All of this reinforces my belief that nearly everything is conscious and aware, we differ in a capabilities and resolution but we are all more similar than we are different.
Growing up on a farm taught me that animals are absolutely able to think and learn. Not in the same way as humans, but I'm fully convinced there are degrees of consciousness.
Watching new calves play in spring meadows is one of the most purely joyful things you can ever see. They have best friends and will avoid playing with other calves until their friend comes to play with them.
Animals also grieve and mourn their dead, much like we do.
They are fellow sentient beings capable of experiencing pleasure, pain, fear, and forming social bonds. It's a lot of why I take issue with anthropocentrism, and think factory farming is an absolute tragedy. It's the industrialized denial of a meaningful life and one of the biggest examples of human cruelty.
I want to live, and think others do too- so Life must have some kind of Greater Meaning. Yet, almost everything else seems to prove the opposite based on how fragile life is, and how little things change when one is lost.
That's a very pessimistic was to view things, I think.
We're only given one chance; rich, poor, all of us. One shot. You have to try to do the best with what you have.
Nothing changes when you have a big loss, only if you let nothing change. My grandpa died at 102. He and Grandma raised me and were my rocks throughout my entire life. Grandma died when I was a teenager, and I only used that to become more sad and selfish (like a teenager). Looking back, the choices I made would've made her sad for me. When Grandpa died, I chose to use his memory to do good things. Now I volunteer with multiple organizations related to aging farmers. I gather stray old people from the area for weekend and holiday get togethers.
Things changed, and my life improved because of my response to loss. The memories are hard, but they're made easier in a community of people who can share them with me.
See, I never swore off beef, even with that. I took it as a reason to make sure they live their best lives, and to do my best to ensure that their deaths are as quick and painless as possible. I understand the hypocrisy or whatever that might be, but beef has kept my family out of bankruptcy when full time job income has not. I do apologize and thank every animal, for whatever that's worth. It doesn't feel great, but such is life.
Not to go full-PETA, here, but I think there's a pretty decent chance that in 300 years you and your family and this comment will be looked back on like how we now look back on remarks about chattel slavery.
Cows seem to inherently know when it's down, and choose rainy nights exclusively to go on a tear around the neighbor's fields instead of my own.
We had pigs for one terrible year. Pigs know when the electric fence is down because the sociopaths regularly push each other into it. I think they do it to a) test the defense and b) because they're bastards that enjoy watching other creatures suffer.
I hate pigs entirely, by the way. We raised them for one year and decided they weren't worth the hassle. They're the worst.
I had a college professor who steadfastly believed that pork was a no go because pigs get sunburned. Not because they're resource and time intensive. Not because they're intelligent and weirdly similar to humans.
Do you still live on a farm on in a city? Here in the suburbs, something is making animals "less smart". Every neighborhood has signs about missing pets. I suspect it also affects people too. Why get a pet when everyone is too busy to take care of it?
Missing pets are because people don't spend enough time with their animals to form a pack attachment (for dogs) and cats just don't give a shit.
Or. . . The encroachment of suburbs in currently rural areas means coyotes and pets come in contact. . .
Also I still live on the farm. And animals here can be dumb as hell as well. Our neighbors miniature donkey regularly escapes, just to get his head stuck in the fence trying to get to his food trough from the outside.
I love bees and ants, but I love bees the most. I would recommend people to study the behavior of bees and ants. Additionally, honey, propolis, etc. are super healthy, and we can thank bees for that.
Well, kind of. :D Wasps do not produce honey, they just collect nectar and sugary substances for immediate consumption, and propolis is specifically a bee product made from tree resins.
That said, wasps are still quite intelligent for insects with regarding to spatial memory, individual recognition, learning, problem-solving, and social cognition. In fact, their intelligence is comparable to honeybees in many respects.
Contrary to popular belief, wasps are not mindless aggressors, their defensive behavior is calculated based on threat assessment. :)
> wasps are not mindless aggressors, their defensive behavior is calculated based on threat assessment.
Can confirm.
