DrPizza

I don't think the performance claiming is really the important part here; it's doing something that lacks any real reason but which hurts Edge.

And while I agree that video overlays are common, I also think it's reasonable for such overlays to revert to a slightly less efficient path.

On the other hand, pretty easy how such a div might trigger a less efficient path; if the video is top in the z-order then it can probably bypass being composited by the browser (and who knows, maybe even bypass being composited by the OS) and avoid a whole mess of rendering to a texture, texturing some triangles, and so on and so forth.

Right. My take is "hey, good engineering to not need a power brick. But to what end? What's the practical purpose of this engineering? Why not just make the system bigger?"

Uh, I don't complain it has no power brick. I say that it's impressive it has no power brick.

I wish you'd posted this as a comment on the article so I could have promoted it so that everyone would see it.

One of the (many) reasons I've heard they had to abandon Longhorn was that apparently it was essentially unbuildable. The build was broken so much of the time that they gave up and started over.

Even with the CPU, you also need the right chipset and the right firmware to actually light this stuff up. While especially in the laptop sector there are consumer devices that include this, it's far from universal.

Good luck with that. It's working for Raytheon with a clearance.

> (C) discrimination because of citizenship status which is otherwise required in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by Federal, State, or local government contract, or which the Attorney General determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the Federal, State, or local government.

The advisory says it doesn't affect consumer firmwares.

It isn't on all hardware. Intel has two ME firmwares, a small one for consumer systems, and a big one for corporate/enterprise systems. The small one does not (or at least, should not; is not supposed to) include the remote management features.

In other words, the separation that you describe exists.

Systems with the full firmware sport things such as the vPro branding, and only certain combinations of CPU and chipset support it.

I did ask them, and the post contains everything they had to say in response.

Sure, if you install a GNU stack (glibc, for example, being an important part) you can run typical Linux software on Android. It's not the default, however. While the Linux kernel has proliferated, the userlands are more varied; Android/Bionic on phones and tablets, uClibc on routers and other embedded roles, GNU/Linux for most servers and desktops--though even in that final category, we see substantial variation such as systemd versus init.

Sometimes this is to Linux's advantage; it underscores its flexibility, and the ability to use, for example, busybox uClibc on small systems is definitely an advantage. But other times, like having no standard UI toolkit that works across desktop, tablet, and phone, or having different approaches to managing services/daemons, the advantages are less clear.

Canonical was heading hard in this unified direction, but I'm not sure what their current phone/tablet plans are. Their stupidly implausible kickstarter seems to have disrupted these efforts.

Modern graphics hardware isn't optimized for drawing bitmapped lines. It's optimized for drawing textured triangles. This means that it's not actually a good fit for GDI any more. Given that Windows Phone was, as far as apps were concerned, a clean slate, there was little reason to retain USER and GDI.

win32k.sys is also rife with security flaws, so scrapping it has arguably reliability benefits too.

> Snark aside, this is probably one of crappiest articles I've ever read (EDIT:) on Ars Technica (or rather, skimmed; didn't deem it worth reading word-for-word). "Microsoft should make a do-it-all box for $200 that has cutting-edge GPU and CPU, and they should fragment their hardware lineup. Oh, and put a pony in every box." I'm sure this article is being passed around the E&D executive suite as I type.

Maybe you should bother to read the article before commenting, because it says quite the opposite, and suggested that in fact it's the attempt to make a do-it-all box that leaves the Xbox simultaneously overpriced as a streaming box, and underpowered as a console.

I wear pretty strong corrective lenses (about -8 in each eye) and HoloLens was fine; a lot more comfortable than the Vive with glasses on.

It is not native advertising.

HoloLens is a derivative of Kinect. Kinect 1 (with the Xbox 360) was structured light. Kinect 2 (with the Xbox One) is time-of-flight. I'm not sure which tech the HoloLens uses (I don't think Microsoft has specified one way or another, and I didn't have an IR camera to look to see if it was emitting a pattern), but I'm assuming it's based on the newer tech, because my understanding is that time-of-flight systems can much better handle having multiple devices scanning the same space. HoloLens handled this situation very well; I've seen at least 8 devices all scanning the same area without getting confused.

It's all driven by the unit, btw; no need for markers or external illumination.

Conker can handle complex objects, but they have to have been present when scanning the scene; my cameraperson was moving around so she didn't get scanned.

The depth maps can get dynamically updated, so it's not insurmountable, but currently the process seems to take a few seconds. I'm not sure if this is a design decision, a processing limitation, a hardware data capture limitation, or something else entirely.

How anonymous can the reviews be if the subject of the talk betrays the identity of the presenter?

> You should write about all the problems with major game publishers and name names.

People have written bits and pieces on this before

Nobody really cares.

> Pulitzer disagrees with you.

No they don't.

> Full disclosure of relevant information is standard practice for the Pulitzer Center

Wake me when political or economic writers disclose which candidates and politicians they know and voted for, or when film writers disclose the names of all the PR people who they talk to, or any of the other relationships that aren't routinely disclosed because they're not material. "relevant information" does not mean "anything and everything".

