Can someone recommend USBC earbuds with good ANC? Sometimes I’d love to avoid battery and interference concerns of Bluetooth, but noise cancellation became a must-have for me.

Is in-ear ok? With IEMs, you'll get passive noise canceling that I've found more than enough for most situations.

I have a pair of IEM with the usb-c converter attached most of the time for use with phones.

Give Truthear Hexa a try.

For me, it isn't, I need ANC also. This is the thing sticking me with wireless because as far as I can tell, the best ANC are all wireless.

Try different tips --- IEMs are supposed to seal to your ears like earplugs.

I'll put it this way: I also often use earplugs that are rated about as high as they go, and it's still not enough. So adding ANC on top is also helpful for me

What's the best in-ear ANC you found? I usually stick with over the ear and bose still has the best that I've tried compared to Apple or Sony

So far, sony wf1000-xm5, but they're also the most expensive I've tried. (OTOH, not a fan of the bose qc ultra over-ear despite the cost). Earfun airpro 4 were probably second after the sony.

That seems a ~~wired~~ weird compromise to me: you get the downsides of Bluetooth (inherent latency, potential codec quality loss, spectrum congestion — I occasionally experience interference and dropouts in crowded areas) but still have a wire hanging from your head and another battery to keep charged. :/

Latency doesn't matter for music and Fiio supports both LDAC and aptX.

Keeping the battery charged is a weak point though, agreed.

I hope regulators will soon force Apple to add alternative OS support.

Unfortunately it sounds like regulators are forcing Apple to make their OS (and all OSes even Linux) even worse by hamfisting age verification at setup.

Couldn't one charge from the display connected to?

Except on my stupid iPad “Pro”. :(

iirc theres an app on the app store that's basically a small alpine container

Well, there's iSH and a-Shell but they don't have GUI capability and are somewhat limited in other ways. There's also UTM, but without weird hacks you can only get SE version which is very slow.

To multiply two arbitrary numbers in a single cycle, you need to include dedicated hardware into your ALU, without it you have to combine several additions and logical shifts.

As to why not use the ADD/MUL capabilities of the GPU itself, I guess it wasn’t in the spirit of the challenge. ;)

I see us not getting rid of CPU, but CPU and GPU being eventually consolidated in one system of heterogeneous computing units.

CPU and GPU have very different ways of scheduling instructions, requiring somehow different interfaces and programming models.. I'd hazard to say that a GPU and CPU with unified memory access (like the Apple's M series, and most mobile chips) is already such a consolidated system.

nVidia Jetson also has unified memory access btw.

Agreed. Much like “RISC is gonna replace everything” - it didn’t. Because the CPU makers incorporated lessons from RISC into their designs.

I can see the same happening to the CPU. It will just take on the appropriate functionality to keep all the compute in the same chip.

It’s gonna take awhile because Nvidia et al like their moats.

CISC only survived because CPUs now dedicate a ton of silicon to decoding the CISC stream into RISC-y microcode. RISC CPUs can avoid this completely, but it turns out backwards compatibility was important to the market and the transistor cost of "instruction decode" just adds like +1 pipeline depth or something.

> CISC only survived because CPUs now dedicate a ton of silicon to decoding the CISC stream into RISC-y microcode.

For Intel CPUs, this was somewhat true starting from the Pentium Pro (1995). The Pentium M (2004) introduced a technique called "micro-op fusion" that would bind multiple micro-ops together so you'd get combined micro-ops for things like "add a value from memory to a register". From that point onward, the Intel micro-ops got less and less RISCy until by Sandy Bridge (2011) they pretty much stopped resembling a RISC instruction set altogether. Other x86 implementations like K7/K8/K10 and Zen never had micro-ops that resembled RISC instructions.

> CPUs now dedicate a ton of silicon to decoding the CISC stream into RISC-y microcode.

In absolute terms, this is true. But in relative terms, you're talking less than 1% of the die area on a modern, heavily cached, heavily speculative, heavily predictive CPU.

Didn't there use to be a joke about Intel being the biggest RAM manufacturer (given the amount of physical space caches take on a CPU)?

I hadn't heard that, but certainly, there must have been many times when Intel held the crown of "biggest working hunk of silicon area devoted to RAM."

> It will just take on the appropriate functionality to keep all the compute in the same chip.

So, an iGPU/APU? Those exist already. Regardless, the most GPU-like CPU architecture in common use today is probably SPARC, with its 8-way SMT. Add per-thread vector SIMD compute to something like that, and you end up with something that has broadly similar performance constraints to an iGPU.

We're getting there already with e.g. Grace-Blackwell chips.

While I agree with the spirit of the thread and dearly love my mini, I think this reasoning doesn’t account for a substantial reduction in bezels: my iPhone 5S had more than a centimetre of black bars above and below its 4" display (altogether it was 5.4" in diagonal), I bet those phablets you mentioned had even bigger bezels and were closer to modern 8.5" phones.

Could you link some of your works? I’m very curious about reliability of EEG in terms of consistency between sessions.

I think every verbal person has the ability to “speak” phrases in their mind; people without an internal monologue (as is, I suppose, the case for me) just don’t need / tend to do that with every thought they have.

This is my experience too. I can rehearse words to say or simulate the conversation of others in my head. I just don't use words when I'm not doing wordy things myself.

I didn't know the Comic strip Partially Clips was a pun until I told someone about the strip, then as soon as the words came out of my mouth realised the joke.

On the other hand I can play back non verbal sounds I have heard in my head, which I think not everyone can do either. Not to the degree of my daughter though, I mentioned how I had noticed an ad was using a singer (not super famous but we knew who they were) and when I told her about it some days later her eyes went blank as she listened to it again and then she said, "Oh yes, it's Nataly"

Brains are weird.

> This is my experience too. I can rehearse words to say or simulate the conversation of others in my head. I just don't use words when I'm not doing wordy things myself.

Yep, same here. Most curiously though, I think I had an internal monologue in my childhood and teenage years, but sometime around 16–18 y.o. it went away. Sadly, I don’t remember the exact moment, as I’ve only learned about this topic around 20.

> the Comic strip Partially Clips was a pun

Whoah, took me a while too, even though you’ve explicitly told it’s there. xD

> I can play back non verbal sounds I have heard in my head, which I think not everyone can do

Nope, I can’t. (:

I'm the opposite of you two. My brain won't stfu. I took Ritalin since grade 3 until I was in my 40's. That never got rid of it, but it did make it easier to focus in spite of all the chatter and other mental distractions.

Now I'm old and lazy, and that seems to have a similar effect. The racing thoughts are still there, but they don't get in my way now that I have far fewer responsibilities to take care of.

When I was younger, I could only do it by making the movements with my tongue and sort of "whispering breathlessly"

What do you mean by this? Don't get me wrong... it sounds like you are describing something related, but different enough to need more description.

As in, I couldn't speak in my mind without making the bodily movements of speaking... Now I can, and do all the time.

While I think this is true, if you're conciously forming phrases they are by definition not intrusive, the subject of the discussion.

Yes, indeed. My argument is the intrusive thoughts wouldn’t be internally verbalised, thus such a device, in my opinion, wouldn’t be able to spell them out.

With me, they'd have 10 different things to parse. Some would be spot on. Some would be way the heck out in left field. And occasionally, some are totally obtrusive and definitely not meant to be spoken.

Thoughts are intrusive when they get in the way of what you are trying to get out of a thought process.