Replying twice because that last bit really stood on its own.
There's no "whataboutism" going on, more of a case that when people use "whataboutism" they're waving their hand trying to reframe something because they don't want to deal with the issue that someone has brought up.
No. I brought up that it's bad when men behave in a sexist manner and you literally brought up women doing the same thing in a "what about" manner. That's textbook whataboutism. The thing you seem to misunderstand about whataboutism is that pointing it out is pointing out that it's bad on both sides. Doesn't matter, really, which side is worse; one side being worse than the other doesn't fucking justify the other side being bad at all. The issue is that people like you think it's fine to be just a little less wrong than the "other side", almost as if you believe being less wrong actually makes you right. The guy who says 2+2=5 is technically less wrong than the guy who says 2+2+6, but lemme tell you neither of them are right. That's what people are pointing out when they call out whataboutism. It's not to avoid dealing with the issue, it's to ensure that both sides of the issue are dealt with; you don't like it because you don't want to deal with your side of the issue.
And won't do you a damn bit of good, when someone makes a claim against you for something 30 years ago
I won't have to worry about that because I didn't harass anyone 30 years ago.
and everyone treats it like it happened last week right?
And they'l be doubly wrong; not only did it not happen last week, it never happened at all.
By the time you think you should "know when to get the fuck out" it's already too late.
It sounds like you think I was saying you need to know when you've gone too far and run before you get in trouble. Wrong. If you've gone too far, you deserve what you get, next week or in 30 years, because you're part of the problem. I was talking about recognizing toxic people (try a mirror) and toxic environments and simply not offering them your talents. You've made it clear that your main talent is missing the point, though, and I don't think you're gonna change much by depriving anyone of that special skill.
You really sound like you're trying to defend actions you took three decades ago that put you on the wrong side of this whole debate by framing it as "well, women do it too and they do it worse". Sorry, doesn't matter if God himself does it, if it's wrong, and you recognize it as wrong, and you've done it, you are still in the wrong.
so obvious question what are you doing to fix the problem besides handwaving with "whataboutism"?
I would ask you the same from my position running a business that hires people on their merits. That's both an answer and a question, ball's in your court.
No, my neutrality negates nothing, but your lack of neutrality perpetuates the past. Do you not see that? Seriously, stop making everything about race and you'll see life in an entirely different way; when you encounter someone who does make thing about race, deal with them accordingly. Judge them by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin; that's their mistake, you needn't make it as well. Two wrongs and all that.
Yes, all of that happened and all of that was horrible. Those are all examples of people making race matter. The issue arises when you encounter someone who at least attempts to make race a non-issue but you, yourself, keep bringing up race, thereby making it matter. It doesn't matter that Obama is black (after all he's only half black), it matters that he was the best candidate, and the AC to whom I was replying was displaying extreme ignorance and racial bias by making it about his race rather than his credentials. Yes, the credentials were brought up, but the focus was put on how he was a black man who only won because he was so much better than his opponents... well, of course he won because he was better and I'm glad for that; his race had no part in that, though.
Everyone, people of all races condemn criminals all the time. You are just too racist to see it
Oh? So I didn't say this?
I know many black people who recognize this fact and speak out against it; those are good people.
Yes, I did actually say it. And I meant it. You, on the other hand, saw what you thought was a racist diatribe (it was aimed at an individual, not a race) and fired off an ignorant-as-fuck inflammatory response. Good for you.
and are falsely accusing minorities of not condemning criminals even when they do just like everyone else.
No, I was accusing an individual of being ignorant. Now I'm accusing two.
When are you going to condemn Donald Trump who continues to commit treason in public and obvious ways?
I wait with baited breath for Trump's trial.
Never, like all the white republican traitors who stand by this known Russian stooge?
Perhaps read my post in its entirety before replying next time?
