a location tracker chip on your person because that's how they all work. The cell phone company needs to know where to send/get data, if nothing else.
It seems disingenuous to put a tracker chip in your pocket and be up in arms that someone knows your location.
> Do you consider this feature to be a violation of your privacy, requiring an opt-in?
I suppose in some sense it is, as it a reverse-geo lookup service, but it's also no where near to the front in the location privacy war.
Cell phone providers basically know your exact position at all times when you have your phone on you, credit card companies know basically everything, cars track driving directly, etc. etc.
I can see why some people would be up in arms but for me this one doesn't feel like missing the forest for the trees, it feels like missing the forest for the leaves.
I very much agree with your position. There are legitimate questions to be asked about this feature being opt-in, although we may find that you implicitly opt-in if you enable Apple Intelligence or similar.
But the argument that this specific feature represents some new beachhead in some great war against privacy strikes me as little more that clickbate hyperbole. If Apple really wanted to track people’s locations, it would be trivial for them to do so, without all this cloak and dagger nonsense people seem to come up with. Equally, is a state entity wanted to track your location (or even track people’s locations at scale), there’s a myriad of trivially easy ways for them to do so, without resorting to forcing Apple to spy on their customers via complex computer vision landmark lookup system.
Thank you so much for asking, I have oh so many requests...
Personally, I'm mostly interested in the ARM vs RISCV compare and contrast.
- I'd be very interested in comparing static memory and ram memory requirements for programs that are as similar as you can make them at the c-level using whatever toolchain Nordic wants you to use.
- Since you're looking to do deep dives I think looking into differences in the interrupt architecture and any implications on stack memory requirements and/or latency would be interesting, especially as VPR is a "peripheral processor"
- It would be interesting to get cycle counts for similar programs between ARM and RISCV. This might not be very comparable though as it seems the ARM architectures are more complex thus we expect a lower CPI from them. Anyway I think CPI numbers would be interesting.
The Raspberry Pi Pico 2 of course also uses the Cortex M33, along with a self-developed (in his spare time!) RISC-V core that has very similar performance, other than not having an FPU.
It's pretty easy to compare the same C code on both CPUs on a Pico 2, where you have equal RAM, equal peripherals etc.
It feels bad to loose but you also need the wins to feel good. Beating a low ELO player is about as fun as beating small kids at basketball or something. For me it’s not the win/loss that drives me but making fewer mistakes. If I loose a game where my opponent punished a minor mistake, fair enough, that took skill and I’ll learn from it and I don’t feel bad. But if I loose because I made a blunder (obvious tactical error) that sucks and I hate that.
There are many similarities in your comment to how grandmasters discuss engines. I have a hunch the arc of AI in math will be very similar to the arc of engines in chess.
I agree with that, in the sense that math will become more about who can use AI the fastest to generate the most theories, which sort of side-steps the whole point of math.
As a chess aficionado and a former tournament player, who didn’t get very far, I can see pros & cons. They helped me train and get significantly better than I would’ve gotten without them. On the other hand, so did the competition. :) The average level of the game is so much higher than when I was a kid (30+ years ago) and new ways of playing that were unthinkable before are possible now. On the other hand cheating (online anyway) is rampant and all the memorization required to begin to be competitive can be daunting, and that sucks.
Hey I play chess too. Not a very good player though. But to be honest, I enjoy playing with people who are not serious because I do think an overabundance of knowledge makes the game too mechanical. Just my personal experience, but I think the risk of cheaters who use programs and the overmechanization of chess is not worth becoming a better player. (And in fact, I think MOST people can gain satisfaction by improving just by studying books and playing. But I do think that a few who don't have access to opponents benefit from a chess-playing computer).
If Apple somehow implements interoperability perfectly, sure. But I don’t believe that they, or anyone else, can. I’m sure any API will have unforeseen consequences and bugs, and those will affect me.
And I don’t really get to opt out either as eventually I’ll be forced to update my software.
> If TPU's are really that good why on earth would google not sell them.
nVidia sells nearly 4M GPUs per year. Google claims like 100K TPUs. Scaling a production line by 10x is very difficult and Google has not shown aptitude in this area of expertise.
Even if Google wanted to scale 10x I'm not sure they could. nVidia is believed to be taking like half of TSMC's new capacity (existing capacity is not idle). I suppose technically that means the other half could be consumed by Google but it's likely TSMCs other customers wouldn't appreciate that.
Thanks for the links to the data. I wanted to see if they broke it out by state, but I don't think they did.
I did notice many of the top countries have this fun footnote, "National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent of National Target Population (but at least 74 percent)". Which probably translates to they didn't measure the worst performing kids which likely gooses the numbers pretty decently...
The U.S. has this one, "Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after replacement schools were included." Which means some schools declined to participate so they had to ask others.
If you have a smartphone in your pocket, then, for better or worse, you're carrying a location tracker chip on your person because that's how they all work. The cell phone company needs to know where to send/get data, if nothing else.
It seems disingenuous to put a tracker chip in your pocket and be up in arms that someone knows your location.
Unless this kerfuffle is only about Apple.