They send hate letters to each other with stagecoach services?
The problem is that there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" it's BS, there is a right to have an opinion, but some opinions are crimes and should never become speech, let alone be public
Corollary: public speech must be granted to everyone, because it's in the US Constitution, but you should not use it to badmouth the US
Not as an occupant of course, because that's what usually Americans living abroad do
The point is to prove that "freedom of speech" said by American corporations is ridiculous and nobody should believe it, on the contrary, everybody should start to worry
If you're sincere, you are definitely acting on incomplete information with regard to what America and Americans are actually like, and missing the point that it's individuals who need to have the freedom to speak, not corporations. If you're here with an agenda, well, whatever you're doing isn't making the world better.
Individuals will retain the freedom to speak even if we shutdown social networks.
That's the point you are missing.
> whatever you're doing isn't making the world better.
Imagine what a nation founded to avoid taxation and that became a superpower by securing resources in half of the World by starting wars or supporting dictators that committed genocides is doing to make the World better...
OP never said he pretends that USA are not a violent country where mass shootings don't happen all the time. OP implied that young adults PLANNING mass shootings on the INTERNET is miniscule.
What website should we block if we want to avoid another Boston Marathon bombing or men running trucks over people in Christmas markets like in Berlin?
(I just realized that both happened mere blocks of my residence at the time. Maybe if I become homeless we will be able to prevent these horrific events)
So rare that a very similar one happened in the French Riviera just some months after?
Anyway, the point is that we can not solve social issues with technological solutions. You are just acting on the symptoms but still never going to get a cure. Block a "cancerous" open site, and crazy sick people are just continue to do what they do in a darker corner of the net.
Like a few times in a century, not hundreds times in a year, every year, sir.
Closing social networks is not a technological solution, it's political.
Public speech must not be controlled by private entities
Unless you are the US and don't understand it.
Crazy people with their forums for crazy people have no ability to target hundreds of millions of people through paid ads
Please, try to understand it, because it's really not that hard
There's a reason why every developed country in the World strictly controls firearms but not knifes
There's a reason why the only "developed" country where mass shootings happen all the time is the only developed country that refuses to strictly control firearms
It's the most evident proof of Einstein law of insanity
> Public speech must not be controlled by private entities
This is part where we disagree. Not that I am defending that private entities should "control" public speech, but rather that this control is circunstancial. Remove Facebook and Twitter (and every big media conglomerate as well, FOX, CNN, NBC) all you want, people will still look for groups that share their views and messages that confirm their biases.
This is not just a guess. I am seeing this first-hand with the people looking into leaving Twitter and joining Mastodon. Go to /r/mastodon and you will see me arguing with every one that comes with the idea that different instances mean different "communities" and "interests".
Also, consider the alternative. The article is saying that we shouldn't want a decentralized web. Who would you propose to "control" public speech? If not private companies and if not smaller groups, the only alternatives left is, guess what, Big State and tyrants
They always looked for places where to share their opinions with other people
Those places didn't weaponize their feelings and weaknesses against them to sell them ads
Want to make a global social network?
The State should be able to control them (every single state they operate in) and their decisions should be held accountable in court
The SN banned you?
They should have human support to solve the issues and a judge could overrule the decision, while now they are black holes
I trust the State, more than Facebook, if someone doesn't they shouldn't impose their decisions on other groups, including other countries
It's weird to read that people living in countries where the police can arrest you for not stepping out of the car or saying to a police officer to f*ck off defend the right to wear swastikas or private companies keeping public speech hostage in the name of freedom
Decentralised web can exists only among many small actors, when there are a few behemoth that control everything, of course segregation is gonna be the most obvious response: Russian internet, Chinese internet and let's hope European internet soon.
> Those places didn't weaponize their feelings and weaknesses against them to sell them ads.
This can be said of every media company. Every newspaper, magazine (low-brow or high brow), radio, TV station, cable TV company.
Every. Single. One.
> I trust the State, more than Facebook.
It doesn't matter who you trust more. It matters who you are able to disengage from. We as individuals and as groups can choose to keep Facebook of our lives. Can the Chinese say the same from the CCP?
> segregation is gonna be the most obvious response (...) let's hope European Internet
So, you are so afraid of Facebook's "control" of the internet that you would actively advocate to put in the hands of tyrants and kleptocrats?
Either you don't understand the concept of "decentralized web" or you are just fucking with me.
> Weird and revealing double standard you got there, comparing "Chinese" as a collective to "many" Americans.