No, I've heard it all. I never said we should have female-dominated companies, either. That said, we should, and men should refuse to work there just as women should refuse to work for companies dominated by males sexist pigs as well. It's wrong no matter which gender does it, but that sure was some nite whataboutism.
My first job was working in a convenience store owned by a woman and her early 20's daughter; my second was as one of two male employees at a video store, my third was more balanced but under a female manager who almost landed me in prison when I wouldn't date her. You wanna trade war stories, email me; I don't think this is the place for it. The difference is I have marketable skills today and have wised up quite a bit -- if the situation turns sour I know to get the fuck out.
If you look back a ways through my comment history you'll also learn that I'm not exactly unfamiliar with female-on-male rape or domestic violence, either.
Then you end up with a company full of white male sex offenders. I say we allow it; if they're all working there, they're not intermixing with the general population and other, more same companies are better off for it.
I say this as a white male who would refuse to work for such a company.
Obama showed just how good our minority population has made itself to overcome the systemic racism in our society
Uhm... Perhaps you should start be denouncing the criminals and gangbangers who are of your own race, like most other races do? And I mean you, personally, not black people in general. Your minority population still makes up the majority of perpetrators of violent crimes against other members of your minority population. Speak out against that and put an end to it, then you'll have made yourself (again, you personally) "good". I know many black people who recognize this fact and speak out against it; those are good people. You, on the other hand, stand under the umbrella of someone else's accomplishment and claim you've overcome racism? No, Obama overcame racism, black men and women who decry the violent and ignorant actions of lesser individuals have overcome racism, but what have you done to better yourself?
I know I'm gonna get flamed hard for this and likely be downmodded into oblivion but, you know what? I don't care. What I'm saying needs to be said. Here it is: RACE ONLY MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOU LET IT MATTER.
In most cases, yes it is. Exceptions are few and far between; for example, you can turn down black women with impunity when casting the role of a white male character.
So the real headline is "Common bacteria able to feed on less common sugar, just like many other organisms". This really shouldn't surprise anyone in the field, nor should it alarm anyone at all -- yet the summary was worded in such a way as to cause alarm. I'll admit, I didn't read TFA; after all, this is Slashdot.
I'm not saying the summary was written the way it was with the express intent of causing alarm, mind you; just that, for people without an understanding of the actual meaning of the findings, from a biological perspective, is to approach this new information the same way we've seen the masses approach anything else they hear might be the slightest bit bad for them. We replaced fat with sugar because we thought fat was making us fat, just as one example, and we all suffered for it because, as it turns out, it was actually the sugar that was making us fat in the first place.
A few facts about trehalose:
- You and I can use it -- we get about the same number of calories per gram as we to from common table sugar, making it a good energy alternative if you're seeking a sugar rush
- Most tooth-decay-causing bacteria can't break it down into glucose -- it doesn't feed them and, thus, doesn't contribute as much to tooth decay as common table sugar, or corn syrup for that matter
- While it has a higher glycemic index than sucrose, it triggers a much lower release of insulin than sucrose, fructose, or pure glucose; there are biochemical implications here that really won't fit in a Slashdot post, but I'll say this can be seen as a positive for some and a negative for others
- For most cooking uses, it behaves quite similarly to table sugar, but is only 45% as sweet (which may be a positive for its use as a nutritive substitute for table sugar, as it allows you to maintain the consistency that table sugar will provide without making things too sweet)
- As a non-reducing sugar, it does not take part in the Maillard reaction and, thus, does not use up amino acids within your body
Your body will treat it more or less the same as it would treat sucrose or fructose, but with a smaller bump in insulin levels. If you're one of the many who likes things to be a little less sweet, but realizes that a certain amount of sugar does affect the texture of, say, a cake or cookie, trehalose might be a viable alternative.
There are people here who are much more knowledgeable on this subject than myself, who I'm sure can provide more details (and likely correct an error or two in the ones I've provided), so take what I've written here with a grain of salt (to cut the bitterness and let the sweetness shine through, or course).
