Connect with us

Tech News

Mac Pro Customers, Desperate for a Refresh, Are Upgrading 6-Year-Old Hardware

Published

on

It’s not hard to see why some users would prefer to upgrade the old “cheese grater” Macs rather than buying a 2013 system, and there’s even a Danish vendor, Big Little Frank, dedicated to reselling machines built around the older CPU platform. There’s no doubt the classic Mac Pro tower can offer certain capabilities that the new iMac Pro and 2013 Mac Pro trash can both lack — like multiple internal drive bays, and the (unsupported) option to use modern GPUs in a multi-GPU configuration, as opposed to being limited to AMD’s ancient GCN 1.0 technology. If you know your workloads are entirely GPU-limited, it might be worth investing in a tower Mac Pro with a pair of modern graphics cards. But this is far from a sure thing and we’d generally recommend against it.

BigLittleFrank

Big Little Frank’s custom “cheese grater” Mac Pro

While it’s absolutely true that CPU performance improvements have slowed in recent years, 2011’s Sandy Bridge was a significant improvement over Westmere. The fastest CPU configuration officially supported by a 2012-era Mac Pro is a pair of Xeon X5690’s, a six-core chip with a 3.46GHz base and 3.73GHz turbo clock. As this comparison from Anandtech shows, SNB was ~15 percent faster than Westmere at the same clock speed. Even if we assume that Haswell and Skylake added just five percent on average on top of that, a modern Xeon CPU would still be 1.27x faster than Westmere, clock-for-clock.

That’s before we factor in any performance improvements from AVX, AVX2, or AVX-512 support. It also ignores the fact that modern CPUs offer substantially more cores. A 12-core Mac Pro is still respectable, but a modern dual-socket workstation system could contain as many as 56 CPU cores in a top-end configuration.

Here’s how the Xeon X5690 (2012 Mac Pro), Xeon E5-2697 v2 (2013 Mac Pro) and a Xeon Gold 6146 compare against each other. These are the top-end chips you can buy for their respective platforms and the highest-end 12-core CPU Intel currently sells:

Xeon-Comparison

There’s no universe in which even a pair of X5690’s are competition for a modern Xeon. Even at equivalent core count, the modern CPU has a significant efficiency advantage and more clock headroom, to say nothing of maximum memory bandwidth (the 6146 supports six memory channels, compared to four on Westmere and Ivy Bridge).

Then there are the features and support you aren’t getting, from Thunderbolt to USB 3.1. Some of these can be added via aftermarket cards or Hackintosh configurations. But professionals that want an out-of-the-box solution that ‘just works’ are going to be stuck paying a company like Big Little Frank to perform the integration themselves.

The existence of companies like BLF and the hunger for a new Mac Pro solution are a symptom of how badly Apple screwed up with the 2013 Mac Pro. The company failed to pivot to a GPU-centric ecosystem. It didn’t even bother to deliver upgrades for its own “cutting-edge” form factor. But while we sympathize with professional Macintosh users who want the company to offer an official solution to their woes, we can’t really recommend an alternative that’s so firmly anchored to out-of-date hardware and the platform limitations, increased power consumption, and lack of official support that comes along with it. The idea of buying a “new” Mac tower in a six-year-old form factor may appeal, but Mac professionals will be better served by waiting or buying a PC than buying into an obsolete system design.

Top image credit: Uadro/Wikimedia Commons

A lover of all things tech, love all things that uses creative juices (not an innuendo) an avid blogger and part time vlogger, now stop reading and go check out some awesome posts on this site.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Tech News

How Cambridge Analytica works and turned ‘likes’ into political tool

Published

on

How Cambridge analytica works

The algorithm at the heart of the Facebook data breach sounds almost too dystopian to be real. It trawls through the most apparently trivial, throwaway postings –the “likes” users dole out as they browse the site – to gather sensitive personal information about sexual orientation, race, gender, even intelligence and childhood trauma. So exactly how cambridge analytica works and why it turned like in to a real world political tool.

A few dozen “likes” can give a strong prediction of which party a user will vote for, reveal their gender and whether their partner is likely to be a man or woman, provide powerful clues about whether their parents stayed together throughout their childhood and predict their vulnerability to substance abuse. And it can do all this without delving into personal messages, posts, status updates, photos or all the other information Facebook holds.

how cambridge analytica works

Some results may sound more like the result of updated online sleuthing than sophisticated data analysis; “liking” a political campaign page is little different from pinning a poster in a window.

But five years ago psychology researchers showed that far more complex traits could be deduced from patterns invisible to a human observer scanning through profiles. Just a few apparently random “likes” could form the basis for disturbingly complex character assessments.

When users liked “curly fries” and Sephora cosmetics, this was said to give clues to intelligence; Hello Kitty likes indicated political views; “Being confused after waking up from naps” was linked to sexuality. These were just some of the unexpected but consistent correlations noted in a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal in 2013. “Few users were associated with ‘likes’ explicitly revealing their attributes. For example, less than 5% of users labelled as gay were connected with explicitly gay groups, such as No H8 Campaign,” the peer-reviewed research found.

The researchers, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell and Thore Graepel, saw the dystopian potential of the study and raised privacy concerns. At the time Facebook “likes” were public by default.


Cambridge Analytica whistleblower: ‘We spent $1m harvesting millions of Facebook profiles’ How Cambridge Analytica works.

“The predictability of individual attributes from digital records of behaviour may have considerable negative implications, because it can easily be applied to large numbers of people without their individual consent and without them noticing,” they said.

“Commercial companies, governmental institutions, or even your Facebook friends could use software to infer attributes such as intelligence, sexual orientation or political views that an individual may not have intended to share.”

