Just to make sure that people understand the clarification correctly: This is about upstreaming the work by Asahi Linux team. In particular, Linux on Apple Silicon macs is quite usable already if you use their own Arch-based distribution which includes yet-to-be-upstreamed patches. I run it on my M1 Air and the only major (to me) things with no support yet are the builtin speakers (afaik support is coming soon) and the webcam.
Bluetooth sound, and third-party sound cards have been working for almost the entire time, IIRC. Recently the internal 3.5mm jack was enabled, built-in speakers are still a work-in-progress.
They tend to be very cautious about advertising it as usable vs in testing itself. E.g. GPU acceleration is an opt in to the edge packages of Asahi, which they consider at alpha stage itself. Even with that approach there is still a surprising number of users that join IRC confused it's not further along, largely because there is a huge variance in what one considers usable.
on my m2 power levels and sleep don't work right : if i close the lid, it heats up and smells like model airplane glue, and that's super annoying. if i leave the lid open, or just power down, it's fine.
They don’t have support for putting the cpu to sleep yet. A recent update switches it to its lowest frequency when the lid is closed but it’s still not off like with macOS. It sounds like they are pretty close to having it sorted though.
Here's sketch how to construct such a function: Let's start by defining f on Q (the rational numbers) by first splitting Q into countable number of disjoint dense subsets A_n of R (e.g. look at reduced fractions whose denominators are of the form p^k for some prime p, for fixed p every such set is dense and for different p's they are disjoint). As rationals themselves are countable, we may then set f(x) = q_n for all x in A_n, where q_n is an enumeration fo the rationals.
This construction already gives us a function such that every interval (x_1, x_2) contains a point x such that f(x) = y for every rational number y.
Now, in a similar way we may consider a set of the form s + Q where s is an irrational number. Setting f(x) = s + q_n for all x in s + A_n, we get a function which also attains all numbers of the form y = s + q for some rational q on every interval.
Finally, let's say that two real numbers s and t are equivalent if they differ by a rational number. By the axiom of choice we can choose a representative from every equivalence class, so that for every two representatives s and t the sets s + Q and t + Q are disjoint. Using the above construction for every representative lets you define a function with the property you wanted.
Yeah, bad wording. 338*2 is in the range, but is nowhere near the 12 tones we use when A=440 (and wont be with integral doubling or halving). The property "within the range A4=440 A5=880" doesn't have any particular special musical meaning.
The idea I wanted to convey is that 440-880 is just a convention, starting from 440 as concept pitch, but concept pitch can be totally different (and outside the range). 432 is a famous standard which has and is been used today, but also tons of others, even widely outside the range...
(also: "but it's a perfectly fine not" --> "note").
I think what could be worth exploring is progressive energy taxing. Basically let each individual consume a certain amount which is needed for living a normal life, but tax energy usage exceeding that increasingly heavily.
On top of this base model one could then also introduce subsidies for specific energy intensive industries that are deemed essential (probably not bitcoin).
That would handle the distribution of limited* amount of energy
we have. CO2 emissions should probably be taxed separately and progressive rates would seem reasonable to me here as well.
* Yes, we can still build more, but at some point the energy usage has to stagnate. Exponential growth in usage would lead the Earth to become very hot in a few hundred years since the only way heat gets released to space is via infrared radiation which is limited by the surface area of the planet [1, Section 1.3].
Perhaps a bit misleading title since the predictions were mainly (with a few exceptions) about the future of music industry instead of music itself.
It is an interesting question how much music itself can advance while still staying enjoyable by a significant number of people. For instance much of the popular music nowadays appears to be rather simplistic in terms of rhythms and harmony, and the innovation has been happening more on the timbre.
In classical music more modern approaches such as atonality never seemed to gather such large scale interest as the stuff from older masters. Time will show if e.g. microtonal music will make a breakthrough at some point, but it is hard since the new harmonies sound just 'wrong' until the listener learns them. (Of course for some native listeners the same could presumably be said about western music.)
I guess it's not a completely unreasonable guess to say that there are some optimal thresholds of complexity for a human brain and that's why simple regular clapping and singing in thirds and fifths will continue to evoke the strongest emotions for the majority of people.
I think one aspect of climate engineering that I don't see discussed very much is who is allowed to do that: Is a single country permitted to make decisions that affect the whole globe? Who decides how hot/cold the earth should be?
Just as an example, some African countries could decide that in fact they would like to make the climate even colder than it used to be, which on the other hand would negatively impact agriculture away from equator. I think these questions form a big potential source of global power struggle and conflict.
