to ensure that the compiler inserts all possible safety checks and maintians as much debugging information as possible for use in stack backtraces when you drop into the debugger.
When a function or method is fully tested and debugged, and a profiler shows that it is indeed a hot spot in need of maximum compiler speed optimization, one then adds whatever type declarations may be necessary and locally declares:
This way you have maximum safety and debuggability when developing code, but once you know something is a hot spot and you've fully debugged and tested it, you can remove the safety checks and debugging info and just optimize execution speed for that function only.
Meanwhile, you can continue to develop the rest of your code with the highest safety and debug settings getting the best of both worlds.
i.e., hyphens as separators, p for predicate rather than the schemish question mark of you parent, and no need to quote lisp which is clearly being treated as a variable pointing to a language entity here, not a raw symbol in need of quotation.
Freeing oneself from desire also applies recursively in Buddhism. One also frees oneself from the desire to be without desire. This is why, when asked what one should do to be a Buddhist, the master Lin-chi said "Eat your food, move your bowels, pass water, and when you're tired go and lie down."
Your parent appears to be confusing the Buddhist notion that everything we experience (note italics) we experience because of mind, with the (rather silly) notion that this implies some sort of omniscience.
Buddhism holds that all things, i.e., all conceptions, all ideas, are creations of the mind and have no reality themselves, not that the physical universe is somehow created ex-nihilo by an individual human mind.
This is the same as noting that all entity demarcations, all supposedly fixed boundaries are arbitrary conceptual inventions, and that in reality, there is not nor can be any fixed demarcation of one "thing" from another. For example, human beings cannot survive much below atmospheric pressure - they simply blow out. In what sense then can it really be said that a human being ends at her skin? Even in space she ceases to be a human being unless surrounded by atmospheric pressure? So musn't the real conception of a human being include a surrounding layer of atmospheric pressure? Doesn't this atmospheric pressure as a practical matter for the overwhelming number of people who have ever lived, mean a planet with a certain mass and a certain atmosphere? Is this planet part of the correct conception of a human being too?
The point here is not to redefine what "human being" means, but rather to understand that all such conceptions, categories, things, are more or less arbitrary inventions of the mind, and that reality is much more interdependent and continuous than our (largely verbal) conceptualizations would have it.
You also need to consider that "omnipotent" means something very different when you're not talking about a personal God. If God is immanent (i.e., "divinity is inseparably present in all things"), but not a "person" then "omnipotent" simply means "God is capable of doing everything that happens." But since God is everything that is, this merely amounts to saying, "the Universe does everything that happens."
The confusion arises when people foolishly think of God as a person, like an old man with a long beard sitting on a cloud who then "does everything" like some sort of aerial puppeteer.
Okay I've merely disproven the truth of the quran. After all it contains direct statements that contradict mathematical truth.
You claim that doing so is different from disproving islam. ALL muslims would obviously disagree (and probably kill you and me for it, after all that is what said quran demands they do).
All literalist, fundamentalist muslims would disagree, but believe it or not, there are modern, progressive, non-literalist, non-fundamentalist muslims, just as there are Catholics who know that evolution is true etc.
To be precise wrt GUIs, Xerox did it first, Apple licensed it from Xerox, Microsoft licensed it from Apple as part of their license to write software for the original Mac, then Apple turned around and sued Microsoft mostly because of plain old sour grapes, and I say this as a long time (20+ years) Apple/Mac user. Apple predictably lost.
1. Adults are not children. They have cognitive faculties (i.e., the ability to understand grammatical rules consciously) that children do not. Ignoring these Adult faculties slows foreign language acquisition in adults. Adults do better with a combination of articulated rules of grammar *and* immersive oral-aural training.
2. People who never move beyond the child's method of language acquisition (i.e., learning sentence patterns and doing simple substitution of elements) grow up to be adults who make common grammatical errors that are red flags of semi-literate status:
a. "He gave the tickets to John and I." bzzzzt! Wrong: You and John are the indirect objects of the transitive verb "gave" here, and "I" is a subject pronoun. The first person object pronoun is "me."
Correct: "He gave the tickets to me." "He gave the tickets to John and me."
Why do people make this error? Because as children they were corrected for using "me" as a subject pronoun: "Don't say 'me and Jimmy went to the store,' say 'Jimmy and I went to the store." So they generalize this pattern as a rule: other person + me = "other person and I."