Chinese are collectively more or less in the same situation, they are ethnically mostly the same people and live under the same rules, Americans are not.
Few very reach Americans enjoy all the freedom power can buy, everyone else either comply or suffer the consequences
You really did not know?
> Chinese who are much, much, much less free than nearly all Americans
Nope.
I don't believe in the kind of freedom Americans believe to possess
It's simply a different kind of tyranny
Unless you mean the freedom to be shot in the streets.
For example: there are 700 people in jail every 100k citizens in USA, they are only 115 in China.
In 2008 USA had the 25% of the global World jail population
And you know why?
Because the private prison system in USA is highly profitable
USA has the lowest life expectancy of the whole west and it's only one year longer than China, despite being the country with the highest spending per capita in healthcare in the entire globe.
Is this the freedom you're talking about?
So no, USA is not a benchmark for anything good, including the exercise of free speech, which is only a lame excuse to not take action against extremists propaganda
> Indeed
So sometimes you experience moments of lucidity when you see yourself for what you really are?
More than 1 in 15 Chinese people are not part of the Han ethnic group. When somebody makes big “mostly” generalisations about people, I don't expect “you could have half the clubs in a school composed of these people and still have some left over, assuming uniform distribution” to be true.
You do know that saying bad things about $CountryX doesn't prove good things about $CountryY, and vice versa, right?
Have you ever considered the possibility that China has "less people in prison" because their government just kills any dissident and "troublemaker" without any semblance of due judicial process?
Stop giving him such a hard time! China's execution rate is a state secret, so no one really knows how high it is, but it's estimated to be significantly lower than that of peer countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran :)
And besides that, who cares if some troublemakers are killed off? The Han "collective" is not bothered by such minor things as individual rights and due process
First, stop moving the goal posts and the whataboutism. Now you are bringing things like political assassinations. Can you go the part where almost we talk about how almost 50 million people starved to death due to the ideology of the Great Leader, or how the country has 300 million excess men because of the one-child policy which led to sex-selective abortions and plain brutal infanticide?
Second, you seem to be the under the impression that I defend the things done by the US State. I do not. It is precisely because I do not like the US State that I do not want to give it more power than it already has. In fact, it has been quite a bit amusing to see your cognitive dissonance of talking about all the horrible things that the US Government has done and yet you want me and everyone else to "Trust the State" with social media. It's almost as amusing as the cognitive dissonance you show when you say you want to take things out of control of "private entities" and put them to the control of the state that you so clearly (and justifiably) loathe.
> Do you really believe you can go from 700 to 115 by hiding the deaths?
Take just the million Uighur in "re-education centers" and call the thing by what it really is - a concentration camp - and suddenly this number already goes up quite a bit.
However, what you are failing to understand is that there is no point in comparing a country that has established (however flawed) democratic institutions with a country whose authoritarian rulers have unchecked powers. The numbers are meaningless if the masses are subjected to tyranny and indoctrinated to never question the authority of the leaders.
> First, stop moving the goal posts and the whataboutism. Now you are bringing things like political assassinations
Can you tell me who wrote this and brought up political assassination?
Because I'm sure it wasn't me.
> Have you ever considered the possibility that China has "less people in prison" because their government just kills any dissident and "troublemaker" without any semblance of due judicial process?
> effects of the Gulf War and over a decade of economic sanctions have resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children due to malnutrition, diarrhea, and other preventable diseases.
(The gulf war was started on a lie, fabricated by the US government)
I ask to stop with the whataboutism and you respond with more of it.
I get it, you don't like the US State. Me neither.
You don't like Facebook. Guess what? Neither do I.
The point of our disagreement is that you seem to believe that people do only bad things because Big Bad American companies are manipulating them. And your solution is to destroy them by executive order and give all this power to... the US State!
The cognitive dissonance is so strong you simply refuse to acknowledge this point every time I mentioned, and you prefer to distill more diatribes against the US.
I am not interested in more diatribes against the US government. I dislike it and distrust it already to know that I don't want it to have more power. What I want to understand is what do you propose besides measures only seen in totalitarian dystopias.
> Because the private prison system in USA is highly profitable
LOL. You "know" just enough to remain comfortable in your ideology, and your self-imposed media echo chamber is more than happy to feed that "knowledge" to you.
If you think you are credible outside your tribe... don't quit your day job. You're just as delusional as the people whose speech you wish to control, and hence provide an abject illustration of why we don't want state control of our speech.
And don't feel bad that China is still behind the US in so many ways, there will be a Great Leap Forward very soon!
