NextDNS isn't a content platform required to have age checks, so no, that prohibition doesn't apply here and promoting the bypass feature isn't 'probably illegal'.
I think he might be referring to the words themselves - 'rabbit' and 'pork' - in that, despite not rhyming, together they are nonetheless described as rhyming slang.
In my London accent “park” and “talk” do not rhyme completely. Park has the usual “ah” vowel, but talk has an “o” vowel (in southern England we would call this an “or” vowel but I suspect that might confuse you more).
Putting aside other factors for a moment, a rigorous test surely depends on the dose.
Stimulants like lisdexamfetamine can be titrated over a period of several weeks to determine effectiveness and tolerance of the dose, which are unknown until tested - that doesn't seem quick to me and indicates that clinicians can't expect a binary response from a one-off dose.
This is an interesting issue. First, I hope your mum and family are getting acceptable care and support, and that she gets the outcome she wants from it.
I know what it's like to see or experience something at the patient end of things and feel the urge to do something about it. It's difficult to find obvious ways forward with that in the NHS system, and the common ways for patients to raise complex and niche issues - MPs or the NHS' public-facing channels - can produce dispiriting responses.
I get the impression you're in England, so my assumptions here are about NHS England. There's been a push (and requirement) in recent years for Patient and Public Voice (PPV) - closer public involvement in the design, production and governance of NHS services - so there should be increasing opportunities for the public to act on their experiences. In practice, there doesn't seem to be much of an open invitation to public involvement in digital at the national level yet.
As you didn't mention it, you might be interested to know that, as well as the breast screening report you mentioned, there has also been a recent review of adults screening services [1]. That's led to NHSX's Digital Transformation of Screening programme [2], with objectives directly relevant to your issue. There's a contact email address that might reach someone more likely to grok it and/or explain the programme's routes for PPV input.
There's also some information about the current digital screening services, including named heads and leads [3]. Maybe a direct approach to one or some of them about how you can influence the issue (and highlight the shortcomings of the approaches you've tried)?
As it's discussing future developments, another way of looking at the trajectory of a European model is to have folded it in to the Chinese model or mentioned as an adjunct to it; there's clearly admiration for the GFC within EU policy circles.
Apparently Windows supports ARM, so in theory Apple will continue to support Bootcamp.
> (notably, one thing Apple does not need to give up is Windows support: Windows has run on ARM for the last decade, and I expect Boot Camp to continue, and for virtualization offerings to be available as well; whether this will be as useful as Intel-based virtualization remains to be seen).
Windows may support ARM. Yet the reason most people want Windows is compatibility. And if Windows ARM doesn't run most of their software then it's a step backward for them.
It might give a small boost to Windows-on-ARM that Microsoft has been trying for over a decade. Porting a typical windows app might be easier than porting to Mac/Linux because you still have DirectX and all the Windows libraries.
There's also x86 emulation on ARM. It's slow, but it might be enough to run that 20 year old business app.
Windows ARM seems to be a bit faster than that running x86. An older video showed pretty good performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRBMBkL7SCM . Using an abstraction layer to convert system library calls to call native ARM system libraries instead so you don't have to emulate x86 versions of the system libraries.
This is the same concept box86 implements on Linux. https://github.com/ptitSeb/box86 . It's good enough to run lower end Linux games on a Raspberry Pi 4
Wasn't Intel saber-rattling about patent lawsuits when Microsoft announced that Windows for ARM would run some x86 apps via emulation? [1]
While I don't know what became of that, I can see Microsoft working out a deal with Intel because Windows is still huge on x86 and wasn't going anywhere.
On the other hand, if Apple is planning to completely drop Intel in favor of ARM and wants to implement x86 emulation, I can't see Intel letting OSX ARM emulate x86 without some form of resistance.
But what IP would be violated for x86 emulation? It's clear that Intel only threaten chipmaker who tried to add x86-emulation-acceleration ISA to the silicon. x86 ISA is complete 17 years ago, which mean a lot of patents has been expired today.