I repeat: your standards and expectations for disclosure have nothing to do with any recognized standard for journalistic ethics.

> As for Quinn, no on here is talking about her or harassment other than the anti-GGers. I've been talking about Kotaku.

You brought up Kotaku in response to this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10253942

The context is very specifically Zoe Quinn.

> In response to ethical breaches in your articles (opposed to your activism which I've broken down already),

What "activism" have you "broken down"?

> I'd say all of your articles are suspect given your publicly stated stance on non-disclosed relationships.

You do understand, right, that your standards and expectations for disclosure have nothing to do with any recognized standard for journalistic ethics, right? Just open a newspaper or read a website.

> How many of those articles are written about your friends without you disclosing it?

You tell me! You're the one asserting that I'm an unethical journalist. Surely you have some kind of factual basis to justify such an allegation?

I haven't been anything other than civil.

It seems quite uncivil to me to claim that I'm unethical and the not even bother to support that claim, but curiously enough, I don't see you complaining about that.

> But action was required on Kotaku's behalf because they weren't acting ethically. Here's another Totilo statement about how Kotaku messed up: https://archive.is/fL71k

What the fuck does that have to do with Quinn? Oh right: nothing.

> That you find people's concern over undisclosed relationships in reporting something worthy of mockery is appalling and quite frankly all the evidence needed to show you're out to push an agenda that requires overlooking a very traditional staple of journalistic integrity.

That you find it remarkable or notable that people who write about games know people who make games shows that you have very little understanding of the trade press. "I know this person" is not a relationship that needs disclosure.

There's no clear consensus on things like Kickstarter, by the way. While investment would be a clear ethical breach, Kickstarter is--by law--not an investment. Kickstarter backers are not acquiring any kind of stake in the company. There's no clear journalistic rule that would, for example, prohibit backing Kickstarters but still permit preordering games (and I've never once seen a gator demand that game preorders be disclosed).

Similarly, the distinction between, for example, making payments through Patreon, subscribing to a game such as WoW, or buying a DLC season pass is quite subtle, and there are no universally agreed, widely established rules on what is and isn't acceptable. This is a matter primarily of personal taste, not hard-and-fast rules.

In any case, _none of this supports your claim that I am an unethical journalist_. I've linked you to a page that should (assuming our CMS is working correctly) list every single article I have written. Which of those pieces is unethical, and why?

> You're constantly

[citation needed]

I don't think I've engaged with gators for several months.

> on the front lines of this debate

[citation needed]

I have been at best a minor footnote in the entire debacle.

> pushing for more leniency for journalists.

[citation needed]

I'm all for ethical journalism. But that is not a call for "objectivity" as I do not believe that journalism can be objective, nor is it a call for removal of "opinion" from both news and reviews.

> You are anti-audience in that respect

Did you consider that perhaps gators are not my audience?

> and yes I consider that unethical.

Writing for different audiences is _unethical_? Do words even have meaning in your world?

> You can have any agenda you wish but when that agenda hurts your readership's trust in you, it seems strange to continue to push it.

Did you never consider that your views do not in fact constitute the consensus opinion of my readership? If I were to lie to my readers and maintain a pro-gamergate persona, I daresay it would hurt my readers' trust in me far more than my current position.

I'm still waiting for you to list all the unethical things I have done. You know: stuff that, for example, demonstrates a conflict of interest or a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. Something that's an actual journalistic ethics issue. I mean, you were so very quick to claim that I was an unethical journalist. Can you not even substantiate the claim?

Journalists are allowed to have an agenda. There is no such thing as an unbiased journalist. Even the mere selection of _which stories to write about_ is an expression of bias, as there is no universally agreed upon objective standard of newsworthiness.

Having an agenda does not make me an unethical journalist. Nor does writing things that you do not like on an online message board. Try harder. Here's everything I've written in a professional capacity: http://arstechnica.com/author/peter-bright/. Which of these acts of journalism are unethical, and why?

Please enumerate all my unethical journalistic acts, thanks.

> None of this would have come to light without GamerGate.

Including the stuff in his comment that happened before GamerGate and was widely known about and reported on before GamerGate?

"None of this" indeed.

Oh, and Totilo doesn't describe any kind of compromising relationship between Quinn and any of his writers, which merely underscores the fundamentally dishonest basis of the entire "movement". "ethics in games journalism" was always a pretext for "attack Zoe Quinn", which is why you idiots continue to bitch about "oh gosh someone in the games industry knows someone else" and not, you know, "major games publishers won't deal with critical outlets" or "major games publishers try to break through the Chinese wall between editorial and advertising by holding outlets hostage" or "non-disclosure of advertising funded by major publishers is routine on YouTube" or "the games industry is fundamentally corrupted by the widespread use of pre-orders rendering titles immune to reviews or even basic quality control" or "major publishers routinely use death marches, even though this is detrimental to both game quality and programmer wellbeing" or all sorts of other issues that actually matter worth a damn.

But no, you keep harping on about the utterly fucking trivial indie games industry, if it can even be called that.

> I think you're conflating hurting women and fighting feminism. They are not the same thing.

Kappa.

There's no difference (obviously).