>Apparently my brain is a gigantic copyright infringement under your theory of "anything physically capable of being coaxed into reproducing copyrighted data is a violation" model of copyright law.

If the model contains enough of the work to constitute infringement, and the model itself is being distributed then that's already illegal.

Yes, I if you intend to duplicate your brain for distribution.

>You realize that wordpad "can be directed to substantially recreate an infringing work", as can a piece of paper and a couple crayons?

We're talking about models, which by definition come with data. Wordpad and paper do not. Also, directed doesn't mean what you think it means.

That's the silly part of this. The training is irrelevant in terms of copyright. What matters is the output of the model and what is actually stored within it.

If the model contains enough of the work to constitute infringement, and the model itself is being distributed then that's already illegal. If the model can be directed to substantially recreate an infringing work then surely that's little different to running off bad photocopies of a book.

Rings of Power is the least faithful non-pornographic adaptation of Tolkien.

Putting Paramount and Warner together, expecting something good, is akin to believing two people with IQs of 70 apiece equals a joint IQ of 140.

Or what happens when you don't read the terms when purchasing rolling stock. That or this wasn't in the contract, in which case the manufacturer can be sued.

Did you just assume the OP's gender and their neurodiversity?

The text preceding that list matters somewhat:

'In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:'

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instr...

Intent, specifically. If ze Jews are acting with this intent then they're not doing a great job of it. Hamas is far more effective and clearly intentioned in their methods, albeit hindered by Israel having a vastly superior military capability. It's fair to imagine all Jews in the region would be dead within days if Hamas had the means.

Yeah, binary translation works pretty well on macOS. I've only rarely seen software that's unusable.

I meant virtualisation. Although the virtualisation framework is coming alone, it has some annoying limitations that prevent the kind of testing I was able to do with virtualised macOS.

>The timing of a switch from PC hardware to Mac hardware isn't really tied to Apple's introduction of new products, it has more to do with a person thinking they need to replace their current PC. PCs and Macs are so incredibly overpowered for what most people do that they last a long time. A 7 or 8 year old PC or Mac is kind of common.

Agreed, and that's my point. I don't think Boot Camp or its loss is particularly significant in terms of sales.

>I also think you need to look at the number of Macs sold not marketshare. It the number of Windows users is growing faster than the number of Mac users then Apple can be selling more and more Macs each year but have declining marketshare. In other words, less marketshare could be slower growth, not declining users.

Mac sales have been growing, notably in late FY24 where revenue records were also broken. Mac sales are on the up.

>I expect many switchers learn that they were not as dependent upon Windows as they thought they were. That it was really something known vs something unknown, and now they know macOS too.

Agreed. It's similar to existing Mac users moved on from Classic Mac OS to X, then from 32-bit to 64-bit. People move on from software.

>But I don't think those who have not switched are as up to speed, and due to Windows' market position a lot of new corporate (or technical or gaming) software is still written only for Windows. So if one is less concerned about their personal computing needs there is still a possible concern with respect to doing a little work at home. The existence of Boot Camp can relax such fears.

True, I agree it's a factor for some people. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the FY22 sales were from people grabbing Intel Macs while they could.

>I'm not sure x86 software was lost. Both Apple and Microsoft provide very good one-time x86 to ARM binary to binary translation.

It's limited. While you can run Mac native software incredibly well, virtualising x86 is nowhere near what it was on x86 hardware. It'll improve in time.

>This sort of hardware change (x86 to ARM) does accelerate the Mac upgrade cycle a little bit.

Agreed. I think the architecture move is far more a selling point than Boot Camp on both x86 and Apple Silicon. For me it's been night and day in terms of performance, particularly with video editing. It's nice to have a portable that isn't constantly throttling.

>Apple Silicon's performance may overcome some reluctance, but not all of it. Boot Camp and drivers seems a minor investment. Also switching may not be permanent. If someone has to have Windows due to work needs will they buy two computers, one for work and one for personal, or will they switch back to Windows for the personal side?

I'm sure some will have both. Gamers in particular would likely keep a dedicated computer/console for that.

>I think the only thing preventing Apple Silicon Boot Camp is Microsoft's contractual obligation to run ARM Windows only on Qualcomm CPUs. Supposedly that agreement ends soon. As soon as Microsoft is contractually allowed to run on Apple Silicon I expect we'll have an announcement from Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft supporting Mac hardware, Apple providing Boot Camp and drivers. Microsoft getting to benefit from that outstanding Apple Silicon performance, beating anything on Intel or other competing ARM-based CPUs.

That'd be nice to see. I wish Apple would have released details on the percentage of users who actually used Boot Camp.

>Keep in mind it's not merely about Boot Camp actually being used. It's about Boot Camp being there, just in case. It's about the removal of the PC or Mac question, formerly a barrier to buying Mac.

>The switch to Intel and the ability to run Windows via Boot Camp were BOTH important to sales. However without Boot Camp there still was the "PC or Mac" barrier. Without Boot Camp the switch to Intel would have kept existing Mac users on Mac, but would not really cause many PC users to switch. It was Boot Camp that really enabled switching, it was risk free, native full speed Windows was a reboot away.

Sure, that likely was a factor for some people. My point is that I don't see evidence it was the big factor. Look at market share. Back in 2006 when the Intel transition began, Apple wasn't in the global top five for computers shipped since the mid 90s. It was only in 2015 they made an appearance with 7.2%. They stayed at around this figure until hitting 9.8% in 2022.

>Again, this keeps existing Mac users on Mac. The problem is that switching is more of an issue. Boot Camp and the accompany Windows drivers for Apple specific hardware is a relatively low cost move to make switching worry free.

But how many switchers continued to rely on having Windows in Boot Camp or even virtualised?

I'm not convinced losing x86 hardware was a dealbreaker for switchers. The increased share of shipments is one data point. Operating system share has also risen quite impressively through 2023. Whatever the impact was to switchers, they don't seem particularly afraid. Maybe Boot Camp was essentially a transition technology, losing relevance with time - at least for most people considering a Mac?

While Boot Camp was useful for some people, I'd peg it as a niche feature. It seems more likely the Intel portables were a serious upgrade from the stagnating G4 line. Similarly M1 sales were good, those machines presenting attractive upgrades from older Macs, despite losing the ability to run x86 operating systems.

I looked and couldn't find any details on adoption of Boot Camp. Could be I'm wrong, but I don't imagine anything but a minority of users wanting to dual-boot macOS and Windows. Certainly losing that ability doesn't appear to have dented sales.

Agreed, I'd recommend Crossover. It's not that expensive, very easy to use, extensively documented, and buying it supports Wine development.

Sure it has quirks. For example, L4D2 is unplayable when a chapter loads, but works fine if you leave it a little while to finish loaded assets. I'm happily running my old games on an M1,.

Germany, Japan, France, and the UK also had spots of bother back in the day.

Does this luck explain all successful people, or does it only kick-in beyond a certain net worth?

Yeah. Look at the lists of biggest corporations and richest families. Now go back and look at who topped those lists 20, 40, 60, 80, or even 100 years ago. While wealth can survive generations, it tends to decline. Whether it's through technology, changes in markets, or heirs lacking the abilities of their ancestors it tends to decline.

We didn't see 30 years ago the parents of Bezos or Musk topping the table. Apple was 25 years ago barely likely to survive. The Hearst heirs aren't sitting on the largest media empire in the world. The Getty family wealth is a fraction of what it used to be. The further you get from the generation that had the skill to create wealth, the less likely it is a generation will build on that wealth. More likely they'll be at best maintaining it as others overtake them.