Has anybody managed to run a Mac Intel env within a Mac Arm?
I am working on that project that needs to be built and packaged for both Arm & Intel.
2,839 karma · joined February 24, 2010
I am working on that project that needs to be built and packaged for both Arm & Intel.
The idea was to literally fit a Nordic SoC in a Casio watch, and update the screen to show more segments.
I never managed to find someone to manufacture the screen sadly.
I encourage people to listen to Josh Matthews interview [0]. He talks about how, early on, Servo was a "guiding light for Rust".
0: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ydXN0YWNlYW4tc3R...
One can always dream…
> Why does an email client need a web browser to function, and why is that the "perfect starting point"?
I'm not saying using Firefox is the best thing, but there are arguments to be made: first, Firefox is multiplatform, and good at it, and that's something Thunderbird needs as well. Then, like you said, an email client needs to display web pages, so no matter what, a web engine is needed (and it's absolutely possible to re-use Firefox core without building and including all the HTML features regular Firefox comes with). And finally, the whole TB code base is already in JS/XPCom, which would make the transition much easier.
> Hey, Mozilla, remember XUL? Before you decided to deprecate and remove it from Firefox, it was the unified UI framework that both a browser and an email client could use
That's an unnecessary snarky. There are millions of reasons why it made sense to remove XUL. Yes, on paper XUL is great, but it was based on old UI ideas, we had to make tons of hacks to work around those old ideas, and performance was not on par with what overly-optimised HTML could achieve. XBL was way to limited, and tons of features were just useless (remember RDF and templates?).
I would love to see XUL come back, but we need a modern version of it, and to be honest, this could just be an extension of HTML.
> without sharing any of their core dependencies
That's not true.
> I'm surprised Mozilla still has interest in maintaining Thunderbird
It's not Mozilla-Mozilla who's maintaining Thunderbird, but another entity.
That trackpoint + the good old thinkpad keyboard were, to me, the best experience ever. But thinkpad were always too hot, too big, and then they gave up on that amazing keyboard.
Perfect thinkpad: - 4:3 screen - arm-based - touchpad-less, grippy-trackpoint - old-keyboard
We over simplify what expansion really is, which leads to this type of thinking.
Expansion and gravity are results of the same equations.
Einstein equations are difficult to use, so we usually split the results in two models, FLRW (empty space) and Schwarzschild metrics (around matter). Computing the equations leads, respectively, to expansion and gravity. And it's not like there's one and the other, with gravity fighting expansion. It's "one or the other".
Around matter (in Schwarzschild metric), solving Einstein questions, we see zero expansion drifting. If there is matter, there is gravity, and no expansion.
Quoting Wikipedia [1]:
> Once objects are formed and bound by gravity, they "drop out" of the expansion and do not subsequently expand under the influence of the cosmological metric, there being no force compelling them to do so
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Effe...
If anyone is interested in parity symmetry or CPT symmetry in general, I can't recommend this book enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambidextrous_Universe and in particular the part about the Ozma Problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambidextrous_Universe#The_...
Fascinating stuff.
We have an accepted standard model. 2 in fact. QM and Lambda CDM say very little about how things were working very close the t=0, and say absolutely nothing about how the conditions were a t=0 or "before".
As I said in my comment, people suggest ideas of how things could be. But nothing tangible, nothing ever included in ΛCDM, nothing predicted by QM… we are missing data, solid math, and solid physic to postulate anything about t<=0. I mean … we don't even know how gravity works in these conditions. How could we even say anything about time!
> Q.E.D.
I would classify your previous comment as pseudo science, and saying "it's difficult for most people to grasp" as lack of humility.
If you do understand how space and time were structured "before the existence of our universe", you should go claim a Nobel price.
We don't know that.
> Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence."
These are just speculations. Some theories indeed mention that, but they are not part of our standard models.
For now, we just don't know.
> it's difficult for most people to grasp.
Oh come on…
The fact the cells are not aligned with our visual representation doesn't mean it's "upside-down". Like you said, it's undefined, and the brain figures out what these cells represent.
There's no flipping going on.
It's so annoying to use that I really use it when I have to.
I think once extensions were introduced, they probably didn't need to extend the protocol.
There were a few implementations of X for different unixes. Mostly closed source. It was very buggy, and patches were posted online, under the form a LD_PRELOAD-ed libraries. iirc, I had to preload a few libraries to work around the HPUX X implementation to be capable of running Mozilla Suite.
Fun times :)
- ISS is 400 km from earth.
- Hubble is 500 km from earth.
- The moon is 384_400 km from earth. It took us 3 days to fly there.
- JWST will be 1_500_000 km from earth. It will take 30 days to fly to its final position.
- https://vasilishynkarenka.com/how-to-make-hard-decisions/
That was just the trigger for me to finally take terrifying but necessary actions.
- https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-17613/10-signs-fear-is-runni...
I hit almost all the boxes and understood why I felt like a control freak.