Indeed they are. I actually took a second look at this from a biochem perspective and realized I probably have low calcium intake due to some recent dietary changes, which would be bringing down my potassium and sodium as my body eliminates them in an attempt to maintain some semblance of balance between the three. It's amazing, the things I've learned and then later forgotten because they don't apply to anything that pays the bills or fills my leisure time -- then remember again when someone points out some little detail.
For the record, I keep a bowl of almonds at my desk. I do get a small amount of calcium from them, but I only munch on them when I crave them, about once a week or so. Now that I realize there's probably a dietary reason for the craving, I'll step it up a bit. Your comment lead me to look into the calcium content of almonds and I was surprised to find that they're actually a better source than the milk I've recently (mostly) removed from my diet. Thank you.
An additional note for the record, follower by a question: I've received two helpful replies to this post actually grounded in fact and genuine knowledge; and only one troll thus far. That, of course, is leading me to wonder: am I actually still on Slashdot?
My doctor, the one I actually see in the flesh, not some rando who likes to argue with me on Slashdot, ran actual blood tests and determined that I had a sodium deficiency. A biochem undergrad who likely understands these things far better than you decided it wise to not argue with that and, rather, added something actually useful to the conversation. And before you jump in and point out how I never mentioned a doctor, I might suggest you read the entire post, as it ended with the following:
Now, why didn't my doctor tell me about this when he told me I wasn't getting enough sodium?
From a biochem perspective (I have background here, so I follow what Cinnamon Beige is saying; it's not my strong point so it tends not to click with me right away like a lot of other things) it makes sense that your body, in an attempt to maintain balance between sodium, potassium, and calcium levels would eliminate sodium (e.g. you pee it out) if you're not getting enough potassium or calcium. In fact, that's actually what happens so, yes, you can eat the LD50 of salt for your body weight every day and still have low sodium; you'd have to also be drinking a lot of water to eliminate that much sodium from your body and you'd have a litany of other issue along with it, but it's possible if your potassium and/or calcium intake is low enough. And that actually makes sense for me, as well, as I've been avoiding milk-based products -- which have been my primary calcium source for basically my entire life -- due to other recent (and temporary) issues, and the occasional mental fog of which I complain did start rolling in about a month or so after that change. Low calcium = biochem balancing act = low potassium = low sodium as both are eliminated through urine.
But yes, I probably get a day's worth of salt from the ham and egg sandwich I have for breakfast every morning. I also probably piss most of it out an hour or so later; your book didn't point that out, so maybe you need to read another?
One company's flaw requires physical access to reboot the system into BIOS/UEFI and install a certificate in order to enable remote access, the other company's is remotely exploitable from day 0. That might explain why they're being received differently.
Sucrose, glucose, and fructose are the sugars that the FDA actually considers sugar. Since trehalose is none of those, you can add it and claim "no sugar added" the same way you can add guarana to something and still call it "caffeine free". It's false advertising, but with a legal green flag.
So you're saying I should eat a salted banana for breakfast every morning?
But seriously, this information was actually useful as I recently increased my salt intake because I wasn't getting enough and have felt somewhat of a mental fog ever since; I'll add potassium into the mix and see how that goes. Now, why didn't my doctor tell me about this when he told me I wasn't getting enough sodium?
Summary reads as though it was written by someone with a stake in the price of trehalose, calling it "otherwise harmless". A bullet can kill you if it enters your body at high speed, but they're are otherwise harmless; we still don't allow people to shoot guns randomly so long as they're not aiming at someone. I'd just like to point out that "otherwise harmless" is a weasel-word for "harmful".
Link was for a PCIe connected drive, I thought. That's what I was looking for anyway.
Yes, and you mentioned your SATA-connected 850. That's what I was responding to. Wouldn't it have been kind of silly of me to respond to my own comment?
But it's two chips in RAID0 so it has some headroom for performance...