I had a yellow jacket infestation in my kitchen wall this fall. Every day I'd wake up to dozens of bees flying around my kitchen. But they didn't care about me, all they cared about was getting outside.
I probably killed 200-300 yellow jackets with a fly swatter over the course of 2 weeks. Somehow I wasn't stung once.
There’s something like four thousand species of bees native to North America [1], so while there are lots of reasons to be unenthusiastic about honey bees [2], that still leaves lots of room for bee related enthusiasm :)
European honeybees do not behave the same way as their native solitary counterparts. They gather honey by visiting every flower on a plant, then moving to the next plant. Native bees OTOH visit only one or two flowers per plant. So if imported honeybees outcompete natives (and studies show they do), it very much affects the viability of monoecious plants, which experience a drop in genetic diversity. I don't want to find out the long-term results of that experiment.
I don't think that's a reason to eradicate honeybees in the US or anything like that, but it does point to a misplaced focus on "just" solving colony collapse disorder while ignoring the plight of the native pollinators.
If you don't keep bees, or if you do but have a large enough property, you could put up a bee hotel. They can be bought or constructed pretty easily, and you'll get to see a wide variety of who's around your area!
I am no expert at all in this topic! So please take this with a grain of salt. I just have the feeling (maybe wrongly) that the love and focus for bees is having detrimental/ unwanted effects on the ecosystem.
My love for bees is more about their behavior (similar to how I find ants fascinating), and their "products" that is honey, propolis, beeswax, and so on. I am simply fascinated by their behaviors, and propolis is very healthy!
If you are referring to what I asked: "What are those adversarial effects, what other pollinators, and how does it hurt the ecosystem more than it helps?", then all I have to say about it is that I am just genuinely curious.
Why won’t you let „the ecosystem“ decide that on its own ? It’s much older than you and you are not its lega guardian. If the ecosystem (of which we are a part) decides it wants more honey bees than that’s what it shall get.
The same reason you bandage a stab wound instead of letting the body decide what it wants.
It doesn't want anything or have the ability to choose its responses to changes. Which is exactly why we are the legal guardians of natural ecosystems, by the way - have you not heard of lands and waters protected from certain human activities? The fact that we don't currently stop ourselves from propogating honeybees into ecosystems that can't fit them is not an indication of anything except our failures.
But then again, since as you argue (rightfully so!) that I’m also part of the ecosystem: me caring and expressing doubts is actually working as the ecosystem.
I promise this isn’t a trap, it’s just my curiosity as a “flexitarian”. What (mostly) keeps me from eating animals is my mind wandering sometimes when making a protein choice about how they ended up there, wherever I am, not by choice.
We sound nearly identical, though I may consume more dairy and fish than you.
Thank you for responding also. I felt like you were someone who had similar values just through the subtext of your response and I was curious if we aligned.
Out of curiosity do you extend this to gelatin? My daughter has recently take a stance against pork. She doesn’t make a fuss, just doesn’t eat it or gelatin because of the prevalence of pork bones used to make it.
By "tastier" do you mean more physically pleasurable because you could ensure the animal's good health, ethically preferable because you could ensure a (mostly) good life, emotionally enjoyable because you can fondly remember interacting with them, or something else?
I mean the goats I have today I only have because we bred them to be useful to us, and that being neurotic about the food we eat rarely helps any living thing.
Of course I treat my goats well, and I love them. But this doesn't factor much into the ethics of why we eat them in the first place. If I didn't eat them they wouldn't exist. The entire problem is close to nonsensical.
I'm still not sure how that makes them "maybe even tastier" when you raise them yourself?
> If I didn't eat them they wouldn't exist.
Does that mean that if I bring something into existence that anything I choose do to it is therefore ethical, or is eating special? (To be clear, I think there are a number of solid arguments for eating animals, I just don't think that's one of them.)
>>You can’t avoid the reality that’s your life depends on something else dying. Either plant insect or animal
There are more nuanced ways of thinking about this. A good example is Jainism's version of vegetarianism which requires paying attention to what one consumes.
"Jains make considerable efforts not to injure plants in everyday life as far as possible. Jains accept such violence only in as much as it is indispensable for human survival, and there are special instructions for preventing unnecessary violence against plants."
