chungus_khan

Really I think it got that rep mostly from people trying to run DOS games or shoddy ports from DOS to early Windows that still relied on a bunch of DOS stuff.

TEPCO dropped the ball pretty massively too, although IMO it should be the government's responsibility to assume that power operators are going to and not allow them to.

Nearly 10 years ago a 2.6 TFLOP (FP32) GTX 660ti cost about $300 and had a TDP of 150w.

A huge amount of industry all over the place ends up like this. The engineers produce the theoretical form of the design, and the tooling up process refines it into a practicable-at-scale reality.

The lesser of two evils is still collecting literally as much data as it can on you. And helping the Saudis with it too:

https://theintercept.com/2014/07/25/nsas-new-partner-spying-...

US Intelligence has too long a history of its own largely consequence-free abuses too. Someone else having a surveillance state doesn't make the one at home any better.

I can't speak specifically to the raspberry pi, but generally SOCs like it uses do work like that. Most customers are concerned with the chip's high-level capabilities and actively don't want to touch the lower-level stuff, as it's irrelevant to what they're making.

It's especially funny because the M1 Mac SSDs seem to perform at around the same level as current competition from what I've seen.

It is bizarre to me how many problems I've literally never seen before in my life some people on this site can come up with to defend Apple's decisions, especially things like this on a website which purports to be Hacker News.

The cautious configuration and total separation of the Tor browser is the whole reason it was created in the first place. There are an uncountable number of reasons why having it in a normal everyday browser is probably a bad idea.

It sort of aligns with my views on a lot of other Brave projects: neat, and with good intentions, but not necessarily such a good idea when examined in detail.

And people with utopian perceptions of the present tend to have policies that ignore underlying problems until they boil over into revolutions.

Fixating on how great the present is accomplishes nothing and appeals to almost nobody.

A typical feudal serf probably lived better than a hunter-gatherer, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't want to be free, and telling them that things are better is just avoiding the question.

Any analysis which fixates on things being uniformly better or uniformly worse will paint an incoherent and unhelpful picture. A realistic look at things involves looking critically at present and past policy in a nuanced manner, even in areas where things may be better.

Even if the conclusion is that life today is better than in the past, so what? Congratulations. Their lives were different than their predecessors too. Is the whole point to self-congratulate, or should we recognize and address today's problems?

> It isn’t progress to have massive grid outages because windmills froze

How did Texans manage to screw up windmills? The ones across the lake from me work perfectly fine all winter long, despite much colder winters.

I'm guessing they cheaped out on basic preparedness measures for this sort of thing, and clearly across the whole grid, not just renewables.

> Obviously you must not be aware that Android is not the leading platform in terms of app sales.

Both are still in the range of tens of billions of dollars. If one is worthwhile the other is too. Android is also by far the leader in number of actual users, which is what matters most to companies like Facebook.

The sideloading process is harder than just installing an app. Most users do not know how to do it and have no interest in doing it.

Google does not allow third party app stores to be distributed via their app store, and I assume Apple would do the same.

These are not coherent reasons why it would be different, they are assertions that you think it would be. None of them even speak to any difference between the platforms.

Just saying that it will be isn't a reason. None of this has happened. Every attempt at doing this has failed horribly. Most users are not technically capable enough to even go about installing an alternative store.

Why, given that this has not happened in the case of the leading mobile platform, and in fact all attempts to even mildly break with the play store have been resounding failures, would iOS be any different?

I don't think most people would. I think most sideloading would be by users making things that fall outside of what Apple allows on their store, like on Android. I see no coherent reason at all why things would be any different on iOS, and nobody has presented one here beyond just asserting the premise that it would be different, and I don't think "Epic believes it is" is a convincing argument.

As I said, they tried and failed because nobody downloaded it. I'm not sure why you're suddenly bringing Epic's motives into a comment chain about the desirability of sideloading though? Epic is obviously looking to skirt store fees and doesn't actually prefer to run their own store, but that has nothing to do with anything above in the chain.

Then why hasn't it happened? Android has always had sideloading and this is not the case. Just asserting it to be false isn't convincing.

The contents of the Play Store have nothing to do with Android's ability to sideload.

Then keep using the curated store? It only hurts if Apple's store can't compete with alternative ones. There's no such problem on Android because developers and users are fine with the Play Store.

Epic even tried doing a sideloaded Fortnite for Android and people didn't download it, so they came back.

Why hasn't it on Android then?

And after claims of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 and WMDs that never materialized, I'm pretty skeptical about unproven, geopolitically convenient news reporting.

And for good reason considering some of them lie about actually encrypting the data, or are very bad about keeping it safe.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/bitlocker-encrypts-self-en...

(and OpenBSD as well)

And for that purpose it's nice, but as good as any other semi-modern laptop. Over quarantine I amused some coworkers by doing an entire day's work (not ML, but not stuff that's run locally) on an old VT220, with very little change in workflow.

Being able to do light stuff on one's own consumer hardware without having to buy something new is still incredibly helpful to students and other people trying to learn, as well as hobbyists though.

That isn't true. There wouldn't be a performance advantage to that at all (the limiting factors in storage performance have nothing to do with motherboard trace length, which has a negligible impact on performance in general), and the M1 Macs have fairly ordinary SSD performance.

A lot of these straight up just exist so the creator has a sign to tap (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRYYGcWV4AAF2E4.jpg) when people try to file bug reports for unsupported oddball configurations.

This seems like a fantastic use case for the ML hardware included on new-generation Macintoshes.

I would imagine it is high-performance within its own domain: soft microprocessors. There isn't much danger of something like this being used outside of domains where it is relevant, so just calling it "high-performance" gets the message across fairly well to anyone who would actually need it.

I can't comment on how well it performs myself without testing it, but a quick skim of the paper reveals that it apparently performs well in comparison to its rival open-source out-of-order soft processor.

Comparing soft processors to other soft processors is fairly easy if they can both run on the same hardware, but comparing them to real silicon is inherently kind of meaningless, as they don't really compete at the moment, and the performance of the design in absolute terms will depend on the FPGA it is implemented on. Nonetheless, you could compare the raw numbers presented in the paper for curiosity's sake and see that indeed, it isn't very fast compared to modern silicon processors.

One change from previous FAT filesystems to exFAT is the removal of the second, redundant file allocation table. Disks are less unreliable now so it is less necessary, but there are still some scenarios, especially when the filesystem is in a dirty state, where the table can be corrupted.

This can also really hurt in unexpected ways with otherwise badly written drivers. Nintendo's driver for the switch would constantly write to the table unnecessarily, and while this doesn't do all that much in normal operation (other than waste a small number of writes), it made it drastically more likely (in some cases for some games almost guaranteed) that the table would be partially written and corrupt if the system crashed or lost power unexpectedly. When some new Pokemon games came out and were initially a bit unstable this came up a lot.

Google is the company that your info gets shared with.

Google being the biggest ad company does not give them the right to surveil all that walks the earth.