But this rule is wrong. You only know that it's wrong when you learn grammar. Childhood language acquisition methods are a good first approximation, but they'll never get you full competence in a language. For that you need the adult ability to understand abstract grammatical rules consciously.
You know the whole "5 a day" bullshit? According to my doctor the reccomended amount of fruit and veg to get (at minimum, more isn't going to hurt) is 12 portions a week. Twelve a week will get you cancer, obesity and/or heart disease - you need more. The largest ever longitudinal diet study shows that minimizing animal foods and greatly increasing vegeatble foods leads to the lowest incidence of chronic disease:
The research project culminated in a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, a survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan. More commonly known as the China Study, this project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease.
The findings? ''People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored,'' said Dr. Campbell.
And before anyone complains that this is China and completely uniform, realize that one of the most surprising results was the huge variation in the rates of various chronic diseases across China and how they were very strongly associated with significant differences in the local diet.
Re:The FCC will let me be and let me be me
on
Dealing With Dialup
·
· Score: 1
"The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose." (emphasis added)
So if the national seashore's purpose is in part historic preservation (which I believe it is) then they can prohibit the placement of dishes in, for example, locations that are visible from public view.
I am in such an historic preservation district elsewhere in Massachusetts and we are not allowed to make any change to our properties that is visible from the street without getting architectural plans for the proposed change and submitting an application to the local Historical Comission. The process can take a year or more, and I seriously doubt they'd approve a naked dish on my roof.
Bottom line, put the dish in the back yard behind a fence or shed so it is not visible from any publicly accessible street/road/beach etc.
You're clearly unfamiliar with the history. Apple have been saying that Carbon was a temporary transitional framework and that developers should move to Cocoa since the late 90s.
Dropping 64 bit support for Carbon *GUI* code (yes, there is 64 bit Carbon, just not 64 bit Carbon GUI libraries) was just the latest in Apple's long litany of warnings that Carbon is eventually going bye bye and developers should transition to Cocoa, something they were told to do nearly a decade ago.
Exactly. Adobe, along with all Mac OS developers were warned almost a decade ago - essentially a previous geological epoch in computer terms - that going forward they would have to move their apps from Carbon, the old OS 9 compatibility layer - to Cocoa, the new Mac OS X framework which has been the fully native Mac OS X framework since the developer previews of Mac OS X in the late 90s.
Adobe was busy focusing on the windows market and betting that Apple would go out of business so they put 0 effort into porting Photoshop to Cocoa - OOOPS!
Apple not only survived but thrived, so Adobe simply dug in their heels and assumed that Apple would keep Carbon around forever rather than risk losing Adobe. Instead, Apple simply built internal Cocoa replacements for all the Carbon software whose absence could threaten the platform:
Microsoft Internet Explorer -> Safari Microsoft Outlook -> Mail and AddressBook Microsoft Word -> Pages Microsoft Excel -> Numbers Microsoft PowerPoint -> Keynote Adobe Photoshop -> Aperture
This 64bit issue is no one's fault except Adobe who have had nearly a decade's warning that they needed to move from Carbon to Cocoa.
Is parent post AC because he's astroturfing for Comcast?
Read the item - one user claims proof that Comcast is throttling ftp as well. I suppose ftp "illegal" in your view as well then? Comcast is throttling bandwidth intensive traffic without regard to the legality of the content. This is wrong.
Comcast thought they could get away with advertising unlimited broadband service but only actually providing limted service. It is this deception of customers that brought on this investigation, not the content traveling over Comcast's network.
This is an oversimplified view of how evolution works. In fact, it's so oversimplified as to be grossly misleading.
Evolution works by *differential* reproductive success. This does not require in any way that we leave the "unfit" out in the snow. Their own genetic disadvantages will see to it that they simply leave fewer offspring.
By intervening directly (the "leave them out in the snow" school) you run the very significant risk that you mistakenly identify as "unfit" individuals whose genomes contain significant survival advantages that would otherwise be passed on in the gene pool.
IOW, not being omniscient, people are likely to identify as "unfit" individuals who they simply don't like, feel threatened by, etc., and prevent from reproducing people who are, in fact, carriers of genes with significant survival value.