It's still connected to a single 4x slot. Once you max out that throughput, it doesn't matter how fast you are on the other side; you could have a million chips in a RAID strip and still wouldn't be able to exceed the throughput that 4x slot can handle.
And those read/write speeds are also to a fully encrypted drive.
And as I pointed out elsewhere, Ryzen and anything Intel has put out for the past few generations can handle that encryption with dedicated silicon right on the same die as the CPU; the drive need not (is not and should not) be aware of the encryption and no extra components are necessary for it. If the drive is handling the encryptio nitself, the drive must contain the key in some readable format which, well, is just a dandy idea I'm sure; it's worked so well for CSS and AACS, hasn't it?
That is a good point, after some time the figures may not be as good, will be interesting to see performance figures after some time.
I actually meant immediately after, when the drive needs a TRIM and some time to cool down.
You have a SATA drive (6Gbit/sec at the protocol level) and think it's meaningful that it's slower than a PCIe-connected drive? And yeah, I got my wires crossed re: read/write. My writes are closer to 2500 and my reads are pretty near the theoretical maximum for 4x PCIe3 so I doubt the Apple drive does any better there, considering that's how it's connected.
I'll go ahead and wipe the egg off my face re: the read/write mixup and move on.
I would post current CDM results but I've been thrashing the drive tonight editing some videos; it needs a good TRIM and some time to cool down as its performance is a bit degraded due to thermal throttling of the flash chips. At the moment I'm only seeing about half the performance (a little more on the write side, interestingly; I'm surprised reads are what took the hit) I see in typical usage due to those factors which, of course, will affect the iMac Pro equally, if not more due to the thermal profile of a machine crammed into such a tight enclosure.
Honestly, I'd be interested to see a benchmark after 18 hours of reading and writing at capacity, to see how it compares to the 2086/1781 I'm currently seeing in that very state.
Slashdot Mirror
Which other post and what part?
There's no "whataboutism" going on, more of a case that when people use "whataboutism" they're waving their hand trying to reframe something because they don't want to deal with the issue that someone has brought up.
No. I brought up that it's bad when men behave in a sexist manner and you literally brought up women doing the same thing in a "what about" manner. That's textbook whataboutism. The thing you seem to misunderstand about whataboutism is that pointing it out is pointing out that it's bad on both sides. Doesn't matter, really, which side is worse; one side being worse than the other doesn't fucking justify the other side being bad at all. The issue is that people like you think it's fine to be just a little less wrong than the "other side", almost as if you believe being less wrong actually makes you right. The guy who says 2+2=5 is technically less wrong than the guy who says 2+2+6, but lemme tell you neither of them are right. That's what people are pointing out when they call out whataboutism. It's not to avoid dealing with the issue, it's to ensure that both sides of the issue are dealt with; you don't like it because you don't want to deal with your side of the issue.
And won't do you a damn bit of good, when someone makes a claim against you for something 30 years ago
I won't have to worry about that because I didn't harass anyone 30 years ago.
and everyone treats it like it happened last week right?
And they'l be doubly wrong; not only did it not happen last week, it never happened at all.
By the time you think you should "know when to get the fuck out" it's already too late.
It sounds like you think I was saying you need to know when you've gone too far and run before you get in trouble. Wrong. If you've gone too far, you deserve what you get, next week or in 30 years, because you're part of the problem. I was talking about recognizing toxic people (try a mirror) and toxic environments and simply not offering them your talents. You've made it clear that your main talent is missing the point, though, and I don't think you're gonna change much by depriving anyone of that special skill.
You really sound like you're trying to defend actions you took three decades ago that put you on the wrong side of this whole debate by framing it as "well, women do it too and they do it worse". Sorry, doesn't matter if God himself does it, if it's wrong, and you recognize it as wrong, and you've done it, you are still in the wrong.
so obvious question what are you doing to fix the problem besides handwaving with "whataboutism"?
