Understood. Intent is often difficult to robustly convey without being neurotically verbose.
I promise my response was not borne of annoyance. I just got the impression that you wanted to focus credit on the one thing about the A1 SOC which could plausibly attributed to anyone other than Apple. That seemed a stretch, is all.
Unfortunately, I know what you mean. I have a tendency toward verbosity that makes it feel that every time I write a post I'm crafting a treatise that might make the great statesmen of old blush (with the exception that I'm far too stupid to make it as interesting or entertaining).
And yes, intent is difficult to convey through text even if you're afforded a great deal of time and effort.
> you wanted to focus credit on the one thing about the A1 SOC
No, not at all. The ML cores and other, err, accessory CPUs they've added are incredibly fascinating. Mostly I was thinking of the ARM portion of the hardware.
Truthfully, I confess that part of my excitement lending itself to ARM is because I genuinely want to see more vendors follow Apple's footsteps and either a) craft their own designs or b) build out ARM-based platforms that will lead toward greater competition in the desktop/laptop markets (or both?). Fortunately, Apple's tendency toward setting market trends gives me some hope that we'll see noteworthy contributions that embarrass x86 and upend the idiotic convention that I think M1 has finally broken. Namely that you can have a chip that works on an incredibly tiny power budget or you can have performance. Apple's proven we can have both, and I think that's a good step forward. It excites me that we may actually see viable competition this decade, and if we do, I'll absolutely credit Apple with upending conventional wisdom and proving that our fixation on x86 for "performance" was myopic and unnecessary.
Maybe that explains my reasoning a bit more. At the expense of being unnecessarily verbose (though you may appreciate that). :)
Also, I owe you an apology. I wrote my reply out of some frustration last night. Regrettably I allowed myself to get sucked into a "discussion" with someone I didn't know was an antivaxxer until I realized their refusal to listen to an explanation of microbiology wasn't born out of lack of interest but rather suspicion. When I saw your post, I genuinely believe I unfairly took some of that frustration out on you. I'm truly sorry about that.
The explanation is appreciated. We’re all human and passions drive us in weird, occasionally unpredictable ways. I’m undoubtedly as guilty of it as anyone.
> We’re all human and passions drive us in weird, occasionally unpredictable ways.
Very true. It's just our nature, and we're all fallible beings in some way or another. Lord knows I'm at the top of the fallibility list.
> I’m undoubtedly as guilty of it as anyone.
I am as well; more than most, in fact.
> Also, fuck those anti-vaxxers.
Agreed!
I didn't realize that was their opinion at the time, so I shared a bunch of medical literature in the hopes of supporting my argument. What I didn't realize was their opinion of any supporting evidence was dismissed as clearly "paid for" by, uh, $LARGE_FACELESS_ENTITY.
While I'm sure that's true in some cases, the mRNA COVID vaccines are fascinating because the principle has been around since 1989. I'm hoping it works, not specifically because of SARS-CoV-2, but because it shows some possibility as an anti-cancer vaccine. We just need to prove the delivery mechanism is functional.
I really want it to work so that we can manage or eliminate other diseases as well. I think that's why I was so frustrated/disappointed.
I promise my response was not borne of annoyance. I just got the impression that you wanted to focus credit on the one thing about the A1 SOC which could plausibly attributed to anyone other than Apple. That seemed a stretch, is all.