Yeah but macOS has never been ran on a “A” series chip before which makes it all more so interesting.
Technically, the Apple Developer Transition Kit Mac Mini from the Apple Silicon transition (just before the M1 release) ran on an A12Z.
Readit Newsjoakleaf commented on MacBook Neo apple.com/newsroom/2026/0... · Posted by u/dm
Pretty sure Enhanced Mode, that only came later in Windows 3.11 for Workgroup, is the one that supported the flat addressing mode.
Enhanced mode was already in 3.0 (and I think allowed for flat addressing)
However, Win32s was introduced in 3.11 which a subset of the Windows 32-bit API from NT.
3.11 also introduced 32-bit disk access and 32-bit drivers.
Microsoft did 32-bit in steps -- it was confusing already back then.
I trekked to the summit of Mera Peak some 25 years ago. We slept in tents every night. There were very few, if any, teahouses between Lukla and the summit back then. I guess it is good that more Nepalis are making a living from trekkers with their tea houses.
It was an incredible experience, but not for the faint-hearted. A couple of people in our group were unlucky and had serious issues (oedema and an aneurism) and were too high for helicopter evacuation, but they both survived. If you want to do something like this, go with a reputable company (such as KE Experience in the UK).
Mera Peak is said to be possible without any climbing experience, and it looks like the trek from Lukla is about 2 weeks. Is that true? How hard is the trek -- Looks like it requires well above average fitness level?
joakleaf commented on The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice bbc.com/future/article/20... · Posted by u/1659447091
> Btw. as far as I remember neither China, India, Russia, nor practically any other nation stopped trading with the US over the war in Iraq. Maybe I am wrong about that.
Yep. Because countries only care about themselves. The US is too important economically. But are you saying that Europe like India and China does stuff that benefits them and isn't a better standard morally?
Neither Europe nor EU is a single country with a single foreign policy. There are around 40 different small and large countries in Europe each with their own foreign policy, history, culture and language. Two of the countries are currently at war with each other (if we still include Russia in Europe). Historically, Europe is a continent of wars and full of disagreement, where countries have done much to benefit themselves.
I really don't know much of what is happening in China or India or how you would ever measure something as subjective as morality. The point was, that it isn't just European (or EU) nations that don't stand up to the US. Nobody really dare -- Even those other heavy-weights. So it doesn't seem fair to me to single Europe (European nations) out for not doing anything.
I would say that Europe has a lot of bad history and guilt and we know it. And there is an aspiration in many of the European countries to be better and do "the right thing" now, but it is definitely debatable whether those countries actually do it, or if we even know what "right" is.
joakleaf commented on The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice bbc.com/future/article/20... · Posted by u/1659447091
Yep I vividly remember Tony Blair supporting the war. Millions dead. People just went on with their lives with a "oops". I'm just saying this behaviour is nothing new. Might makes right I guess.
You are right. People went on with their lives, just as they did in many other parts of the world, but I don't think what happened is forgotten -- Not even in the US.
Btw. as far as I remember neither China, India, Russia, nor practically any other nation stopped trading with the US over the war in Iraq. Maybe I am wrong about that.
Small detail on casualties in Iraq: the estimates listed on Wikipedia range from 150K to about 1 million (1).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
joakleaf commented on The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice bbc.com/future/article/20... · Posted by u/1659447091
Many EU countries did send troops did it not? And what happened when it became clear the war was a farce? There were zero consequences right? It's a "told ya" moment for a lot of asian countries who didn't fully trust the US.
Yes. You are right. Unfortunately, many countries that were/are part of EU sent forces to Iraq (not all).
You mention that Asia was suspicious, but the "coalition of willing" actually included Asian countries such as Phillippines, South Korea, Japan, Uzbekistan, Singapore.
I believe the current overarching feeling in Europe is that we were mislead by the US administration more than our own politicians. Already back then, there was quite a lot of skepticism and significant doubt in the media all over Europe about the justification of that war. Also in the coalition countries.