I would ask you the same from my position running a business that hires people on their merits. That's both an answer and a question, ball's in your court.
No, my neutrality negates nothing, but your lack of neutrality perpetuates the past. Do you not see that? Seriously, stop making everything about race and you'll see life in an entirely different way; when you encounter someone who does make thing about race, deal with them accordingly. Judge them by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin; that's their mistake, you needn't make it as well. Two wrongs and all that.
Thanks, I'd never actually seen it in written form nor learned the etymology of the term. Now, I've done both.
Yes, all of that happened and all of that was horrible. Those are all examples of people making race matter. The issue arises when you encounter someone who at least attempts to make race a non-issue but you, yourself, keep bringing up race, thereby making it matter. It doesn't matter that Obama is black (after all he's only half black), it matters that he was the best candidate, and the AC to whom I was replying was displaying extreme ignorance and racial bias by making it about his race rather than his credentials. Yes, the credentials were brought up, but the focus was put on how he was a black man who only won because he was so much better than his opponents... well, of course he won because he was better and I'm glad for that; his race had no part in that, though.
Everyone, people of all races condemn criminals all the time. You are just too racist to see it
Oh? So I didn't say this?
I know many black people who recognize this fact and speak out against it; those are good people.
Yes, I did actually say it. And I meant it. You, on the other hand, saw what you thought was a racist diatribe (it was aimed at an individual, not a race) and fired off an ignorant-as-fuck inflammatory response. Good for you.
and are falsely accusing minorities of not condemning criminals even when they do just like everyone else.
No, I was accusing an individual of being ignorant. Now I'm accusing two.
When are you going to condemn Donald Trump who continues to commit treason in public and obvious ways?
I wait with baited breath for Trump's trial.
Never, like all the white republican traitors who stand by this known Russian stooge?
Perhaps read my post in its entirety before replying next time?
No, I've heard it all. I never said we should have female-dominated companies, either. That said, we should, and men should refuse to work there just as women should refuse to work for companies dominated by males sexist pigs as well. It's wrong no matter which gender does it, but that sure was some nite whataboutism.
My first job was working in a convenience store owned by a woman and her early 20's daughter; my second was as one of two male employees at a video store, my third was more balanced but under a female manager who almost landed me in prison when I wouldn't date her. You wanna trade war stories, email me; I don't think this is the place for it. The difference is I have marketable skills today and have wised up quite a bit -- if the situation turns sour I know to get the fuck out.
If you look back a ways through my comment history you'll also learn that I'm not exactly unfamiliar with female-on-male rape or domestic violence, either.
Then you end up with a company full of white male sex offenders. I say we allow it; if they're all working there, they're not intermixing with the general population and other, more same companies are better off for it.
I say this as a white male who would refuse to work for such a company.
Obama showed just how good our minority population has made itself to overcome the systemic racism in our society
Uhm... Perhaps you should start be denouncing the criminals and gangbangers who are of your own race, like most other races do? And I mean you, personally, not black people in general. Your minority population still makes up the majority of perpetrators of violent crimes against other members of your minority population. Speak out against that and put an end to it, then you'll have made yourself (again, you personally) "good". I know many black people who recognize this fact and speak out against it; those are good people. You, on the other hand, stand under the umbrella of someone else's accomplishment and claim you've overcome racism? No, Obama overcame racism, black men and women who decry the violent and ignorant actions of lesser individuals have overcome racism, but what have you done to better yourself?
I know I'm gonna get flamed hard for this and likely be downmodded into oblivion but, you know what? I don't care. What I'm saying needs to be said. Here it is: RACE ONLY MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOU LET IT MATTER.
In most cases, yes it is. Exceptions are few and far between; for example, you can turn down black women with impunity when casting the role of a white male character.
