HenrySalayne

No, they reinstated it. Sorry for the confusion.

Update: Apple has once again terminated the termination of Epic Games. And they did it because they have seen the errors of their ways and because of their good heart. They absolutely didn't do it, because the EU asked "you wanna get fined?".

Maybe I'm mistaken, but they were talking about how easy it is with modern hardware to brute-force WPA2. The solution are long and complex passwords. The password can use up to 63 ASCII characters. I think anyone using the full range of characters (including special characters) and at least 30 should be mostly safe for the foreseeable future.

LTT had a rather recent video called something along the lines of "how many USB devices can you connect to your PC", in which they explain the topology and show tools how to debug USB devices. Maybe using these tools will help you troubleshoot your problem and find a solution.

Jeff Bezos? Netflix? No, they get special treatment because Apple can't afford to annoy their customers too much... Some companies are just more equal than others.

*sigh* The M-Track has a dynamic range of 97 dB (on the outputs with all the on-board processing), the Shit Modi has 119 dB. So this is a huge difference? No. It doesn't matter the slightest for what you are doing. You will never operate any of these devices in a situation when this would actually make a difference. If you were to add a mixer you will certainly be worse off than just using the M-Track alone. You already own the right tool for the job and it's the M-Track. If you don't want to use it as the Windows output, you have three options: Get rid of things you have and buy the right tool for the job. The M-Track is an entry solution and you will find way better audio interfaces which also have onboard mixing. Use the M-Track as the output for the Mac and pass the audio from your Modi through the M-Track. Continue your mission to "hammer a square peg in a round hole" and find a dodgy software solution to unnecessarily pass audio through another AD/DA conversion and through Windows. Don't assume, RTFM. It doesn't have stereo inputs.

ASIO is another way of addressing audio hardware to get to latencies in the sub-10-millisecond range. That's what every professional audio software is using, but it's only available for special software (which supports it) and only one program at a time(not system-wide). You can get around it by certain software interfaces (like VB-Audio Matrix or ASIO-Links), which will create virtual audio devices and allow you to directly link ASIO devices together. I don't have an example, but you would - set-up both audio interfaces in ASIO mode in VB-Audio or ASIO-Link - connect both interfaces via tie-lines; so the input of one interface will be directly routed to the output of the other - set-up a virtual audio device also routed to the outputs of your output interface However, since you have the M-Track - just use it. Connect the Mac to the inputs (what you are already doing) and simply select it as an output device in Windows. You can set the balance of the Mac and the Windows PC with the "Monitor Mix" pot. If you turn it all the way to the left, you will only hear the Mac, if you turn it all the way to the right, you will only hear the Windows PC. Why would you want to make it more complicated than it needs to be?

Firstly, you shouldn't route audio through Windows. With the M-Track you have direct monitoring and you can just route Windows audio and the analogue audio from your Mac through the M-Track to a single output (latency free). Secondly, if you really, really have to use Audio through Windows, you shouldn't use WDM and its significant latency, but ASIO. You can use something like the VB-Audio Matrix to route ASIO inputs directly to an ASIO output. Thirdly, you could go the other route and simply route all audio through the Mac, since the Mac's core audio has way lower latency than Windows' WDM architecture.

Minor correction: The focal point of the Apple Vision headset (and any other headset for that matter) is fixed without taking the virtual distance to an object into account. Your eyes won't adjust their focus regardless if you're looking at a close or a far away object through the Vision headset. However, the parallax of objects changes, which solely creates the 3D effect. And this can be a major contributor for eye-strain and fatigue, since your eyes have to keep a fixed focal length while they need to cross-eye at objects to get the depth information.

If you wouldn't be so narrow-minded, maybe you would have noticed I'm not talking about Starship. I'm not the one who deducted that "SLS didn't blow up on its test, so any other Spacecraft shall not blow up on a test".

Guess what? There are also tests with the sole purpose of blowing up the spacecraft. They are ALSO tests. It seems like different tests have different objectives and success criteria. But that's probably beyond the scope of your failed truth autocracy.

Apple doesn't have manufacturing lines (at least to my knowledge). The components are made by independent manufacturers (under stringent control from Apple) and assembled by yet another contractor. The machines making the parts require moulds, tooling and set-up time, but they also require these for any other component in an Apple product or if an order is fulfilled and the parts for the next customer are on the line. It would be quite rare that a workshop is only set-up to make a single component and nothing else. The CNCed frame of the headset is probably made in a workshop along other components like frames for mobile phones or CNCed parts for machines. Assembly is a different story. But from what we can tell from tear-downs of the Apple Vision headset, it has many similarities to the assembly of mobile phones, tablets and notebooks. It's probably mostly built with tool-assisted manual labour like all the other devices (except for the cool display glue application robot). Are the required tools expensive? You might get a feeling for the cost of these tools by taking a look at Apple's DIY repair program. The tools used for final assembly are most likely very close to the tools used for repairs. Another hint is the plethora of electronic devices in general that bringing new products to the market isn't very expensive if the products follow certain design criteria. There are currently thousands of phone and notebook models manufactured every single year. Some of these devices are only sold to a few thousand customers and it's still worth to set-up shops to make these things. I'm not trying to say it is cheap to build the Apple headset and the complex components probably take some additional time on the machines. But in the grand scheme of things, this is nothing extraordinary.

Every product they bring to the market require this. Maybe the Air and the Pro share the same common components nowadays, but that's mostly it. Most products are unicorns in their own realm. I'm aware that they probably had a few challenges designing processes and mechansims for mass manufacturing so they won't have alignment issues for sensors and the lens system. But AFAIK they don't use any exotic or novel manufacturing methods.

It is incorrect! The definition of frequency is pretty certain about periodicity. One clock cycle is one period. A coin doesn't magically have twice the value because it has two sides... DDR4-3200 has 3200 MT/s but a frequency of 1600 MHz. With future technologies (we already see in GPUs) the discrepancy might even be a factor of four or higher.

The very same argument can be made for calling RAM speed Megahertz instead of Megatransfers. A widely accepted wrong use of terms doesn't make it any better. And Intel is in my opinion especially to blame here. Renaming all their nodes to "surpass" the competition by name is adding even more malicious confusion. TSMC has claimed that N3 derivates are competing with Intel 18A. This has to be seen, but I honestly don't think we should feed the marketing departments by calling these nodes 3 nm and 1.8 nm respectively. Tom's Hardware shows everything that's atrocious with this particular terminology in this article: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-our-3nm-node-comparable-to-intels-18nm-tech "3 nm class" and "1.8 nm class"? What the hell is a "X nm class" if it's all arbitrary made up names? Intel 18A is in a better "class" but has worse technology, because they are beaten by TSMC's lower class 3 nm tech? This is a good example of unnecessary and harmful segmentation and categorisation. It adds nothing for the reader. On the contrary, it breathes life into outdated concepts. Why the author felt the need to add this is beyond me. It doesn't serve the article, it doesn't educate readers, it just adds another layer of confusion preventing readers from actually diving into the intricacies.