Regarding media: "playing the insecurities of people to sell them ads" is actually something that every marketer does. No exceptions. Fabricate demand. From news channels that are considered infotainment to product placement spots on movies, from teen magazines that promote utterly wrong role models and lead girls to bulimia, anorexia and all sorts of psychosis to any property from Arianna Huffington that mastered the exploitation of outrage culture to sell to Millennials. Rest assured that every single media outlet that depends on ads to make money has no interest in elevated public discourse and thrives on public anxiety.
And no matter how bad it is, it is still better than State-owned media, which bypasses the whole marketing mechanisms and just relies on the ruling power to keep the very same type of public control through fear and intimidation.
Regarding China and freedom: tell me if you prefer to be Black in the US or a Uighur in a concentration camp. Afterwards tell me which people gets to more or less manipulated by their media.
China gets more propaganda, but average Chinese knows they're being fed propaganda, whereas free citizens with their free 5th estate are rarely aware of when their consent is being manufactured. More highinfo/curious Chinese are informed about the world simply because there's a fuckload of bilingual Chinese with English fluency able to share news from across the wall. You can't say the same about anglosphere and Chinese information literacy. The amount of absolutely ignorant western commentary on China is staggering, where as Chinese net actually has western perspectives that somewhat comport with reality.
At the end of the day, media that doesn't turn society into idiots that undermine national interests has its virtues and maybe preferrable. That was once the case with tame free media before much of it turned into divisive reality TV. Similarly you can have dangerous state media that whip up nationalist frenzy, cause sectarian violence etc, or you could have boring ass state media and manage civic engagement for political serenity. All media are manipulated, all narratives shaped, blatantly manipulating media for serenity to a knowing population self-fulfilling properties. People stop giving a shit about politics, and politicians end up government instead of campaigning. Prerequisite is having a good system for selecting competent leadership in the first place.
This is not unambiguously endorsing state media as good, but decline of free media in many places is simply that bad. Some countries still have passable public broadcasting, but for how long, and whether commercial pivot for ads + anxiety is terminal transition.
For Uyghurs: under the most delusional estimates, Chinese Uyghurs still have less lifetime chance of being in a indoctrination camp than US blacks in US prison industrial complex. For much shorter sentences. After they'll be coerced to work in vocational program for more pay, even adjusted for exchange rate. Not US prison labour moving covid bodies tier coerced labour, but actual useful jobs designed to transition into society instead of recidivate back into for profit prisons. China actually wants to integrate minorities instead of exclude, even at extreme costs. So I suppose the answer is, it's better to be a Chinese Uyghur in a few generations after they've been sinicized and integrated than a Black American in 20 years who will still be getting executed on the street and fighting equal treatment.
What good is it to be aware of the propaganda if no one gets to act and defend the values they seem worthy of protection?
Take the Hong Kong situation. If "highinfo/curious" chinese people in mainland China look at it and just repeat the Party line of "they are just troublemakers" instead of supporting them as loudly and as effectively as they can, then all this awareness of being fed propaganda is as good as nothing.
I mean, you are actually parroting the bullshit about concentration camps being about "integrating minorities". Minorities that are being tortured and brainwashed into submission are not "integrated", just destroyed while keeping a shell of the people to show around.
Maybe mainlanders don't deem HK worthy of protection. Mainlanders cared about pollution, they protested, government responded. They lost their shit at poor safety due to rapid development (aviation, high speed rail, food, medicine), the government responded. They were disgruntled over pork prices. The government responded. Chinese society skews old, conservative and anti LGBT. Government unfortunately responded. Unprecedented MeToo trials happening right now. Government responding. Sufficiently significant issues that elicit widespread attention gets addressed, Chinese people advocate for themselves all the time.
> fed propaganda
Fact is pork prices is literally a bigger problem to mainlanders than plight of privileged HKers with historic acrimonious relationship. This is a well understood dynamic, suggesting HKers would have ever got mainstream mainland support because of propaganda and not bad blood is exactly the kind of anglosphere illiteracy on China I'm talking about. ProHK / pro liberal reform voices exist but not much. Why? HK protestors from mainland perspective: young, nativist, disillusioned but privileged individuals who spread shit about mainlanders on social media for years... Yeah, I just described alt-right. Is it any surprise they got minimal support. Lots of mainland diaspora in the west with access to both side of the story, did meaningful numbers come out to support HK? No, they had access to both sides of the story, they just knew better.