So the real headline is "Common bacteria able to feed on less common sugar, just like many other organisms". This really shouldn't surprise anyone in the field, nor should it alarm anyone at all -- yet the summary was worded in such a way as to cause alarm. I'll admit, I didn't read TFA; after all, this is Slashdot.
I'm not saying the summary was written the way it was with the express intent of causing alarm, mind you; just that, for people without an understanding of the actual meaning of the findings, from a biological perspective, is to approach this new information the same way we've seen the masses approach anything else they hear might be the slightest bit bad for them. We replaced fat with sugar because we thought fat was making us fat, just as one example, and we all suffered for it because, as it turns out, it was actually the sugar that was making us fat in the first place.
A few facts about trehalose:
- You and I can use it -- we get about the same number of calories per gram as we to from common table sugar, making it a good energy alternative if you're seeking a sugar rush
- Most tooth-decay-causing bacteria can't break it down into glucose -- it doesn't feed them and, thus, doesn't contribute as much to tooth decay as common table sugar, or corn syrup for that matter
- While it has a higher glycemic index than sucrose, it triggers a much lower release of insulin than sucrose, fructose, or pure glucose; there are biochemical implications here that really won't fit in a Slashdot post, but I'll say this can be seen as a positive for some and a negative for others
- For most cooking uses, it behaves quite similarly to table sugar, but is only 45% as sweet (which may be a positive for its use as a nutritive substitute for table sugar, as it allows you to maintain the consistency that table sugar will provide without making things too sweet)
- As a non-reducing sugar, it does not take part in the Maillard reaction and, thus, does not use up amino acids within your body
Your body will treat it more or less the same as it would treat sucrose or fructose, but with a smaller bump in insulin levels. If you're one of the many who likes things to be a little less sweet, but realizes that a certain amount of sugar does affect the texture of, say, a cake or cookie, trehalose might be a viable alternative.
There are people here who are much more knowledgeable on this subject than myself, who I'm sure can provide more details (and likely correct an error or two in the ones I've provided), so take what I've written here with a grain of salt (to cut the bitterness and let the sweetness shine through, or course).
Indeed they are. I actually took a second look at this from a biochem perspective and realized I probably have low calcium intake due to some recent dietary changes, which would be bringing down my potassium and sodium as my body eliminates them in an attempt to maintain some semblance of balance between the three. It's amazing, the things I've learned and then later forgotten because they don't apply to anything that pays the bills or fills my leisure time -- then remember again when someone points out some little detail.
For the record, I keep a bowl of almonds at my desk. I do get a small amount of calcium from them, but I only munch on them when I crave them, about once a week or so. Now that I realize there's probably a dietary reason for the craving, I'll step it up a bit. Your comment lead me to look into the calcium content of almonds and I was surprised to find that they're actually a better source than the milk I've recently (mostly) removed from my diet. Thank you.
An additional note for the record, follower by a question: I've received two helpful replies to this post actually grounded in fact and genuine knowledge; and only one troll thus far. That, of course, is leading me to wonder: am I actually still on Slashdot?
Now, why didn't my doctor tell me about this when he told me I wasn't getting enough sodium?
From a biochem perspective (I have background here, so I follow what Cinnamon Beige is saying; it's not my strong point so it tends not to click with me right away like a lot of other things) it makes sense that your body, in an attempt to maintain balance between sodium, potassium, and calcium levels would eliminate sodium (e.g. you pee it out) if you're not getting enough potassium or calcium. In fact, that's actually what happens so, yes, you can eat the LD50 of salt for your body weight every day and still have low sodium; you'd have to also be drinking a lot of water to eliminate that much sodium from your body and you'd have a litany of other issue along with it, but it's possible if your potassium and/or calcium intake is low enough. And that actually makes sense for me, as well, as I've been avoiding milk-based products -- which have been my primary calcium source for basically my entire life -- due to other recent (and temporary) issues, and the occasional mental fog of which I complain did start rolling in about a month or so after that change. Low calcium = biochem balancing act = low potassium = low sodium as both are eliminated through urine.
