What does "tech startup" actually mean. Is there a concise, unambiguous definition
Putting aside the ambiguous term "tech", why not just use the term "company"
The term "company" can be defined concisely as, e.g., "an association of persons for the purpose of carrying on some enterprise or business". Note there is no need to refer to an example company
Is it possible to define "startup" without referring to an example startup
IPv6? You wouldn’t even need to expose the actual endpoints out on the open internet. DNAT on the edge and point inbound traffic on a VM responsible for cert renewals, then distribute to the LAN devices actually using those addresses.
"Ultra" isn't even binned - it's just 2x "Max" chips connected together.
Otherwise, yes, if a chip doesn't make M4 Max, it can make M4 Pro. If not, M4. If not, A18 Pro. If not that, A18.
And even all of the above mentioned marketing names come in different core configurations. M4 Max can be 14 CPU Cores / 32 GPU cores, and it can also be 16 CPU cores and 40 GPU cores.
So yeah, I'd agree that Apple has _extreme_ binning flexibility. It's likely also the reason why we got A19 / A19 Pro / M5 first, and we still don't have M5 Pro or M5 Max yet. Yields not high enough for M5 Max yet.
Unfortunately I don't think they bin down even lower (say, to S chips used in Apple Watches), but maybe in the future they will.
In retrospect, Apple ditching Intel was truly a gamechanging move. They didn't even have to troll everyone by putting an Intel i9 into a chassis that couldn't even cool an i7 to boost the comparison figures, but I guess they had to hedge their bet.
> yes, if a chip doesn't make M4 Max, it can make M4 Pro. If not, M4. If not, A18 Pro. If not that, A18.
No, that's entirely wrong. All of those are different dies. The larger chips wouldn't even fit in phones, or most iPad motherboards, and I'm not sure a M4 Max or M4 Pro SoC package could even fit in a MacBook Air.
As a general rule, if you think a company might ever be selling a piece of silicon with more than half of it disabled, you're probably wrong and need to re-check your facts and assumptions.
There are two levels of Max Chip, but think of a Max as two pros on die (this is simplification, you can also think of as pro as being two normal cores tied together), so a bad max can't be binned into a pro. But a high-spec Max can be binned into a low-spec Max.
I’m pretty confident that the US SIGINT agencies wouldn’t manipulate BGP to redirect traffic somewhere, as such a hijack will ALWAYS leave traces that would be observable by anyone impacted, downstream or upstream.
US SIGINT agencies? They’d just pwn the routers they are interested in. And almost certainly they’ve already done it. Like 10+ years ago.
BGP hijacks are really low-tech and trivial to detect. And competent intelligence agencies don’t do either, unless it comes with enough plausible deniability that it would even be insane to suggest foul play.
I operate a small BGP hobbynet under 2 different AS numbers, and even I keep logs about path changes. Not for any practical purpose, just sheer curiosity.
BGP is a globally distributed and decentralized system. The messages (announcements) propogate virtually across the entire internet. If someone hijacked a route to a prefix that I’ve received, and the path I’ve received is the hijacked one, I’d get that information.
So yes, if that happened, I’d totally expect CloudFlare to publish it, unless they got a NSL. Which they most probably wouldn’t get, as NOTHING about the event would be secret—-it would be out in the open for everyone to see the instant it would happen. There are also tools like https://bgp.tools which operate public route collectors, with the data being publicly available. RIPE has one too.
reply