It's called "natural selection" for a reason: the inevitable expression of each individual's genome will of necessity result in some individuals leaving more offspring than others. These individuals are, *by definition* the fittest. No need to intervene - it's already taken care of.
Note that in artificial selection, breeders can only select for heritable traits that they observe. In the process they often end up with breeds that carry significant deleterious traits because the breeders were not aware that they were inadvertently selecting for these as well.
It all comes down to humility about our lack of omniscience. Anything short of a complete understanding of all the complexity of the human genome, epigenetics, and how these interact with various past, present and yes, even future environments, will lead to the unintended, but potentially disastrous reduction of variation and loss of genes of significant fitness.
The system (natural selection) works well precisely because there is nothing driving it except the objective reality of navigating the myriad vagaries of life successfully to the goal (from evolution's standpoint) of reproducing. Let's not pretend that we understand all of it fully and interfere with it.
You don't want to interrupt your concentration. You just type in the computer, and it's easy. If you get up and walk to the next cubicle, your concentration is ruined. But in this case, it's ruined also for both of you: you and the person you walked to.
Switching from one task to another, even if you're doing both on a computer, is still a break in concentration. This is why people who really need to concentrate work in offices with doors. This is why libraries require patrons to be quiet. The ability to shut out the rest of the world for significant periods of time is how tasks requiring real concentration get done.
Continuous interruptions (like IM) are one of the enemies of serious concentration. That's why IM sees widespread use in social communication where individual focus is unimportant, but little use among those who need long periods of concentration to do serious work. For the latter, intermittent communication (like email) allows for longer periods of focused concentration.
That is, we can extrapolate from one measurement to others. Put otherwise, we accept that the laws of physics are the same here as they are in a distant galaxy. Note that, because of the expansion of the universe and the speed-of-light-limit, there are some regions of the universe that we cannot ever explore (even in principle, assuming our current physics is correct). Thus, the prediction that "the laws of physics are invariant across the universe" is itself unfalsifiable, yet we generally accept it to be true.
That the laws of physics are invariant (first explicitly stated in geology as uniformitarianism) is not a prediction, but rather an axiom of science. All logical systems, science included, have certain underpinnings upon which the rest of the logical system rests. In science these are variously taken to be the aforementioned uniformitarian assumptions (i.e., "laws" are spatiotemporally invariant), Materialism, or some non-solipsistic view of the universe (i.e., there exists some real world beyond my mind), and (one often overlooked) sentience or awareness, because science requires sentient observers to make the observations out of which the logical system that is science is built.
None of these things can be proven as "predictions" precisely because attempting to do so would be a logical circularity - they are all logical prerequisites of the logical system that is science. Therefore science itself cannot either prove them true nor disprove them any more than geometers can "prove" that parallel lines never meet. These things:
1. a real world that is 2. governed by uniform laws 3. inhabited by sentient observers
simply have to be accepted by scientists as axiomatic truths or there can be no logical system we call science at all.
With this understanding the status of many worlds and the absurdly large number of parallel universes it entails is quite different from uniformity of natural laws. One (spatiotemporally uniform natural laws) is an assumption necessary for the scientific enterprise to function at all. The other (laughably large numbers of entire freakin' universes) is a clear and moreover, literal violation of occams razor which he originally phrased as:
Positing even a single additional universe constitutes multiplying a nearly uncountable number of entities. Occam's razor is clearly incompatible with many worlds. I think that those who seriously entertain the idea don't fully understand what Occam's razor says or means.
We now return you to parallel universes' proper place in our culture as the home of a bearded, agonizer wielding Commander Spock.
The point is not that the Chinese knock-off manufacturers cannot do security fixes and repairs, the point is that they most likely won't do these things since their market is low-price, low-margin, and doing security patches and repairs cuts into your bottom line very quickly when your margins are low.
Apple can afford to do these things because they sell high-end, high-margin products.
Slashdot Mirror
Another quite common tradeoff is between safety and debuggability on the one hand, and speed on the other. When developing one will globally declaim:
(declaim (optimize (speed 0) (safety 3) (debug 3)))
to ensure that the compiler inserts all possible safety checks and maintians as much debugging information as possible for use in stack backtraces when you drop into the debugger.