To some, that may have sounded like a business opportunity. By early 2014, Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix had signed a deal with one of Kosinski’s Cambridge colleagues, lecturer Aleksandr Kogan, for a private commercial venture, separate from Kogan’s duties at the university, but echoing Kosinski’s work.

The academic had developed a Facebook app which featured a personality quiz, and Cambridge Analytica paid for people to take it, advertising on platforms such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

The app recorded the results of each quiz, collected data from the taker’s Facebook account – and, crucially, extracted the data of their Facebook friends as well.

The results were paired with each quiz-taker’s Facebook data to seek out patterns and build an algorithm to predict results for other Facebook users. Their friends’ profiles provided a testing ground for the formula and, more crucially, a resource that would make the algorithm politically valuable.

How Cambridge Analytica works

To be eligible to take the test the user had to have a Facebook account and be a US voter, so tens of millions of the profiles could be matched to electoral rolls. From an initial trial of 1,000 “seeders”, the researchers obtained 160,000 profiles – or about 160 per person. Eventually a few hundred thousand paid test-takers would be the key to data from a vast swath of US voters.

It was extremely attractive. It could also be deemed illicit, primarily because Kogan did not have permission to collect or use data for commercial purposes. His permission from Facebook to harvest profiles in large quantities was specifically restricted to academic use. And although the company at the time allowed apps to collect friend data, it was only for use in the context of Facebook itself, to encourage interaction. Selling data on, or putting it to other purposes, – including Cambridge Analytica’s political marketing – was strictly barred.

It also appears likely the project was breaking British data protection laws, which ban sale or use of personal data without consent. That includes cases where consent is given for one purpose but data is used for another.

The paid test-takers signed up to T&Cs, including collection of their own data, and Facebook’s default terms allowed their friends’ data to be collected by an app, unless their privacy settings allowed this. But none of them agreed to their data possibly being used to create a political marketing tool or to it being placed in a vast campaign database.

How Cambridge Analytica works

Kogan maintains everything he did was legal and says he had a “close working relationship” with Facebook, which had granted him permission for his apps.

Facebook denies this was a data breach. Vice-president Paul Grewal said: “Protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do, and we require the same from people who operate apps on Facebook. If these reports are true, it’s a serious abuse of our rules.”

Graphic to show key players in Cambridge Analytica story

The scale of the data collection Cambridge Analytica paid for was so large it triggered an automatic shutdown of the app’s ability to harvest profiles. But Kogan told a colleague he “spoke with an engineer” to get the restriction lifted and, within a day or two, work resumed.

Within months, Kogan and Cambridge Analytica had a database of millions of US voters that had its own algorithm to scan them, identifying likely political persuasions and personality traits. They could then decide who to target and craft their messages that was likely to appeal to them – a political approach known as “micro-targeting”.

Facebook announced on Friday that it was suspending Cambridge Analytica and Kogan from the platform pending information over misuse of data related to this project.

Facebook denies that the harvesting of tens of millions of profiles by GSR and Cambridge Analytica was a data breach. It said in a statement that Kogan “gained access to this information in a legitimate way and through the proper channels” but “did not subsequently abide by our rules” because he passed the information onto third parties.

Continue Reading

BTC

Twitter briefly shut down @Bitcoin, sparking wild conspiracy theories

Published

on

Twitter suspended the @Bitcoin Twitter account, which is run by an anonymous user, over the weekend. The account was briefly taken over by a user who claimed to be Turkish, then a user who claimed to be Russian, before apparently being restored to its previous owner Monday afternoon.

“We do not comment on individual accounts so nothing to share,” a Twitter spokesperson said when asked about the suspension. “That’s some bullshit if you ask me,” the user behind @Bitcoin tweeted. “I’d like to know why my account was given to someone else, and then when it’s reinstated I’m missing 750,000 of my followers.”

The @Bitcoin account had more than 821,000 followers when it was suspended. Those followers disappeared, but it appears that Twitter is slowly restoring them.

The mysterious suspension naturally stoked conspiracy theories in the bitcoin community. The @Bitcoin account is supportive of Bitcoin Cash, also known as Bcash. Bitcoin Cash was founded by a group of developers, miners, and other members of the community who split off in August 2017, duplicating the bitcoin blockchain and establishing a new cryptocurrency, after a dispute over how to address the growing network’s scaling issues.

The relationship between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin, or Bitcoin Core, is acrimonious. Some Bitcoin Cash supporters suspected that their enemies on the Bitcoin Core side caused @Bitcoin’s suspension by falsely reporting it to Twitter for spam or harassment.

Some said they believed the account had been previously been hijacked by Bitcoin Cash supporter Roger Ver. The account, which was registered in August 2011 according to its Twitter bio, only began tweeting about Bitcoin Cash in January. At the time, @Bitcoin tweeted, “The ownership of this account has not changed hands. I became busy with other things, much has changed since then and I’ve decided to take a more active role in the community once again.” Ver claims he has no connection to the account, and that it “is owned by someone involved in Bitcoin since 2009.”

“I’d love to hear a public explanation from @twittersupport about why #bitcoin competitor #LightningNetwork investor @jack disabled this account, gave it to someone else, only to return it in the face of public backlash with 750,000 fewer followers,” the @Bitcoin account tweeted after being restored.

Some felt that the @Bitcoin account shouldn’t be used by anyone. “Twitter is a platform for people to promote their own agenda,” tweeted Nick Tomaino, a cryptocurrency venture capital investor. “Only right that @bitcoin stays inactive/suspended.”

Twitter started blocking cryptocurrency-related ads at the end of March, but confirmed it does not have content rules specific to cryptocurrencies.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending