Unfortunately, the HDMI port that returned isn’t so top-of-the-line – it’s an HDMI 2.0 port instead of an HDMI 2.1 port.
[…]
The SD card slot on the new MacBook Pros supports UHS-II cards, but only up to 250MB/s of data transfer, not the 312MB/s speeds that the standard is theoretically capable of.
[…]
Ethernet Port
[…]
Lenovo, Samsung, Acer, Dell, and HP all offer laptops with 5G connectivity, yet no Mac in Apple’s notebook lineup currently supports the cellular standard.
Add an external power button so that I can turn on the Mac or enter Recovery while in clamshell mode.
Add more USB ports. I have not had good experiences with hubs/docks, even Apple’s own Studio Display. Being able to directly connect more devices in a pinch, or at least not have to plug one hub into another, would help.
Make a first-party Thunderbolt dock. The current ones are pricey, and people still report them being flakey. Maybe this is inherent to the technology, but maybe if Apple made all the pieces (computer, OS, and dock) it would be better able to ensure that they work together.
Despite being hyped in expensive Super Bowl ads,
cryptocurrency is now having a difficult moment. As the New York
Times reports, “the crypto world went into a full meltdown
this week in a sell-off that graphically illustrated the risks of
the experimental and unregulated digital currencies.” One of
cryptocurrency’s most vocal skeptics is Nicholas Weaver,
senior staff researcher at the International Computer Science
Institute and lecturer in the computer science department at UC
Berkeley. Weaver has studied cryptocurrencies for years. Speaking
with Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan J. Robinson, Prof.
Weaver explains why he views the much-hyped technology with such
antipathy. He argues that cryptocurrency is useless and
destructive, and should “die in a fire.”
I can’t say I learned anything particularly novel from this interview, but Weaver’s cogent arguments and descriptions of how cryptocurrency works gave me confidence that I wasn’t missing anything. There just isn’t any there there other than burning an unconscionable amount of electricity.
Weaver:
So the stock market and the bond market are a positive-sum game.
There are more winners than losers. Cryptocurrency starts with
zero-sum. So it starts with a world where there can be no more
winning than losing. We have systems like this. It’s called the
horse track. It’s called the casino. Cryptocurrency investing is
really provably gambling in an economic sense. And then there’s
designs where those power bills have to get paid somewhere. So
instead of zero-sum, it becomes deeply negative-sum.
Effectively, then, the economic analogies are gambling and a Ponzi
scheme. Because the profits that are given to the early investors
are literally taken from the later investors. This is why I call
the space overall, a “self-assembled” Ponzi scheme. There’s been
no intent to make a Ponzi scheme. But due to its nature, that is
the only thing it can be.
Weaver also makes a strong case that ransomware is only feasible as an industry because of cryptocurrency.
Woodpeckers recently came out with the MortiseMatch, which is “like a router table for your [Festool] Domino.”
The Woodpeckers MortiseMatch is basically a huge base that allows you to bring smaller work to the Festool Domino floating tenon mortise cutter, rather than taking the tool to your workpiece.
The MortiseMatch is priced at $699.99 and is set to launch at the end of September, 2022.
Note: Woodpeckers’ limited time introductory price that cannot be beat has ended, with $699.99 as the final preorder and planned retail price.
Woodworking enthusiasts have accused Woodpeckers of stealing the idea from Carmonius Finsnickeri, which shared details about his innovative jig in a YouTube video 2 years ago.
Woodpeckers has responded to the controversy on YouTube, saying:
We’ve recently received some criticism accusing us of stealing this product idea from a YouTube video. While we certainly saw the video in question while researching MortiseMatch, it was only one of the videos and articles we found. The earliest similar design we found was from 2001, 18 years earlier than the video that is being claimed to be the soul source of our inspiration.
Nothing in our marketing of MortiseMatch claimed this to be a completely unique idea. In fact, the second paragraph of the product release email specifically mentioned that we had reviewed several designs online and found them to be lacking certain features we found critically important, primarily the ability to adjust the height of the cut.
Here are just a few of the links to web pages we found while researching table mounting the Domino, all of which pre-date the Carmonius Finsnickeri video by almost 2 decades.
Carmonius Finsnickeri’s Festool Domino table jig.
Shown here is Finsnickeri’s Domino table.
Finsnickeri responded to Woodpecker’s statement, with paragraph breaks added in for easier readability:
I have stayed away from commenting but since you [Woodpeckers] didn’t answer my email I give my side of the story here.
I also made some search when I did my Domino table and found some of the ones you linked to. As opposed to bisquits, where the left to right alignment isn’t super critical, the domino cuts needs to be spot on for a jig like this to make any sense.
So, I invented the workflow with flipping the fence in a fast and very accurate way. This is where it differs from “just another bisquit joiner table” and what makes it a domino jig rather than bisquit jig. It also gives the advantage that the cut doesn’t need to be centered in thickness. This is the brain in the product, not the table itself, and this workflow I was first with.
My Domino table was also the first (what I know) that addressed how to work with different thicknesses, as well as solving work holding in a simple, quick and flexible way. Not that revolutionary though since Microjig released their clamps and everybody use this concept, but I used the (festool) routed in clamp concept since 2011.
Anyway, as I wrote on Festool Owners Group, I’m not as upset as other seems to be although I think it looks a lot like my table. Also I think the timing to “try the domino on narrow parts” some 15 years after it was released could be a factor to the reactions as it lines up pretty well with the release of my videos. As you are aware of Veritas handled this differently and saw me as the originator, but each to his own, that’s not my business.
Biscuit joiner jigs have indeed been around for some time. However, Finsnickeri’s Domino table looks to greatly improve upon the concept in unique ways.
Woodpeckers’ $700 MortiseMatch looks to enhance things further, but is it too close to Finsnickeri’s design?
It is not uncommon for tool brands to pay inventors and community members for original ideas that they convert into profitable products.
Sparkfun, a brand and retailer that specializes in hobbyist-type electronics products, came out with a third hand kit, and they state on the product page that they pay a royalty to the person whose Instructable tutorial inspired its design.
Lee Valley/Veritas worked with Peter Parfitt on their MFT/3 and multifunctional table dogs. As Veritas partnered with Parfitt to make their stainless steel Parf dogs, it is presumed that the inventor receives a portion of the sales.
Karas Pen Co. partnered with Dudek Modern Goods on machined pen storage cubes that were adapted from Mike Dudek’s small batch wood cubes.
Tool brands usually work with individual inventors and makers when unique design drive their commercial product ideas.
In the context of Woodpeckers’ MortiseMatch, the two designs are admittedly similar. But is Finsnickeri’s design different enough from the biscuit joiner tables that preceded it?
Lee Valley has a Veritas shooting board, but the style is so familiar that no one can be credited with the idea.
Earlier this year, we were spammed with many comments from someone claiming Klein Tools stole their idea and that they are owed royalties for Klein’s glow in the dark pliers and screwdrivers.
Equipping a tool with glow in the dark handles is not an original idea.
But, is Finsnickeri’s Domino table original enough of an idea where maybe Woodpeckers should have worked with them on the MortiseMatch Domino table?
Woodpeckers are good people, or at least this was still true a few years ago when I last talked with anyone there, and I am inclined to believe they are still good people, and that this is just an unfortunate situation.
Here’s what it comes down to: Did Finsnickeri’s Domino table inspire Woodpeckers’ new MortiseMatch Domino table in a measurable way?
That Woodpeckers doesn’t credit them at all implies that their answer is no. But woodworkers – and Finsnickeri – are of the opinion that a major design element was copied.
There’s no legal obligation for companies to credit anyone for unpatented or unprotected ideas. But is this ethical?
As referenced in Finsnickeri public response to Woodpeckers, Lee Valley/Veritas is ALSO building a Festool Domino table. Here’s what Rob Lee from Lee Valley said about the matter:
We have a modified version in pre-production right now – and ARE paying Ola [Carmonius Finsnickeri] royalties.
We don’t yet know what the Veritas version will look like, but Lee Valley will be crediting and paying royalties to Finsnickeri for his contribution to their Domino table design.
Should Woodpeckers have done the same? Woodpeckers apparently thinks no while the woodworking community seems to be heavily leaning towards yes.
Here are the videos for anyone that wants to learn more:
had woodpeckers attempted to patent, and then go about defending it, that would be unethical.
them making their version of a product that isn’t patented, isn’t unethical at all.
i hate the patent system, but it is what we have. if you have a great idea but no way to go about making it a product yourself, and you decline to chase a patent you could then license out, then you PUBLISH IT OPENLY, then you don’t really have any right to bitch about the results if somebody DOES pursue making a sellable product from it.
Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR) today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by an entity wholly owned by Elon Musk, for $54.20 per share in cash in a transaction valued at approximately $44 billion. Upon completion of the transaction, Twitter will become a privately held company.
Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated. I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.
After the announcement, sentiment in the public Slack channels remained largely concerned and negative, employees told me. “I was kind of surprised how much people seemed like they were giving up,” one told me. “Big bummer.”
But in one-on-one discussions, responses were more tempered. Some employees I’ve spoken with are open to the idea that a private Twitter run by Musk stands a better chance of improving the service than would a public company beholden to its shareholders. They like the fact that he wants to eliminate harmful bots and bring more clarity to how recommendation algorithms work.
[…]
In the meantime, the other big question looming over all this is who will run Twitter day to day.
The idea and service is all that matters to me, and I will do whatever it takes to protect both. Twitter as a company has always been my sole issue and my biggest regret. It has been owned by Wall Street and the ad model. Taking it back from Wall Street is the correct first step.
In principle, I don’t believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness.
Elon’s goal of creating a platform that is “maximally trusted and broadly inclusive” is the right one. This is also @paraga’s goal, and why I chose him. Thank you both for getting the company out of an impossible situation. This is the right path...I believe it with all my heart.
The Twitter transaction was approved by the company’s board and is now subject to a shareholder vote. No regulatory hurdles are expected, analysts said.
elon can be a jerk _in my opinion_, but i also think some of that comes with the scrutiny of success and living the life he does, so i try not to burn him in effigy like some others do.
we will see. i want to think this as a good thing.
Apple is developing a larger 15-inch MacBook Air that could come out in 2023, according to research shared today by Display Supply Chain Consultants in its quarterly report.
The full report is limited to those in the display industry who subscribe, but display analyst Ross Young provided a bit of color on what can be expected. Apple is working on a MacBook Air that's somewhere around 15 inches in size, with the machine set to debut alongside a "slightly larger" 13-inch MacBook Air.
According to Young, the larger-sized 15-inch MacBook Air is slated for release in 2023, but a specific launch date unknown. This is not the first time that we've heard about a 15-inch MacBook Air, as Bloomberg's Mark Gurmansaid last year that Apple was working on a larger MacBook Air with a 15-inch display size.
At the time, Gurman said that Apple had "considered" building a larger version of the MacBook Air, but decided not to move forward with it "for the next generation." Gurman did not mention whether Apple had nixed the idea all together, but it appears that the larger MacBook Air project has not been abandoned.
Internal Apple emails that came out during the Epic Games v. Apple trial also indicate that Apple considered a larger 15-inch MacBook Air as early as 2008, but instead went with the smaller 13-inch model.
Apple this year is expected to introduce a redesigned version of the MacBook Air that brings new color options and does away with the tapered design, but it is expected to have the same general 13-inch screen size. It will be a surprise if Apple introduces a total redesign in 2022 and then a larger redesigned version of the MacBook Air in 2023, but it's a possibility.
Along with a larger version of the MacBook Air, DSCC says that Apple is working on a base model iPad that could be "slightly larger" than the current 10.2-inch model.
a lot of people will shit on this, but this is a smart move. my dad doesn’t need a Pro, but wants a machine he can use from his recliner while watching TV, and as a young fella in his 70s, his eyes would appreciate a larger screen, without all the additional uplifts (and cost) that come in a Pro. my mother in law is similar in age, but needs a portable machine as her retirement involves a lot of traveling and conferences for a teaching sorority she’s heavily involved with. she’s been happy with the 13” Air, but would welcome a 15” purely for the screen size advantages.
The first benchmark for Apple's M1 Ultra chip popped up on Geekbench following today's event, confirming that the doubled-up M1 Max is indeed able to outperform the highest-end Mac Pro as Apple claims.
Labeled Mac13,2, the Mac Studio with 20-core M1 Ultra that was benchmarked earned a single-core score of 1793 and a multi-core score of 24055.
Comparatively, the highest-end Mac Pro with 28-core Intel Xeon W chip has a single-core score of 1152 and a multi-core score of 19951, so the M1 Ultra is 21 percent faster in this particular benchmark comparison when it comes to multi-core performance. As for single-core performance, the M1 Ultra is 56 percent faster than the 28-core Mac Pro.
Apple has claimed that the M1 Ultra is up to 60 percent faster than the 28-core Mac Pro when it comes to CPU performance, so Apple may be referencing single-core differences in the metrics that it shared during today's event. This is just one benchmark, so we could see the M1 Ultra performing better in additional benchmarks following the March 18 release of the Mac Studio.
Log in