When a function or method is fully tested and debugged, and a profiler shows that it is indeed a hot spot in need of maximum compiler speed optimization, one then adds whatever type declarations may be necessary and locally declares:
(declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0) (debug 0)))
This way you have maximum safety and debuggability when developing code, but once you know something is a hot spot and you've fully debugged and tested it, you can remove the safety checks and debugging info and just optimize execution speed for that function only.
Meanwhile, you can continue to develop the rest of your code with the highest safety and debug settings getting the best of both worlds.
underscores? in lisp? are you mad!!?
(best-part-exists-p lisp)
i.e., hyphens as separators, p for predicate rather than the schemish question mark of you parent, and no need to quote lisp which is clearly being treated as a variable pointing to a language entity here, not a raw symbol in need of quotation.
dude, you need to be wearing lederhosen for this to work - and singing deutschland uber alles.
Anyone freed from desire to eat obviously dies.
Freeing oneself from desire also applies recursively in Buddhism. One also frees oneself from the desire to be without desire. This is why, when asked what one should do to be a Buddhist, the master Lin-chi said "Eat your food, move your bowels, pass water, and when you're tired go and lie down."
Your parent appears to be confusing the Buddhist notion that everything we experience (note italics) we experience because of mind, with the (rather silly) notion that this implies some sort of omniscience.
Buddhism holds that all things, i.e., all conceptions, all ideas, are creations of the mind and have no reality themselves, not that the physical universe is somehow created ex-nihilo by an individual human mind.
This is the same as noting that all entity demarcations, all supposedly fixed boundaries are arbitrary conceptual inventions, and that in reality, there is not nor can be any fixed demarcation of one "thing" from another. For example, human beings cannot survive much below atmospheric pressure - they simply blow out. In what sense then can it really be said that a human being ends at her skin? Even in space she ceases to be a human being unless surrounded by atmospheric pressure? So musn't the real conception of a human being include a surrounding layer of atmospheric pressure? Doesn't this atmospheric pressure as a practical matter for the overwhelming number of people who have ever lived, mean a planet with a certain mass and a certain atmosphere? Is this planet part of the correct conception of a human being too?
The point here is not to redefine what "human being" means, but rather to understand that all such conceptions, categories, things, are more or less arbitrary inventions of the mind, and that reality is much more interdependent and continuous than our (largely verbal) conceptualizations would have it.
You also need to consider that "omnipotent" means something very different when you're not talking about a personal God. If God is immanent (i.e., "divinity is inseparably present in all things"), but not a "person" then "omnipotent" simply means "God is capable of doing everything that happens." But since God is everything that is, this merely amounts to saying, "the Universe does everything that happens."
The confusion arises when people foolishly think of God as a person, like an old man with a long beard sitting on a cloud who then "does everything" like some sort of aerial puppeteer.
Okay I've merely disproven the truth of the quran. After all it contains direct statements that contradict mathematical truth.
You claim that doing so is different from disproving islam. ALL muslims would obviously disagree (and probably kill you and me for it, after all that is what said quran demands they do).
All literalist, fundamentalist muslims would disagree, but believe it or not, there are modern, progressive, non-literalist, non-fundamentalist muslims, just as there are Catholics who know that evolution is true etc.
please mod parent up as both insightful and funny.
inherent: adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute
inherit: verb [ trans. ]
receive (money, property, or a title) as an heir at the death of the previous
To be precise wrt GUIs, Xerox did it first, Apple licensed it from Xerox, Microsoft licensed it from Apple as part of their license to write software for the original Mac, then Apple turned around and sued Microsoft mostly because of plain old sour grapes, and I say this as a long time (20+ years) Apple/Mac user. Apple predictably lost.
similarly to feel "obligated"
(from "oblige" -> "obligaton" -> "obligated")
rather than the original: to feel "obliged."
"obligated" was not in use until the late 19th c.
1. Adults are not children. They have cognitive faculties (i.e., the ability to understand grammatical rules consciously) that children do not. Ignoring these Adult faculties slows foreign language acquisition in adults. Adults do better with a combination of articulated rules of grammar *and* immersive oral-aural training.
