This might be a dumb question: Is the author looking to run 4k display at HiDPI 8k framebuffer and then downscale? What's the advantage of doing so versus direct 4k low-DPI? Some sort of "free" antialiasing?
From what I understand, the main goal is to fix the problem that non-native (1:1 pixel mapping) resolutions and scaling look worse than native. This is a problem when you ship high-dpi displays that need UI scaling in order for things to be readable. Apple's solution was to render everything at a higher, non-native resolution so that images were always downscaled to fit the display.
So to oversimplify, Windows can have a problem where if you are running 1.5X scaling so text is big enough, you can't fit 4K of native pixels on a 4K display so videos are blurry. If instead you were rendering a scaled image to a 6K framebuffer and then downscaling to 4K, there would be minimal loss of resolution.
I do not know who was the moron that first used scaling in conjunction with displays having a higher resolution, but this is a non-solution that should have never been used anywhere.
Already more than 35 years ago the correct solution was used. For text and for graphics, the sizes must be specified only in length units, e.g. in typographic points or millimeters or inches, e.g. by configuring a 12-point font for a document or for an UI element. Then the rasterizer for fonts and for graphics renders correctly everything at a visual size that is independent of the display resolution, so it is completely irrelevant whether a display is HiDPI or not.
To combat the effect of rounding to an integer number of pixels, besides anti-aliasing methods, the TTF/OTF fonts have always included methods of hinting that can produce pixel-perfect characters at low screen resolutions, if that is desired (if the font designer does the tedious work required to implement this). Thus there never exists any reason for using scaling with fonts.
For things like icons, the right manner has unfortunately been less standardized, but it should have been equally easy to always have a vector variant of the icons that can be used at arbitrary display resolutions, supplemented by a set of pre-rendered bitmap versions of the icons, suitable for low screen resolutions.
I am always astonished by the frequent discussions about problems caused by "scaling" on HiDPI displays in other operating systems, because I have been using only HiDPI displays for more than a dozen years and I had no problems with them while using typefaces that are beautifully rendered at high resolution, because I use X11 with XFCE, where there is no scaling, I just set the true DPI value of the monitors and everything works fine.
> Then the rasterizer for fonts and for graphics renders correctly everything at a visual size that is independent of the display resolution, so it is completely irrelevant whether a display is HiDPI or not.
Well that sounds great in theory, but then you'll get only one button per screen on your laptop and maybe two on your desktop. More likely one and a half.
> From what I understand, the main goal is to fix the problem that non-native (1:1 pixel mapping) resolutions and scaling look worse than native.
That would be my instinct as well, but the author seems to be delibarately doing the exact opposite. Trying to force a 2x HiDPI and then downscaling to native display resolution whereas he could have just done a 1:1 LoDPI rendering. What you get in the end is some equivalent of hack/brute-force smoothing/antialiasing of what was rendered in the downsample.
The author said that the problem is that Apple has introduced a size limit for the display (3360x1890) that is lower than the size of the actual display, which is a standard 4k display (3840x2160).
So 1:1 rendering can cover only a part of the screen, while the remainder remains unused.
If the maximum size limit is used but applied to the entire screen, it does not match the native resolution so interpolation is used to convert between images with different resolutions, blurring the on-screen image.
All the attempts were done with the hope that there is some way to convince the system to somehow use the greater native image size instead of the smaller size forced by the limits.
Nope, you completely misread the post. All Mac’s including M4s and M5s can run at a 1:1 4K resolution all day long filling the screen completely. That’s not what the OP wanted though, they wanted to render at 8k (roughly 7680 px by 4320 px), then downsample that by 2x in each direction to map to the 4K display. Supposedly to make things “look better” than rendering at the native resolution but it sounds insane to me.
