That is way too hostile for a first contact. It would be much better, at first, to politely ask them to comply with the license. If they ignore you, or refuse, then think about escalating.
What is the difference between legitimately taking advantage of open-sourceness and plagiarism? Attribution? If so, try to contact them and ask them to put your name/link to each file derived from yours.
> it's also undeniable that as a coordination mechanism the EU has been spectacularly successful.
I get you like the EU, but "spectacularly sucessful" isn't something many people would use. See covid response, and Ukraine war response. I would describe EU's mechanisms as moderately successful, i.e. somewhat better if states did everything on their own and bilaterally.
> The fact that people treat it as a national government is proof of that.
People with triste knowledge of how EU works do that. I do not think having most people in dark about how EU works is "spectacularly successful".
> There have been a lot of comments on many Internet forums
Still, the non-improvement in default setting surprised people, e.g. see the embarrasing confession by PCWorld, they did not believe the performance increase is so minuscule and asked AMD if that is for real.
> it certainly is 13%-18% over the corresponding model of the same clock frequency from AMD's previous generation.
More like 10%. And you have to overclock for that. Overclocking has become a fool's errand, you can expect it to cause problems, crashes, etc. Granted, if crashes are rare, gamers may go for it.
Gamer/enthusiast segment expects performance increase, not energy savings. CPU consumption is not even the greatest power hog in gaming PC.
Zen 3 brought 20% more performance at much better power consumption than Zen 2, and this set expectations. Zen 4 was a weaker improvement, and some people hoped that was one time thing, and maybe Zen 5 will get back to Zen 3 level improvements or better. But the improvement is even worse this time.
That's why in this consumer segment, 9700X is like Intel 11gen, a token increase in performance (and sometimes, decrease) as compared to previous gen, and thus a meh product. In other segments, like in desktops for work, or laptops, focus is different, and the same performance at lower consumption is a great new feature. So it's not all bad - it's just meh for gamers and enthusiasts.
Yes, you can overclock, and expect to either win the lottery, or maybe get problems like Intel has. If AMD did not clock these higher by default, there is a good reason for that, and it is not because of green political reasons. AMD has every incentive to clock as high as possible, to look and sell better. Most probably, the current batches of 4nm chips out of TSMC aren't rock-solid at higher clocks.
Re X3D, yes those should be better. But this is marketed as 9700X, not as 9700, so it's a flop. PCWorld was so surprised by the non-improvement that they postponed their review and checked with AMD if their poor bench results really are what AMD intended them to see.
Why? It's cheap, and it's beneficial to some European states/business, and Russians only get some small money for it from Europe. This trade does not seem to harm Ukraine efforts that much, the support given to Ukraine should overcompensate strongly. Ukrainians do not like Europe paying Russia, but they understand that just stopping gas/oil going from Russia to Europe won't help them much, and may antagonize parts of Europe.
I didn't say that, and I think that statement is wrong.
> i have a degree in physics
Oh my. You lose credibility in an argument about physics when you fall back on authority, and even more, when that authority is supposed to be you.
> I also don’t have time to argue with you. You don’t want to learn? Your loss.
But if you don't have time to argue your point, why did you post it and defended it, and only pull this lack of time now? I would like to learn something from your posts, but so far, you regurgigated the usual incorrect/misleading claims about quantum theory and what the Bell theorem and related experiments imply. So then I thought it is you who may learn something new - please check the article I gave you above. If you do not want to take it from me, take it from people in academia who are better experts on this topic.
> You win. You’ve outlasted me. You’ve successfully learned nothing, and nobody will ever care about your statements about bells inequality because they’re laughably wrong and nobody will read this anyway. Victory is yours!
I disagree, because my aim was to learn or make you learn something I know, and so far I think I didn't succeed in any of those. So, please check the article in the link, if you have genuine interest in this topic.
I observe this as well, however, because Google wants to catch your attention and keep you for as long as possible, it is quite possible that this is also because of the past view history or terms you search. That is, if in the past, you let play lots of videos from traditional media, or search things traditional media like to talk about, then this may reinforce their appering in the search results.
If you watch videos on space flights and search related terms all the time, I expect you'll get related recommendations and links on less mainstream channels.
I wonder how graphite can create shorts, when all electronics board and components on them can be easily covered with protective nonconducting PCB varnish.
> The low end models are so cheap that Apple is definitely subsidizing them
Source? I find that quite unlikely, considering their brand has strong recognition and demand, and design+manufacturing costs are probably not wildly different from other laptop makers.
They could be trying to get more people on board via lower prices, but the prices I've seen, although accessible to many people, seem similar to other brands, and seems quite compatible with making a profit.
Do you really think actual people ask for and want "ultimate productivity machines"? Btw this term reveals a true kool-aid drinker. I always wanted a machine that is reliable, supported by the software I want to use, and fast enough, and affordable. I never cared for "ultimate productivity" or winning in some bench. I accept that you do; that is something e.g. managers may talk or care about. But most of them do not seem to agree with you that Apple is the ultimate best, because most workers using computers are still on windows machines.
Was your VM running arm64 Linux on both Apple and AMD? On AMD cpu, performance of arm64 VM is expected to be poor, because it is a different architecture and "emulation" has to happen. Or do you actually compare to VM running amd64 Linux on the AMD processor?
Upgradability of RAM isn't the issue, it's the price of getting access to that RAM. On PC you get it for cheap, you just pay for the RAM modules. On Apple, you get it for arm and a leg, as you don't pay for the modules, but for the privilege to use their higher end model with enough RAM.
Bell's Theorem does not prove that. It is a theorem itself, so this theorem has been proven using quantum theory and other assumptions in Bell's paper.
In the quote, notice "Bell tests...have consistently found" and the word local. So not the Theorem, but the "Bell test" experiments' results, when interpreted using theorems like the Bell theorem and similar, show nature manifests non-local behaviour. They do not prove your belief that hidden variables do not exist.
Also, I recommend using more reliables sources than Wikipedia to argue a point about physics. It is not a reliable source, even though it is useful for discovery and occasionaly is correct.
> there are no hidden variables such that a particle really took only one path to a point and we just don’t know which one it was.
We don't know that. It is a statement of your belief in such interpretation of quantum theory.
But I wasn't suggesting hidden variables predict which path will be taken - that is a different idea. I admit my description was somewhat confusing. My point is that retrodiction of trajectory is much easier than prediction of trajectory, because of records of the past. In other words, past is constrained by existing records of the past, while future is not constrained by records of the future, because those do not exist yet.
This retrodicted past is still loaded with uncertainty stemming from the records having uncertainty, and is speculative and not experimentally testable, of course.
> It really did go through all of them. All the ones that are consistent with the current state of the system.
This is also a speculative statement that is experimentally untestable. And I agree it is consistent with quantum theory, if we add "...and consistent with records of the past". So both stances are just an interpretation of what is going on, there is no experimentally testable idea here.
You are using "real" in a way I don't recognize. In my view, the past that is real is that which corresponds to and is consistent with records of past events. This allows for many different pasts, and many can have some plausibility. But if my diary on a given date says I popped my knee, then any past which is inconsistent with this record is not real.
In orthodox quantum theory, past events, even those that happened in experiments showing quantum effects, such as double-slit experiment with single particle, are determinate in the sense they can sometimes be retrodicted from the present knowledge, even when they could not have been predicted before they happened (e.g. which hole the particle went); only future events are not determined by psi.