2. People who never move beyond the child's method of language acquisition (i.e., learning sentence patterns and doing simple substitution of elements) grow up to be adults who make common grammatical errors that are red flags of semi-literate status:
a. "He gave the tickets to John and I."
bzzzzt! Wrong: You and John are the indirect objects of the transitive verb "gave" here, and "I" is a subject pronoun. The first person object pronoun is "me."
Correct: "He gave the tickets to me." "He gave the tickets to John and me."
Why do people make this error? Because as children they were corrected for using "me" as a subject pronoun: "Don't say 'me and Jimmy went to the store,' say 'Jimmy and I went to the store." So they generalize this pattern as a rule: other person + me = "other person and I."
But this rule is wrong. You only know that it's wrong when you learn grammar. Childhood language acquisition methods are a good first approximation, but they'll never get you full competence in a language. For that you need the adult ability to understand abstract grammatical rules consciously.
The research project culminated in a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, a survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan. More commonly known as the China Study, this project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease.
The findings? ''People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored,'' said Dr. Campbell.
And before anyone complains that this is China and completely uniform, realize that one of the most surprising results was the huge variation in the rates of various chronic diseases across China and how they were very strongly associated with significant differences in the local diet.
"The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose." (emphasis added)
from the FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas
So if the national seashore's purpose is in part historic preservation (which I believe it is) then they can prohibit the placement of dishes in, for example, locations that are visible from public view.
I am in such an historic preservation district elsewhere in Massachusetts and we are not allowed to make any change to our properties that is visible from the street without getting architectural plans for the proposed change and submitting an application to the local Historical Comission. The process can take a year or more, and I seriously doubt they'd approve a naked dish on my roof.
Bottom line, put the dish in the back yard behind a fence or shed so it is not visible from any publicly accessible street/road/beach etc.
You're clearly unfamiliar with the history. Apple have been saying that Carbon was a temporary transitional framework and that developers should move to Cocoa since the late 90s.
Dropping 64 bit support for Carbon *GUI* code (yes, there is 64 bit Carbon, just not 64 bit Carbon GUI libraries) was just the latest in Apple's long litany of warnings that Carbon is eventually going bye bye and developers should transition to Cocoa, something they were told to do nearly a decade ago.
Exactly. Adobe, along with all Mac OS developers were warned almost a decade ago - essentially a previous geological epoch in computer terms - that going forward they would have to move their apps from Carbon, the old OS 9 compatibility layer - to Cocoa, the new Mac OS X framework which has been the fully native Mac OS X framework since the developer previews of Mac OS X in the late 90s.
Adobe was busy focusing on the windows market and betting that Apple would go out of business so they put 0 effort into porting Photoshop to Cocoa - OOOPS!
Apple not only survived but thrived, so Adobe simply dug in their heels and assumed that Apple would keep Carbon around forever rather than risk losing Adobe. Instead, Apple simply built internal Cocoa replacements for all the Carbon software whose absence could threaten the platform:
Microsoft Internet Explorer -> Safari
Microsoft Outlook -> Mail and AddressBook
Microsoft Word -> Pages
Microsoft Excel -> Numbers
Microsoft PowerPoint -> Keynote
Adobe Photoshop -> Aperture
This 64bit issue is no one's fault except Adobe who have had nearly a decade's warning that they needed to move from Carbon to Cocoa.
Is parent post AC because he's astroturfing for Comcast?
Read the item - one user claims proof that Comcast is throttling ftp as well. I suppose ftp "illegal" in your view as well then? Comcast is throttling bandwidth intensive traffic without regard to the legality of the content. This is wrong.
Comcast thought they could get away with advertising unlimited broadband service but only actually providing limted service. It is this deception of customers that brought on this investigation, not the content traveling over Comcast's network.
This is an oversimplified view of how evolution works. In fact, it's so oversimplified as to be grossly misleading.
Evolution works by *differential* reproductive success. This does not require in any way that we leave the "unfit" out in the snow. Their own genetic disadvantages will see to it that they simply leave fewer offspring.
By intervening directly (the "leave them out in the snow" school) you run the very significant risk that you mistakenly identify as "unfit" individuals whose genomes contain significant survival advantages that would otherwise be passed on in the gene pool.
IOW, not being omniscient, people are likely to identify as "unfit" individuals who they simply don't like, feel threatened by, etc., and prevent from reproducing people who are, in fact, carriers of genes with significant survival value.