But yes, I probably get a day's worth of salt from the ham and egg sandwich I have for breakfast every morning. I also probably piss most of it out an hour or so later; your book didn't point that out, so maybe you need to read another?
One company's flaw requires physical access to reboot the system into BIOS/UEFI and install a certificate in order to enable remote access, the other company's is remotely exploitable from day 0. That might explain why they're being received differently.
Did this exchange really just happen on Slashdot? Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?
Odd, the biochemist didn't raise that point. I think I'm going to trust them over you, thanks.
I always stand to be corrected, thanks for the information.
It's also readily digested into glucose in the human digestive tract so, well, it can provide energy to humans as well.
Sucrose, glucose, and fructose are the sugars that the FDA actually considers sugar. Since trehalose is none of those, you can add it and claim "no sugar added" the same way you can add guarana to something and still call it "caffeine free". It's false advertising, but with a legal green flag.
So you're saying I should eat a salted banana for breakfast every morning?
But seriously, this information was actually useful as I recently increased my salt intake because I wasn't getting enough and have felt somewhat of a mental fog ever since; I'll add potassium into the mix and see how that goes. Now, why didn't my doctor tell me about this when he told me I wasn't getting enough sodium?
Summary reads as though it was written by someone with a stake in the price of trehalose, calling it "otherwise harmless". A bullet can kill you if it enters your body at high speed, but they're are otherwise harmless; we still don't allow people to shoot guns randomly so long as they're not aiming at someone. I'd just like to point out that "otherwise harmless" is a weasel-word for "harmful".
Link was for a PCIe connected drive, I thought. That's what I was looking for anyway.
Yes, and you mentioned your SATA-connected 850. That's what I was responding to. Wouldn't it have been kind of silly of me to respond to my own comment?
But it's two chips in RAID0 so it has some headroom for performance...
It's still connected to a single 4x slot. Once you max out that throughput, it doesn't matter how fast you are on the other side; you could have a million chips in a RAID strip and still wouldn't be able to exceed the throughput that 4x slot can handle.
And those read/write speeds are also to a fully encrypted drive.
And as I pointed out elsewhere, Ryzen and anything Intel has put out for the past few generations can handle that encryption with dedicated silicon right on the same die as the CPU; the drive need not (is not and should not) be aware of the encryption and no extra components are necessary for it. If the drive is handling the encryptio nitself, the drive must contain the key in some readable format which, well, is just a dandy idea I'm sure; it's worked so well for CSS and AACS, hasn't it?
That is a good point, after some time the figures may not be as good, will be interesting to see performance figures after some time.
I actually meant immediately after, when the drive needs a TRIM and some time to cool down.
You have a SATA drive (6Gbit/sec at the protocol level) and think it's meaningful that it's slower than a PCIe-connected drive? And yeah, I got my wires crossed re: read/write. My writes are closer to 2500 and my reads are pretty near the theoretical maximum for 4x PCIe3 so I doubt the Apple drive does any better there, considering that's how it's connected.
I'll go ahead and wipe the egg off my face re: the read/write mixup and move on.
I would post current CDM results but I've been thrashing the drive tonight editing some videos; it needs a good TRIM and some time to cool down as its performance is a bit degraded due to thermal throttling of the flash chips. At the moment I'm only seeing about half the performance (a little more on the write side, interestingly; I'm surprised reads are what took the hit) I see in typical usage due to those factors which, of course, will affect the iMac Pro equally, if not more due to the thermal profile of a machine crammed into such a tight enclosure.
Honestly, I'd be interested to see a benchmark after 18 hours of reading and writing at capacity, to see how it compares to the 2086/1781 I'm currently seeing in that very state.
Yes, and the 960 PRO is specced at 3500MB/sec. To my own surprise, I've seen mine write considerably faster.
Who do you think makes Apple's SSDs in the first place?