And Indeed, there were no consequences later. But what should have been done and by whom at that point? How do you prove that it was deliberately misleading? Why would it be the job of nations of Europe or EU?
I agree that it wasn't pretty, and that the European nations and EU should have opposed more, but even as it was back then, it was not a clear "cheering on" moment. I remember having discussions about Iraq with people from Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Germany, and France back when the invasion started. Although a large group did support the war (I think many were still emotionally affected by 9/11), I actually don't remember talking to any one of them.
The reality is that the US is the most powerful geopolitical entity and Europe is a continent consisting of many individual countries. Even the EU is a divided group of nations, and even if united would not be as powerful as the US is currently.
joakleaf commented on The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice bbc.com/future/article/20... · Posted by u/1659447091
Can't wait for the CNN headlines: "DANES CHEER AS TYRAN PRIME MINISTER CAPTURED", "DANES WELCOME FOREIGN LIBERATORS", "DANISH ECONOMY TO BOOM WITH FREE MARKETS REFORMS"
This doesn't really align with CNN's view, but may apply to another even more popular US news channel that seems to be much more aligned with the current administration...
Greenland and Denmark are not the same. Greenland is a self-governed territory under the Kingdom of Denmark. The US administration wishes to take over Greenland from Denmark completely. So you should replace your headlines with "Greenland" and "Greenlanders".
Note: There have already been discussions about making Greenland independent from Denmark, but there is uncertainty over how to handle economic and defense situations. Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.
joakleaf commented on The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice bbc.com/future/article/20... · Posted by u/1659447091
For decades Europe has cheered on, if not actively aided as America bullied smaller nations. Now they’ve come to realise they aren’t so special.
Europe has not just "cheered on". There were demonstrations throughout Europe against the wars in the middle east and both e.g. France and Germany openly opposed the war in Iraq.
The Europeans I know (from all over) have generally been opposed to American geopolitics both in the Middle East, South East Asia, and South America. The US has traditionally been seen as an ally, but that doesn't mean we "cheer on" its actions.
Because there are many financial and military interests, it is very hard to do much for e.g. the EU, and the politicians are very careful with their words. Just as it is for the rest of the world...
Note: Europe is not a single entity but a continent full of different countries including (part of) Russia. Even the EU doesn't really have one single foreign policy.
joakleaf commented on The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice bbc.com/future/article/20... · Posted by u/1659447091
There are a few things that confuse me about this potential acquisition:
1. You won't govern it. Greenland has it's own Self-Government Act. [0]
2. You won't own the land. Almost all land is owned by the State. [1]
3. The Danes have no special land ownership rights. [2]
4. Land use rights, however, are granted for different activities (fishing, mining) subject to approval. [3]
I'd imagine none of this changes under a new owner. Why the can't the US just sign up for mining rights already? It seems like that's exactly what it would have to do post acquisition--unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.
I'm genuinely interested if anyone can provide color.
[0]: https://english.stm.dk/the-prime-ministers-office/the-unity-...
[1]: https://www.city-journal.org/article/learning-from-greenland
[2]: https://www.thelocal.dk/20251114/greenland-limits-foreigners...
[3]: https://govmin.gl/exploration-prospecting/get-an-exploration...
It may not just be about the minerals....
It could be about leaving NATO.
US (Trump) feels they need Greenland for "security".
They currently have (almost complete) access to use Greenland via NATO and the existing agreements with Denmark. So there is no need to extend this.
However, if the US would want to leave NATO, they would no longer have access to Greenland under existing agreement.
Therefore, if the US wants to leave NATO and still use Greenland (both militarily and for resources), they need to acquire Greenland.
Acquiring Greenland would allow the US to control the entire western hemisphere, leave NATO, and abandon the eastern hemisphere entirely.
Related and test on MacBook Pro M5 vs M4:
https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/exploring-llms-ml...
"Exploring LLMs with MLX and the Neural Accelerators in the M5 GPU"