>integration
Of course the goal is integration, CCP is not spending tremendous resources to be cruel for shits and giggles. If Han knew how much was going into XJ they'd protest, due to costs not human rights. Like people everywhere, the public would rather the minorities rot than take disproportionate resources. But unlike democracies, CCP can actually ignore public sentiment. Some in this generation will be a shell, their descendants will be integrated. It's ugly, but things move fast in Chinese 5 year plans. None of this long arc of justice nonsense. It's not right, but history will judge relative wrongness compared to locking up 1/4 of black Americans or trapping indigenous peoples in backwater reserves forever.
I hope you realize that you so into getting into a shouting match that you are not making any sense whatsoever.
I don't know where you are from, but as someone who grew up in Brazil, lived in the US for ~5 years and now has 7 years in both Northern and Southern Europe and close relationships in the Middle East: globalization is real. Someone autistic like you may not notice due to subtle differences to adapt to local cultures and local flavors, but the message everywhere is to get people to measure themselves by what they consume and to stimulate consumption by creating needs where there are none.
It might surprise you but being in the spectrum doesn't mean being autistic as in the cliché.
It's, as the same implies, a spectrum.
I've lived in the US, New York, Los Angeles and Columbus Ohio for a brief period.
(I also lived in Berlin and Barcelona, but that doesn't really count as a radically different experience for an European)
I have strong northern African looks, but am still white and loved every moment in the US.
But the devil is in the details, I could not ignore that when my friends there told me that some neighborhood was dangerous it really was dangerous, not dangerous as we usually mean it when we say it in Italy.
I could not ignore the staggering amount of homicides reported in the news.
This year LA will surpass 300 homicides in a year, Italy has 12 times the population of LA and there were "only" 270 homicides last year.
I could not ignore that the police is scary there and you should not talk to them or engage in any way.
I swear I notice a difference when I see one.
Having said that.
Globalization is real, but the media here are not trying to exploit my weaknesses to sell me ads, they are putting ads on their products, generic ads, not "I know who you are and I know you're gonna like this" ads.
I'm ok with the first kind, not so much with the latter.
The point of decentralised web is a misguiding one.
The decentralised web is the web!
Everyone can build their own website and host it at home on a raspberry PI on their connection.
That's what made the web a novelty that could (hopefully) spread culture and knowledge.
The dicotomy between centralised and decentralised web was born because the web has been taken away from people and transformed in a targeted ads delivery machine by the same companies that sell ads (FB, Twitter, Instagram and most of all Google, they sell ads as a primary business)
They are fighting to get screen attention so that they can deliver even more ads to the people.
And when we say ads we are not simply talking about product advertisement, we are talking about political ads used to radicalise the debate, that the same companies selling ads control, thanks to the network effect.
And since the majority of companies doing it are American, I blame the USA that let them do it
As paradoxical as it might sound China doesn't need to sell ads to people to convince the people to support this or that position, because there is no alternative position.
They rely on good old State propaganda, which existed for centuries ans has been studied for decades and is a well understood topic.
> There's a reason why every developed country in the World strictly controls firearms but not knifes.
As a slight tangent, Britain actually does strictly control knives - a short folding non-locking penknife is the only knife that can be carried in public without good reason, and “self defence” is considered never a good reason, and the penknife can still get you arrested if you happen to have it on you in an inappropriate place (bar, nightclub, sports event, etc).
480 deaths in a year in a country of 350M isn't a lot, and doesn't make a place "a violent country".
Being killed in a mass shooting in the US is only approximately one order of magnitude more likely than getting struck and killed by lighting in the US.
> it gives me a feeling nothing is getting out of control.
I think many of us in technology feel the same, the trick is to repress the control freak inside you and enjoy your free time while someone whose job is to fix these problems works on them.
In my case I've been diagnosed in the spectrum of autism, I know it's my problem if I get easily bored, not because I'm not checking my work email while I'm on holiday.
> I check email and sometimes answer when on vacation, because often 10 minutes spent addressing a small issue while I'm away prevents several days or a week or two of dealing with a huge issue when I get back.
The question is why ten minutes from home save days of work.
There's something horribly wrong going on if that's the case.
I'm on call a week every month, I get payed for it.
When I go back to work something happened that requires days or weeks of work to fix the issue, I will work to fix the issue for days or weeks, while still working no more than 40 hours/week.
In my case, it's not so much saving days or weeks of my time. Rather, it's being able to answer someone's quick question, direct them to someone, take a quick look at a doc and say it looks OK (or make a quick edit), etc. I don't feel it's something I have to do--and I'll only rarely do something that requires more effort--but it often seems like a pretty good cost/benefit tradeoff.