It's called "natural selection" for a reason: the inevitable expression of each individual's genome will of necessity result in some individuals leaving more offspring than others. These individuals are, *by definition* the fittest. No need to intervene - it's already taken care of.
Note that in artificial selection, breeders can only select for heritable traits that they observe. In the process they often end up with breeds that carry significant deleterious traits because the breeders were not aware that they were inadvertently selecting for these as well.
It all comes down to humility about our lack of omniscience. Anything short of a complete understanding of all the complexity of the human genome, epigenetics, and how these interact with various past, present and yes, even future environments, will lead to the unintended, but potentially disastrous reduction of variation and loss of genes of significant fitness.
The system (natural selection) works well precisely because there is nothing driving it except the objective reality of navigating the myriad vagaries of life successfully to the goal (from evolution's standpoint) of reproducing. Let's not pretend that we understand all of it fully and interfere with it.
Spoken like a true anonymous coward.
Sorry to reply to myself, but this last bit of the exchange is a nice summary of Taubes's distortions.
Taubes is extremely biased in his presentation of available evidence. For a scathing critique of his abuse of science see this article.
Exactly. Summary should have said "Internet Lupus" or "Internet Multiple Sclerosis" etc.
You don't want to interrupt your concentration. You just type in the computer, and it's easy. If you get up and walk to the next cubicle, your concentration is ruined. But in this case, it's ruined also for both of you: you and the person you walked to.
Switching from one task to another, even if you're doing both on a computer, is still a break in concentration. This is why people who really need to concentrate work in offices with doors. This is why libraries require patrons to be quiet. The ability to shut out the rest of the world for significant periods of time is how tasks requiring real concentration get done.
In short, multitasking is a productivity killer.
Continuous interruptions (like IM) are one of the enemies of serious concentration. That's why IM sees widespread use in social communication where individual focus is unimportant, but little use among those who need long periods of concentration to do serious work. For the latter, intermittent communication (like email) allows for longer periods of focused concentration.
That is, we can extrapolate from one measurement to others. Put otherwise, we accept that the laws of physics are the same here as they are in a distant galaxy. Note that, because of the expansion of the universe and the speed-of-light-limit, there are some regions of the universe that we cannot ever explore (even in principle, assuming our current physics is correct). Thus, the prediction that "the laws of physics are invariant across the universe" is itself unfalsifiable, yet we generally accept it to be true.
That the laws of physics are invariant (first explicitly stated in geology as uniformitarianism) is not a prediction, but rather an axiom of science. All logical systems, science included, have certain underpinnings upon which the rest of the logical system rests. In science these are variously taken to be the aforementioned uniformitarian assumptions (i.e., "laws" are spatiotemporally invariant), Materialism, or some non-solipsistic view of the universe (i.e., there exists some real world beyond my mind), and (one often overlooked) sentience or awareness, because science requires sentient observers to make the observations out of which the logical system that is science is built.
None of these things can be proven as "predictions" precisely because attempting to do so would be a logical circularity - they are all logical prerequisites of the logical system that is science. Therefore science itself cannot either prove them true nor disprove them any more than geometers can "prove" that parallel lines never meet. These things:
1. a real world that is
2. governed by uniform laws
3. inhabited by sentient observers
simply have to be accepted by scientists as axiomatic truths or there can be no logical system we call science at all.
With this understanding the status of many worlds and the absurdly large number of parallel universes it entails is quite different from uniformity of natural laws. One (spatiotemporally uniform natural laws) is an assumption necessary for the scientific enterprise to function at all. The other (laughably large numbers of entire freakin' universes) is a clear and moreover, literal violation of occams razor which he originally phrased as:
entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
Positing even a single additional universe constitutes multiplying a nearly uncountable number of entities. Occam's razor is clearly incompatible with many worlds. I think that those who seriously entertain the idea don't fully understand what Occam's razor says or means.
We now return you to parallel universes' proper place in our culture as the home of a bearded, agonizer wielding Commander Spock.
The point is not that the Chinese knock-off manufacturers cannot do security fixes and repairs, the point is that they most likely won't do these things since their market is low-price, low-margin, and doing security patches and repairs cuts into your bottom line very quickly when your margins are low.
Apple can afford to do these things because they sell high-end, high-margin products.