I'm not convinced Apple will abandon x86 entirely. A lot of high-end Macbooks Pro are bought for software developers looking for Docker support, and that gets messier when you're developing for multiple architectures. (Then again, maybe it's a good thing if you like AWS Graviton.) The product that would benefit the most from ARM is the Macbook Air, so it's possible they just do that.
The rest of the PC world includes a lot of desktops, and the cost/benefit analysis there is very different - power consumption matters little, and games demand top-of-the-line performance. So I don't think it'll move to ARM wholesale anytime soon.
Apple is unlikely to waste engineering resources and product resources on something they don't care about. Hackintoshes are largely an enthusiast phenomenon that doesn't overlap much with their core market of people willing to spend a premium on hardware that "just works" and looks nice. For the last 10 years Apple hasn't lifted a finger to stop them , why would they start now?
The danger is not so much T2 chips or the like, because that can easily be defeated in software, but locking down peripheral support would be. For instance if they only support their own custom graphics hardware that would be a problem. This is what Apple tends to do so it's the most likely scenario.
They did waste legal resources going after commercial Hackintosh clones, though, and they might want to prevent something similar in the future. And once they have their own unique CPUs, adding a CPU ID check is trivial.
There's plenty of prior art beyond Rosetta to look at. MS has already done this for Windows on ARM, and simultaneously across ABIs via WSL. Linux offers QEMU-based "on the fly" emulation of different instruction sets based on execution-time examination of the ELF binaries. x86 BSDs have long offered Linux emulation. Even ChromeOS offers lightweight containers for Android and Linux apps.
Apple is actually pretty far behind the curve here, at least in terms of end-user-accessible features. Presumably that means they wouldn't have to innovate too much to get x86/ARM translation working, even for binaries that couldn't be readily recompiled to support the new chips directly.
Well, the GP was talking about getting wine to run. Your examples cover either instruction set emulation or ABI emulation, but not both. In order to get wine to do something useful om ARM mac, it would need to do both while somehow being optimized to not suffer too much performance loss, and without suffering too much compatibility loss.
It turns out such a project actually exists![0]
But it seems to be in an early stage, and relies on infrastructure not exactly favoured in MacOS (QEMU, deprecated OpenGL). Apple could work to port it and polish it so it works with most apps, but why on earth would they invest so much in Windows compatibility?
IMHO, Apple has two reasonable choices here: Ignore Windows compatibility from now on, or do just enough so that Windows on ARM boots, and let Microsoft deal with the supporting x86 Windows headache and blame.
I would start with Philebus. It is considered a pretty late dialogue, so problems with theory of ideals are considered (and musical metaphors play a prominent role). Also, its topic is worthy; Socrates & Protarchus discuss a role that pleasure and reason play in furhishing a good life.
Somebody else has already mentioned The Open University (https://open.ac.uk) and I happily recommend them, as one of their alumni.
Another established and well-regarded institution is the University of London International Programme (https://london.ac.uk). The courses are relatively low cost, but rely a lot on self-discipline.
I’m doing a Master’s with the University of London. I can recommend it though as with anything else you get out what you put in. I’ve found my course, Finance (Economic Policy[1]) interesting and reasonably rigorous.
It's almost however long you want to put into it. I completed my undergraduate degree in around three and a half years, approaching it as a mix of part-time and full-time study, juggled with periods of employment.
At the time, I thought it wasn't particularly hard - I had it in my head that bricks and mortar universities were somehow more challenging and rigorous. Having recently completed a master's at a campus university, my feelings about the OU at the time were without basis. By comparison, the master's was easier, less challenging and less valuable.
Looking back on my OU experience, I can appreciate how enriching it was. The course materials and syllabi are fantastic and are often used by other universities. Associate lecturers can be hit and miss. Fellow students tend to be engaged - because they _want_ to do the courses - and often make for a supportive and thoughtful community; I actually found it to be far less isolating than the campus experience of my master's.
I was fortunate to have undertaken my degree prior to tuition fees increases, but I would still recommend them. Compared to other UK universities, the fees were still relatively low, last time I looked.
