I don't know the answer to that, but keep in mind that Apple is control of the entire CPU design.
They could for example put an x86 decoder in front of the ARM cores.
After all, modern Intel processors decode x86 to a simpler instruction set used internally anyway.
x86 has total store ordering, which requires to add barriers to make the order respected on Arm while doing emulation. On newer Arm chips, barriers are much cheaper, solving the problem.
Not only that, but Apple if they wanted to could strengthen the memory model of their custom chips, meaning the barriers wouldn't be necessary during emulation.
But what in case of the abuse of the system? Administrators will end up deleting whatever is reported. Not to mention it can be used in political fight.
These laws are often not thought through to that extent. And especially not thought through for the very-long term, e.g. what effect removing potentially-offending speech may have on societies across decades
It could also be argued the other way around: businesses put very little long term thought into how their systems would be used. One of the consequences is that their systems can be manipulated to propagate hate speech at a scale that would not be possible otherwise.
Now I'm not pretending that this is a new problem. It existed in the days of BBSes. It existed in the days of print. The list could go on. This should be been seen as forewarning. Doubtlessly, newspapers always received letters to the editor containing hate speech. Very few of them would be published, borderline cases may be published with additional commentary. It would take a very special publication to publish hate speech because it would affect their reputation. Yet they moved to the online world and opened the floodgates with "comments" that received little if any review before publication. There is a strong incentive for people to misuse this privilege against the best interests of the publisher since they immediately gain wide exposure. That is for a service that has a strong incentive to pay heed to what they publish, even in the digital world.
This short term mentality, coupled with the immediacy and global scope of the internet, resulted in certain parties using the Internet as a propaganda machine for speech that is detrimental to society and even the services that permit it. It is difficult to reign in short of shuttering the outlets for publication or giving them strong incentives to invest the resources into combating it.
Austria might change so, now that the green party is part of the government coalition. Could very well be too little too late, so.
Germany is different matter, we are still building new coal plants while making wind more or less impossible in Bavaria. Hope that changes as well, if nobody seriously starts nothing will ever get done.
I am afraid that we as a species wont be able to act together quickly enough to have a real chance of halting the run-away changes that seem to be starting up all over the planet.
I think it's already too late - US is withdrawing from the Paris agreement. Australia is in complete denial it seems
We need to reduce emissions yesterday and reduce our plastic output considerably. We're not doing anything on a scale big/quick enough to matter.
We don't have until 2050 or the targets some governments have set.
We need it done by next year, 2021, but that's unlikely to happen. We need new laws enacting tomorrow and to give everyone a big kick up the ass to get their acts together.
That's not going to happen, no matter how desperate Greta, Attenborough make it seem.
While it's true that individual action is a critical part of mitigating climate change, I think OP was referring to the fact that a tiny portion of people control most money and power on earth, with which they could make positive changes at scale and faciliate said individual actions. We need change from individuals, but also from governments and corporations.
Absolutely. And the governments respond to popular pressure. When I say "It's up to us", I mean we should go out, join popular movements and pressure the government.
I would like to have a source on the first one, as none of the sources i found do not support your statement in carbon emissions. I really would like to see a source where Europe’s outsources emissions are marked to be the biggest.
> as none of the sources i found do not support your statement in carbon emissions.
Because carbon emissions are measured at their output. So if european shoe/clothing manufacturers move to china, pollute in china and sell the products back in europe, that pollution would be credited to china when in actuality, the pollution was created for european consumption.
The easiest way to tell is by how large the consumer market is. Europe is the largest consumer market in the world. EU + the non-EU european states.
Europe is an 800+ million people market with first world living standards. In the US, we probably slightly out-pollute europe on a per capita basis since our standard of living is slightly higher than europe overall, but since europe has 500 million more people than the US, I can safely say that collectively, europe outpollutes every major country/bloc in the world.
Do you think the clothes europeans wear, the electronics europeans use, etc all were created by a green energy fairy?
There is another possibility that the situation is much, much worse and Chinese are just telling part of the truth. Look how spreading is much worse in Korea than what Chinese says happens in China.
They may not be simply compared like that, because of the different measures taken. China did shutdown the entire country basically, cities with millions of people won't allow anyone to come in / out, and almost all shops / stores shut down.
Sad that UE allowed google monopoly to grown in Europe, instead of limiting its access to the market as much as possible and allowing European competition to grown like China did.
No, it's not sad at all that the EU didn't 'limit Google's access'. What's sad is that Europe can't compete in these things on it's own.
Now - you could make a strong argument that G shouldn't be allowed to own have mobile, search, ads, maps etc. which creates altogether another kind of monopoly, but, there's no need to swing the ball so far as to 'limit access'.