Chickens are very intelligent, it just happens that most people ever see chickens in overcrowded small spaces where they behave idiotically. So would you if you would be in the same situation.
I kept chickens for 15 years (mostly free-roaming in my backyard, unless there was a fox lurking, so not in overcrowded small spaces) and I disagree. To me they seemed pretty stupid, and pretty mean to one another
We've had a small amount (just 3) with plenty of space and it was fun to observe them, all sort of interesting behaviors.
My favorite thing is them cooperating against a common enemy (a dog that was eating their food sometimes, which we've tried to mitigate but not being much successful).
Then once they had a discussion in the opposite corner about the problem and launched a stealth attack, covering themselves behind the trees while approaching the dog without the dog knowing it. Then once close enough they attacked from behind, the dog squeaked, more from the surprise than pain and since then the dog never touched their food again and avoided them.
Three and four are both non-zero numbers. Zero constitutes the absence of value. Therefore, three and four are of the same value.
You see the problem here, right? I'm not saying that fungi have not be recorded as having potential intelligent thought. I am saying that in no world is their capability for intelligence remotely comparable to that of a creature with a fully functioning brain, especially a bird. Having the ability to react to your environment does not make you AS or more intelligent than other things that can also do that...
EDIT: I'm using intelligence and consciousness interchangeably here when I don't necessarily mean to, but my point stands.
Maybe it is the same level of consciousness but different physical limitations? Simply imagine being locked in in an insect body with different perception and abilities, and a wiped memory.
Observing animals' behavior (in the wild and through experiments like the one here) and studying how their brains work to see that they often have the same kind of mental features as us (including whichever you'd classify as consciousness) - just at varying degrees of sophistication.
Some would argue that "consciousness" is something non-physical that has no impact on the physical world, and so is not physically detectable or responsible for any behavior, but I feel then it inherently cannot be whatever we mean by "consciousness" that we're directly aware of and talking about in the physical world (because that itself is a physical impact).
This is also what upsets me most about habitat destruction (aka global warming). We're burning books (making species extinct) that we haven't even read yet.
Thinking of smart bugs, check out the portia (aka jumping) spider. They plan multi-step, out of sight detours to ambush prey, and demonstrate impulse control. They have specialized hunting techniques for different menu items, one such is mimicking specific prey items stuck on a web to lure various types of spiders out.
Insect wise, bees have to take the cake. Symbolic communication and counting, and now time. This all tracks for something that needs to share the location of food with the colony.
Interesting you mention jumping spiders, I just saw a rather interesting video talking about exactly this and includes some interviews with scientists involved in some of these experiments [1]. One interesting fact I learned is that they have a sense of numeracy, and can distinguish between one, two and three-or-more objects.
If you read fiction you might find The Children of Time to be interesting. It follows the hyper accelerated evolution of jumping spiders to a sentient species that eventually has to coexist with humans. It leans on a lot of fact about jumping spiders and uses it as a jumping point to what their societies might look like if given the chance to evolve as the top predators.
Too bad Arm doesn't allow architectural licenses, because this is exactly the kind of thing Valve and the FEX developers would want to extend the ISA to support. I bet we see a RISC-V backend to FEX in the next 6 months, it probably already exists in a private repo.
FEX is the shootstring, extra special discount budget (not maligning) version of Rosetta. Apple should sell Rosetta to Valve.
My understanding is that Rosetta sidesteps a bunch of tricky memory model issues by using non-standard hardware extensions only present in Apple Silicon, so even if Apple did share Rosetta, which they certainly won't, it wouldn't work properly on Valves hardware anyway.
> Apple M1 has an undocumented extension that, when enabled, ensures instructions like ADDS, SUBS and CMP compute PF and AF and store them as bits 26 and 27 of NZCV respectively, providing accurate emulation with no performance penalty.
Perhaps another interesting aspect of this is that it’ll be Apple with their vertical stack that will decide when to physically remove this logic from the chips.
macOS 26 is the last OS with an Intel build. Presumably this means that in all likelihood, M6 chips will remove this functionality.
