I thought that macOS was proprietary, and that apple only allowed it to be run on apple hardware. Just last month, I used incus to test a software package in 6 Linux distributions. I want to also test the package in macOS. Must I get a license from apple to do that with Quickemu?
Encouraged by the replies here, I tried to get quickemu to setup macOS on my AMD based desktop. The emulated machine crashed trying to boot macOS, and I gave up after a couple of hours.
The problem is that macOS ARM uses extra features that don't exist on CPUs outside of Apple Silicon. So you can run virtual macOS ARM on a macOS host (such as inside UTM), but not on anything else.
There isn't currently a real ecosystem of non-Apple ARM machines anyway.
Uh, I think they will! A few people will just keep running older versions forever, but anyone who wants a modern Mac operating system is going to be out of luck once Intel support is dropped next year.
Intel-based Macs were fundamentally commodity hardware. You can buy AMD GPUs which are very close to what Apple shipped. Select the right components, add a few software patches, and everything just kind of works.
By contrast, you can't get an Apple Silicon GPU. And on ARM, macOS doesn't support software rendering at all. Graphics alone are going to kill any future Hackintosh prospects, because even if you can get Darwin to boot on your ARM laptop, you won't be able to display anything.
An an aside, Apple never seemed to try very hard to kill personal Hackintoshes, I really don't think they cared. Now it's going to happen incidentally.
I'm polishing up the second edition of "Hidden Markov Models and Dynamical Systems." The book explains several state space models and connects them to ideas about chaos. Here's a link to a pdf draft: https://www.fraserphysics.com/book.pdf and here's a link to source for the book: https://gitlab.com/fraserphysics/hmmds Once you install the source software, you can build a pdf for the book by typing "make book". I think that makes it reproducible research.
Yes! There's more oil in the ground than we should ever burn. The places where it's cheap to get out are ruled by unpleasant people. Shale limits the price they can charge. Yea shale. However, low prices encourage putting CO2 in the air. Boo shale. I wish we would find a better way to reduce use than paying unpleasant people high prices.
> Yes! There's more oil in the ground than we should ever burn.
I don't think that everyone realizes what would happen if we did so. [0]
> Our calculated global warming in this case is 16°C, with warming at the poles about 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages ~20°C. Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world (Hatfield et al., 2011). Increased stratospheric water vapor would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer (Anderson et al., 2012).
My question is, what is going to stop this trajectory?
I don't think civilization ends if temperatures rise dramatically. A lot of existing agricultural land gets destroyed, but some currently unusable/unproductive areas that are too cold become viable. So the regions will shift. Painful but not insurmountable if it happens over a 50 year time span. But even if there wasn't such a compensatory mechanism, modern problem solving abilities will find a way - yes really. Look at the problems already solved. Nuclear reactors, solar power, vertical farming, genetically enhanced crops, alternative food sources will be engineered if the need arises. We can really stop saying that we know for sure society will end. I don't know how poor people will be affected, and yes there woll be winnners and losers as always during massive disruptive change - but hardly the end of human civilization.
There are strong signs that the small amount of increased mean tempreture seen already has been sufficient to downgrade the ability of the environment to sink what has been added.
Sure, but why even make that argument? Nobody cares about this nerd stuff. Maybe the only argument should be that "if we burn it all, then we will all die." That's the level of argument people can understand. That should be the title of every climate study going forward, shouldn't it?
Sure, you like to see evidence of global concerted action to address a global slow boiling frog problem that's unlikely to deeply affect many of the people alive today in G20 non equatorial countries but will very probably fuck up the continuity of life for grand children and great granchildren.
FWiW I read the seminal papers on this from the 1960s in the 1970s and have watched slow changes take place over decades. It's a long haul ongoing issue.
You may get some thoughts or find others to converse with in:
as you determine who Ted Nordhaus is and where he and his group fit on the sprectrum.
I'd suggest you care less about "winning arguments" and focus more on consistently conveying a message that you can back up with exposition, listen to the positions of others, and develop your stance as your knowledge grows.
But we don’t die, well we do but that’s unavoidable. Our grand kids or great grand kids are the ones that will really suffer from this, but maybe by then we will have created a successor species based on AI or something so humans would have been obsolete anyways. The 2020s will be known as the decade that made humanity’s continued existence infeasible and unnecessary?
I read the NY Times article about this earlier this morning. I thought it was not very good. I came to HN to see if it had something better. It did. The linked article is also at something like a high school level, but it gave me (retired PhD Physics) a good idea of the experiment and the theory. Thanks.
Please take a look at the most recent draft of my book "Hidden Markov Models and Dynamical Systems" https://www.fraserphysics.com/book.pdf In the first chapter I talk about a chaotic model for laser dynamics, and in the last chapter I use the same ideas to analyze ECGs.
One way to characterize the cost of cooling is entropy production. As you say, cooling is proportional to difference in temperature. However, entropy production is also proportional to temperature difference. It's not my field, but it looks like an interesting challenge to optimize competing objectives.
I started getting migraines in the 1960s. Thanks for the link.
While a cup of coffee often helped me feel better in years past, I've found eliminating coffee from my diet has reduced my headache frequency. Triptans help when I get the occasional headache now.
I was disappointed that the article didn't talk about the variety of migraine manifestations. Some of the manifestations can be confused with transient ischemic attacks.
Decaffinated coffee is getting better and better every year; that could be a way for you to keep enjoying its benefits (mostly unrelated to caffeine) without the drawbacks.
I am also not a doctor. I have an appointment with a specialist MD. My PCP was initially alarmed, but after some research and consultations believes that I am not in immediate peril.
Unfortunately the devices that those links point to would not provide 24 hours of continuous data. The data that Phillips won't give me is a continuous record of about 720 hours with a few small breaks. The interesting event was one 2 second interval in the middle of one night.
There are wearable 24 hour ECG monitors but I have no idea how accurate or sensitive they are. Perhaps your PCP can suggest one and hopefully not take you to the bank with their expensive solutions. What I do not like about the wearable devices is that they tend to use the cell phone to synchronize data and that can and most likely will lead to data-leakage with 3rd parties.
reply