That does not seem to be the case for my M4 Mac mini in native "low-DPI" mode with a 4K display, so I think the problem only appears in HiDPI (7680x4320 framebuffer downscaled back to 3840x2160 only). The author seems to be confirming the max intermediate framebuffer is 6720 pixels wide.
even on a native 2K monitor, having a virtual 5K frame buffer downscaled to 2K yields perfectly enjoyable results, compared to how macOS' native 2K image would look like; it causes eye-bleed :)
Assuming by 2K you mean 2560x1440, I also prefer non-integer HiDPI 2560x1440 mode over both native and HiDPI 1080p modes on my large (55”) 4K display, and the non-integer scaling is only rarely a problem.
Impressive, of course; but not quite that impressive.
Only true if all you're running is matmul (supercomputer has general purpose CPUs so more flexible than M1 GPU) - also those flops are probably FP64 in supercomputer ratings and FP32 in M1.
As a smart man I knew used to say, supercomputers are about I/O not raw compute. Those have terabytes of RAM not 8GB.
Your question hits directly at latency vs. throughput distinction. Depends on which you mean by "fast."
Throughput-wise, the supercomputer is competitive because it has a lot of local RAM connected to lots of independent nodes, which, in aggregate, is comparable to modern laptop's RAM throughput (still much more than disk) with a caveat, that you can only leverage the supercomputer bandwidth if your workload is embarrassingly parallel running on all nodes[1]. Latency-wise, old RAM still beats NVMe by two or three orders of magnitude.
[1]: there's another advantage that supercomputer has which is lots more of local SRAM caches. If the workload is parallel and can benefit from cache locality, it blows away the modern microprocessor.
> When I wrote last week that the MacBook Neo is the first product from Apple with an A-series chip sporting more than one USB port — addressing complaints that the Neo’s second USB-C port only supports USB 2.0 speeds — a few readers pointed to the Apple Silicon developer transition kits.
A12Z is really M0 (or you could say M1 is A14X or A14Z depending on GPU bin), so I would not characterize it as "(iPhone) A-series."
Trump also has said "I will bomb the shit out of them -- I don't care" on the campaign trail.
I think a relatively accurate model of the people's opinion towards intervention might be quite simple: it is good if we win relatively swiftly and bad if we lose and/or don't gain anything, and the opinion at the time is shaped (and over time altered) based on their estimate of the outcome, but no politician says it that way so it is always cast as black and white pro-war/anti-war.
In the current case, I think many Americans, even Democrats, recognize the regime in Iran as a threat that needs to be dealt with somehow (a deal or an intervention). Their worry is the cost and ramifications, not some ulterior principle. If Trump brings home a win and some oil to boot soon-ish, you're going to see positive sentiments more clearly. If this drags on, the backlash will be there, and will be phrased as "MAGA never wanted the war" and along your lines of isolationist promises not kept.
I am afraid that this will bring them closer together. That the people who would welcome outside world to do a magical thing that reforms Iran wont like the practical thing the world actually did.
By afraid I am not saying it will happen, it is not a prediction. I think that it is a risk.
Two weeks ago it was 30k, a week ago it was 35k, now it's 40k+, but OSINT sources keep the number around 15k (including 1.3 k from the Iranian government own forces) and don't move it up. I'm pretty sure the real number is higher than the one OSINT resources can give, considering the uprising and repression also happened in small, less connected cities, but the constant increase is honestly very off-putting, and the more it happens, the more it feels like manufacturing consent.
There have been numbers as high as 90k reported initially, so I wouldn't say it is "moving up" across time but across sources. There is no clear data, but at this point 30-32k appears to be the lower bound estimate over which there's a consensus. Likely to be higher.
Maybe, but I distinctly remember the numbers 15 up to 30k two weeks ago from the UN Iran watchdog.
Then a week ago, a US-based watchdog let the number 35k float, and all of the sudden that's the number used by US department of state. And now the number you just threw is 40k.
Meanwhile, the OSINT community confirmed deaths are still around 15k. I will admit, the bombing doesn't help because we cross data from funerals and morgues/hospitals, and now we will have to distinguish bombing victims from repression victims, which in some areas (southeast and west mostly) is difficult.
I didn’t see any more brutality than I saw from US regime and especially ICE.
I never saw a person shot in the face in Iran but I saw in the US. Should we bomb US?
Also, 30k dead means there would be at least some proof. Once Iran reinstated internet after protests NO VIDEOS of killings showed up. Protesters decided not to record any of the killings?!
I'm not gonna debate the obvious with an account with 53 karma who denies the existence of basic stuff or not aware of the obvious who wants to lash out against the west. No videos my ass. I'm not gonna be your Google, so I am out.
It’s just an NPC accusation thrown at Iran to justify killing millions of civilians. Why even entertain this shit from people who are just pretending to care about it. Everyone knows what they want to do is raze Iran.
Current campaigns will kill way more iranians. Plus regime didn't bomb 200 girls to pieces in their school, did it.
Thats extremely hard sell, with cherry on top when you have a literal video of tomahawks hitting that area during that time and trump claiming it was iranians who bombed it... just spits and insults in the face
Your math is not mathing. 30-40k in 2 days unarmed civilians vs I dunno 6k almost all military in a week? If you look at the stats of executions etc you'll see civilian casualties in Iran go DOWN while being bombed.
> regime didn't bomb 200 girls to pieces in their school, did it.
Yes, actually they did. It was their own missile. Just like the Ukrainian plane they shot down a few years back.
I said will, please read comments more thoroughly before replying. Everybody agrees this war will drag for some time.
Care to backup those wild claims with any facts? The video of tomahawk I talk about is circulating all over internet, so its pretty uphill battle to discredit it when clearly tomahawks are landing
Nothing about this is such a wild claim if you are familiar with their past behavior.
There were Persian language sources inside Iran that immediately after the incident attributed it to IRGC missile misfire, before some outlets started using that as propaganda material (which by the way played out perfectly.)
Do you lack proper internet connection today? Whole world media, western or not, are writing about this, how its clearly US missile. Bellingcat did a detailed analysis and confirmed this, look at washington post, guardian and so on.
Plus the video itself, you somehow avoid commenting completely about the prime evidence. Not fitting your not entirely correct narrative, is it?
If you would even care about the topic properly you could argue that school wasn't far from military base and divert the topic with some whataboutism and finish with fog of war theme, but even that's not whats happening here. 'Just trust trump' ain't going to cut it, not in 2026.
if for you to be qualified as regime is to murder tens of thousands of your own people then I think you put too high bar on it. I guess killing only few thousands or even few hundreds in your definition would rule out to someone being called totalitarian/autocratic regimes? How about not murdering own people but thousands other people? How is it called? Nazi germany AFAIK mostly murdered millions of other people.
People use this name (Regime) wrong - worth to at least read definion on wikipedia:
Look, I don't understand what you are debating here. I already agreed you can call USA regime just that should you choose to. I don't mind. You might get a scholarship to Columbia while at it.
My post was simply to clarify to the reader that PressTV is owned by the regime in Iran.
Varies. Not all of them are equal. At least not in the same way. Distinctions are important. NYT, for example, employs Farnaz Fassihi who's a known regime shill.
CNN recently sent a reporter live to the region who has to operate under the regime's restrictions to be let in and cannot accurately report everything even if they wanted to. Same with Reuters who has an office inside. They basically had a choice to bite the bullet and agree to the terms and be one of the few foreign reporters with access, or not have access at all and freely report.
That said, PressTV is different from the above a it's an officially a state-operated entity, so it is not a question of mere bias.
No idea. But IIRC that specific line was associated with your own side projects that you wanted to get permission to open source and you were willing to Apache 2.0 it as opposed to asking the company to retain the copyright. They asked you to slap Apache 2.0 and add that line to README.
The point I would make: there are historical examples of international cooperation that work at least for some lengths of time. This is a good thing, a good tool to strive for, albeit difficult to reach.
Could it be that the problem is users’ own interest in being outraged? A reflection of their mental state and anxiety that they then project to Facebook as if that’s the root cause.
reply