Why do you assume that dropping support for Intel hardware from the OS will coincide with dropping hardware features that help support for x86 applications? Have you not seen Apple's documentation that states they plan to retain some Rosetta functionality beyond macOS 27 for the sake of x86 games?
I think that documentation essentially demonstrates how Apple wants to put as little resources into it as possible without making users of popular applications mad.
They might even decide that they will be moving that functionality to software and decide to also leverage FEX.
I think that Apple’s overall mentality has traditionally been that they provide enough time for developers to transition applications but that they are not interested in maintaining support for unmaintained apps. That seems to be a very clear pattern of behavior.
> They might even decide that they will be moving that functionality to software and decide to also leverage FEX.
That's crazy. Modifying an already-working CPU design to remove hardware features, and modifying Rosetta to implement that capability in software instead, or wholly replacing Rosetta with FEX, would all require investing more resources and effort than continuing to ship what's already done and working.
> I think that Apple’s overall mentality has traditionally been that they provide enough time for developers to transition applications but that they are not interested in maintaining support for unmaintained apps. That seems to be a very clear pattern of behavior.
Fair enough, but we don't actually have to make projections based on past patterns of behavior when Apple has explicitly shared their plans. They do plan to maintain support for unmaintained games.
I think the only reasonable way to interpret what Apple has said about their plans for Rosetta is to assume they're not likely to muck about with the low-level details of how they handle running x86 machine code, but they are likely to start dropping some x86 libraries from the OS, breaking applications that depend on them. We can reasonably expect that they're retain all the pieces necessary for running x86 Windows software (especially games) under Wine. (Keep in mind that Apple's approach is to not mix x86 and Arm code in the same process; they didn't do anything like Microsoft's Arm64EC.)
If carrying around a little bit of x86 compatibility baggage had enough die size cost to matter for Apple, then Intel and AMD would be pushing much harder to reduce their comparative mountain of x86 compatibility baggage.
In reality, the costs of design changes and validation and updating software to not rely on a newly-deprecated hardware feature can easily outweigh the potential per-chip cost savings of eliminating an instruction or two from a CPU core.
Intel and AMD have to maintain compatibility in a much different way. They don’t control what is done on the OS, they don’t control what is done with the physical product sold in stores. They have gigantic customers like Dell and HP and Microsoft that make specific technical demands out of their architecture.
Apple controls the whole stack. They decide exactly what features are in software and are in hardware. There are zero Apple machines in data centers running BigCorp’s legacy CashCow software. There are zero laptop or desktop OEMs that use Apple’s chips besides Apple. Apple won’t piss off their core consumer or creative professional customers by changing some technical behind-the-scenes feature.
I think Apple would gladly cut a very small and specific architecture feature from their chips if they feel it’s obsolete, better accomplished in software or not at all.
And this isn’t just for cost savings, it could be for performance and/or battery life optimization, or to make room for something else in the package.
I don’t think Apple is catering to developers at all. If that were the case they wouldn’t be charging them $100 a year just to exist. They have the marketshare especially in iOS to force developers on to their platform.
I believe that running Windows games is something that Apple does not care about at all. Their efforts to create the game porting tool kit are 100% about getting more Windows games ported to the macOS App Store.
SETP is used rarely to compute parity, though it doesn't really save anything if you can use POPCNT. PF is also used by floating point comparisons with a different meaning though that is not useful for the Arm extension from Apple.
AF indeed is basically unused. The problem for both is that you need them for accurate emulation "just in case".
You can eliminate flag generation almost all the time with a little optimization (slash deoptimizing if you hit an unexpected use) but it certainly is less convenient to have to implement an optimizer.
The unexpectedly hard bit is switch statements, which are the main case in which compiled code has two back to back jumps... therefore the input flags come from a different basic block and you don't know which instruction generated it.
yeah that is correct. The m series chips can turn on total store ordering memory model solely for Rosetta. There's also some hardware extensions to arm to support x86 condition codes in the hardware because it's way more instruction efficient that way.
The latter is now an optional feature in the mainstream Arm ISA now (FEAT_FlagM and FEAT_FlagM2). Similarly the “alternate floating point mode” that Apple uses to match nuances of x86 FP semantics is a standard architectural feature as well. The TSO option though is Apples own thing.
ARM already has most stuff required for this on board. Two proprietary extensions are used by Rosetta: one emulates the parity (rarely used) and half-carry (obsolete) flags, which can also be emulated conventionally. The other implementa TSO memory ordering, which can either be ignored or implemented with explicit barriers; some other chips apparently have a similar setting.
The other stuff is all present in ARMv8.5 I think.
ARM were perfectly fine getting the bad press for suing Qualcomm for releasing the Snapdragon that was finally performing enough despite these companies paying them a lot of money.
They seemed quite happy to destroy their eco system if they won.
Rosetta performance is best in class to my knowledge, although they had the benefit of being able to add custom instructions and modes to the cpu to make some parts easier. Meaning Rosetta would not have helped valve unless they built the frame on apple silicon.
As for not improving, it is likely that Apple no longer feels the need to invest in Rosetta improvements now that Apple silicon is so dominant and software support is already very strong, but nothing is stopping them from investing in it if they need it for example for gaming
Why would a company on its way to the moon, entrust such an important project as translation layer between two major architectures to a single rinky-dinky corp that got rich selling common electronics marketed as luxury fluff, that's on the decline and has head so far stuck up its butt that it thinks it can do whatever it wants, instead of just write it themselves with support of the global developer community?
Apple could never do games because there are no luxury games. That's completely out of their zone of comprehensibility.
> got rich selling common electronics marketed as luxury fluff
Apple products have pretty good build quality and perf per watt that more than justifies the premium. AS far as I can tell, the only payer in the market thats even trying to compete with apple on quality in the laptop space is framework. But Framework can't make their own chips.
The AAA games industry with their multi-million budgets and "being too big to fail" mentality is on decline. It seems that anything that is not a new Call of Duty is considered not worth by the industry.
But smaller games and indie studios are thriving. We got lots of very interesting indie games this year.
Games take years to make, as a consumer you’re seeing results from the past. Most indie studios are doing poorly, I know several that have closed and many friends looking for work.
They took their sweet time but both the project lead Ryan Houdek as well as Valve developer Pierre-Loup Griffais (username Plagman here in the comments) have now come out saying that FEX-Emu was not just sponsored by Valve but is actually their project and that they approached suitable developers with the idea who they have been paying for the development: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2025/12/valve-have-been-fundin...
As the random commenter I agree. By "support" I meant that they have a line of product and a strategy that relies on FEX to work and work as seamlessly as possible.
If they contribute to FEX at even a fraction of what they did to wine and Proton it is indeed huge.
Making the calculus apparent is why we might have a chance.
Because then anyone who owns a bridge/needs to pay for said bridge damage goes, ‘well clearly the costs of running into a bridge on the runs-into-bridges-due-to-negligence-group isn’t high enough, so we need to either create more rules and inspections, or increase the penalties, or find a way to stop these folks from breaking our bridges, or the like - and actually enforce them’.
It’s why airplanes are so safe to fly on, despite all the same financial incentives. If you don’t comply with regulators, you’ll be fined all to hell or flat out forbidden from doing business. And that is enforced.
And the regulators take it all very seriously.
Ships are mostly given a free pass (except passenger liners, ferries, and hazmat carrying ships) because the typical situation if the owner screws up is ‘loses their asset and the assets of anyone who trusted them’, which is a more socially acceptable self correcting problem than ‘kills hundreds of innocent people who were voters and will have families crying, gnashing their teeth, and pointing fingers on live TV about all this’.
> The NTSB found that the Key Bridge, which collapsed after being struck by the containership Dali on March 26, 2024, was almost 30 times above the acceptable risk threshold for critical or essential bridges, according to guidance established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO.
> Over the last year, the NTSB identified 68 bridges that were designed before the AASHTO guidance was established — like the Key Bridge — that do not have a current vulnerability assessment. The recommendations are issued to bridge owners to calculate the annual frequency of collapse for their bridges using AASHTO’s Method II calculation.