> ook at how people criticise presidents who are golfing during a national crisis where people are dying
Isn't the job of a president to handle crisis?
The job of a doctor is not to prevent any death, just those that they can prevent during their work hours.
> What's the US got to do with it?
Because they are the champions of working non stop and yet their results when it really matters (you brought up saving lives) are worse than anybody else
> Why are they relying on someone that is on vacation in the first place?
Sometimes there are only so many people who can solve a problem and society can't afford to have an excess number of them sitting around doing nothing in case there is an emergency.
> Are firemen supposed to not go on holiday ever during their work life?
Firemen, police, politicians, military, are all subject to getting recalled from leave if there is an emergency and they are needed to prevent life being lost. Nobody ever said they can't ever go on leave.
> That's simply the symptom of very bad management
No it's reality!
Look at how many people criticise presidents who are 'golfing' when there is a crisis and life is being lost.
Some people just need to be able to respond no matter what.
And (I presume, don't know what country you're in) they're both legally liable to be recalled from leave? That was my point - not what their retirement ages is.
In Czech Republic everyone could be recalled from work, but the law limits it to "serious sudden operational circumstances, the solution of which is tied to the employee taking the leave". However if they recall you (or they cancel your holiday after it's been approved), you have to be compensated for whatever monetary loss you suffered from this.
There are jobs where you have to provide the service, it's a crime to interrupt it for futile reasons.
They are not liable if they don't go to work on their free time, ever.
Healthcare, public transportation, firemen, etc. they can't not provide the service, it's called (sorry the bad translation) "interruption of public service"
Yes, they can be re-called on duty, but it happens rarely.
They are payed extra time if that happens (sometimes the hourly pay is double of the regular one)
Soldiers can't even be sent on a war mission if they don't volunteer to it.
They usually do because the pay is astronomical (4-5 times the regular one, sometimes more)
But they are not supposed to.
They can still not show if they have reason: in this 2020 for example being COVID positive or simply sick.
It happened the opposite this year, many doctors and nurses volunteered to help.
They are employees of the State after all and they serve the public.
In the private sector you have to be compensated for working extra hours, if they don't, the employers are liable.
If they ask you to work on your free time, a judge could (and usually does) condemn the employer and the employee gets a compensation.
My parents worked for the national healthcare and when my mom was expecting me, she discovered she had a condition that caused two previous miscarriages.
My parents worked shift of 12 hours 5 days straight, they assumed it was too taxing on the body of a pregnant woman with a condition, so between me and my sister the hospital put her on paid sick leave for 36 months.
My country is Italy, our salaries are lower than countries like US where such protections don't exist, but at least we are protected from abuses (they still happen of course, but it's a risk for the employer)
One of the benefit of the system is that people know they have rights and will stand up for them
If you accept to work gratis in your free time, you're doing a disservice to the entire category.
Of course there are people abusing of these rights, but in general it's a good tradeoff that benefits the larger population instead of rewarding only the workaholics.
And don't even get me started on why being a workaholic society is bad for those who can't work more because they are not in good health or worse...
Retina display are simply more dense but add nothing to the screen real estate , nobody uses them at 1x I bet many don't even know that every pixel they see is actually 4 pixels on the monitor
Better have a larger monitor than a 13 inches packed with useless and expensive pixels
You can't do what you do on a desktop on a laptop, not even a good one
Who cares if an M1 consumes less energy than a candle if I can buy 64GB of DDR4 3600 for 250 bucks and render the VFX for a 2 hours movie in 4k?
Another 300 bucks buy me a second GPU
When I deliver the job I put aside another 300 bucks and buy a third GPU
Or a better CPU
vertical products are an absolute waste of money when you chase the last bit of performance to save time (for you and your clients) and don't have the budget of Elon Musk
The M1 changes nothing in that space
Which is also a very lucrative space where every hour saved is an hour billed doing a new job instead of waiting to finish the last one to get paid
You can't mount your old gear on a rack and use it as a rendering node, plus you're paying for things you don't need: design, thermal constraints, a very expensive panel (a very good one, but still attached to the laptop body, and small)
So no, M1 is not comparable to a Threadripper, it's not even close, even if it consumes a lot more energy
When I'll see the same performances and freedom to upgrade in 20W chips, I will be the first one to buy them!
Then there's the 92% (actually 92.4%) of the remaining market that is not using an Apple computer that will keep buying non Apple hardware
Even if Apple doubled their market share, it would still be 15% Vs 85%
How is it possible that on HN people don't realise that 90 is much bigger than 10 and it's not a new laptop that will overturn the situation in a month is beyond me
And does it really matter to have a faster car if you can't use it to go camping with your family because space is limited?
That's what an Apple gives you, but it's not even a Ferrari, it's more like an Alfa Duetto
It's not expensive if you compare it to similar offers in the same category with the same constraints (which are artificially imposed on Macs like there's no other way to use a computer...)
But if you compare it to the vast amount of better configurations that the same money can buy, it is not
>You can't do what you do on a desktop on a laptop, not even a good one
Yeah… no, those days are over. The reviews clearly show the M1 Macs, including the MacBook Pro outperform most "desktops" at graphics-intensive tasks.
>So no, M1 is not comparable to a Threadripper, it's not even close, even if it consumes a lot more energy
Um… nobody is comparing an M1 Mac to a processor that often costs more than either the M1 Mac mini or MacBook Pro. However, the general consensus is the M1 outperforms PCs with mid to high-end GPUs and CPUs from Intel and AMD. Threadripper is a high-end, purpose build chip that can cost more than complete systems from most other companies, including Apple. However, it's at a cost of power consumption, special cooling in some cases, etc.
>Who cares if an M1 consumes less energy than a candle if I can buy 64GB of DDR4 3600 for 250 bucks and render the VFX for a 2 hours movie in 4k. Another 300 bucks buy me a second GPU
The MacBook Pro has faster LPDDR4X-4266 RAM on a 128-bit wide memory bus. The memory bandwidth maxes out at over 60 GB/s. And because the RAM, CPU and GPU (and all of the other units in the SoC) are all in the same die, memory is extremely fast.
From AnandTech; emphasis mine [1]:
"A single Firestorm achieves memory reads up to around 58GB/s, with memory writes coming in at 33-36GB/s. Most importantly, memory copies land in at 60 to 62GB/s depending if you’re using scalar or vector instructions. The fact that a single Firestorm core can almost saturate the memory controllers is astounding and something we’ve never seen in a design before."
It can easily render a 2-hour 4k video unplugged in the background while you're doing other stuff. And when you're done, you’ll still have enough battery to last you until the next day if necessary. According to the AnandTech review [1], it blows away all other integrated GPUs and is even faster than several dedicated GPUs. That's not nothing; and these machines do it for less money.
>vertical products are an absolute waste of money when you chase the last bit of performance to save time (for you and your clients) and don't have the budget of Elon Musk
>The M1 changes nothing in that space
This is not correct… seeing should be believing.
Here's a video of 4k, 6k and 8k RED RAW files being rendered on an M1 Mac with 8 Gb of RAM, using DaVinci Resolve 17 [2]. Spoiler: while the 8k RAW file stuttered a little, once the preview resolution was reduced to only 4k, the playback was smooooth.
The M1 beats low end desktop GPUs from a couple of generations ago (~25% faster than the 1050ti and RX560 according to this benchmark [0]). Current high end GPUs are much faster than that (e.g the 3080 is ~5 times as powerful as a 1050ti).
Don't get me wrong - this is still very impressive with a ~20w combined! power draw under full load, but it definitely doesn't beat mid - high desktop GPUs.
(This is largely irrelevant for video encoding/decoding though as you can see - as that's mostly done either on the CPU or dedicated silicon living in either the CPU or the GPU that's separate from the main graphics processing cores.)
You're missing the point. I'm not trying to argue about which system is better, I'm just saying that the comment I'm replying to is saying incorrect things about GPU performance. I'll answer your question anyway though:
You could build a complete desktop system including a GPU that's more powerful than the one in the M1 for ~$1000, but certainly not a 3080. They're very expensive, and nobody has any in stock anyway.
An RX 580 or 1660 would probably be the right GPU with that budget. (Although you could go with something more powerful and skimp out on CPU and ram if you only cared about gaming performance).
- a 3080 costs > $750 . Good luck buying one, I would if it wasn't out of stock. On the other hand the gtx 1050 mobile that is on the M1 can be easily found on eBay for < $50
- yes, you totally can. The best thing is that with a 1k.entry level you can start working on real-life projects that have deadlines and start earning money that will let you upgrade your gear to the level you actually need, without having to buy an entire new machine. The old components can serve as spare parts or to build a second node. You don't waste a single penny on things you don't need.
Even though, it's true, you can't brag with friends that it absorbs only 20 watts full load and the heat of the aluminium body is actually pleasant
Free speech is not gratis.
It needs care.