1,021 karma · joined July 14, 2011
However I think that was the model of many of the older games. Once the game has been developed and released, single player improvements are largely either bugs, quality of life improvements or platform changes. The first 2 were needed less because of old school blizzard's dedication to quality.
The mac accessory community is really good at producing matching products, and I am sure someone is going to license an existing monitor design and put it in a new shell.
Large Lithium fires are fairly uncommon right now, they don't behave like most other classes of fires that firefighters are dealing with. Personal device fires are more common, but total heat / damage is less and the fire is frequently able to be controlled outside of confined areas (aircraft).
With a relatively low volume of large lithium battery packs, and the difficulty in containing them, it could make sense for a targeted levy to cover the cost. Lithium car fires are currently dealt with by trying to isolate the burning vehicle and overwhelming the fire with water (removing Oxygen and temp), however this is very inefficient. I have heard of a former fire chief arguing that to deal with the growth of large battery packs will require either massively increasing the number of appliances (fire engines) or defaulting fire appliances to using special foams as opposed to water. The foams will increase the cost to fight ALL fires, as many engines typically have to be ready pre-mixed before dispatch.
It has also been suggested that density limits, and battery packs be designed to include fire suppression and make this mandatory to allow vehicles on the road. This would create massive packaging issues for every EV company, add significant cost while reducing performance. All in all I think we need to consider if we charge the EV / household battery pack companies for this or we all bare it in general taxes for the environmental benefits. I think bearing it out of general funds is completely reasonable, however I wonder if we are going to get safer batteries if we pass on the cost and let the rate go down as the number and severity of fires decrease. The might be some marginal improvements that quickly get implemented in that case.
The problem is we are getting walled gardens of 2-4 companies in many domains (voice assistant, mobile phones, cloud providers, IOT platforms, App Stores, consoles). Each company can be framed as both a double digit participant in the segment and a monopoly on their own platform. In each of these there is competition, however there is often little incentive to take a different path, and instead adopt a duopoly position.
I really think they need much broader definitions of anti-trust, including use of a non-dominate platform to unfairly compete in a different area.
Synology can easily allow access to the volume. I would think the smartest decision when removing a feature (even a feature that was never intended to exist) to instead make the unit at least mount the volumes as read-only and allow the data to be exported to the network / cloud / USB drive.
I use a DS918+ at home which I got after having deployed Clustered RS units for VM storage in a previous role. The recent moves from the company (not certifying their devices with non first party hard disks, pushing more user licensed features (VPN/Email)) and a feeling that software quality is in decline (acknowledged bug in Apple TV app hasn't been fixed in at least 8 months).
It a real shame that both Synology seems to be following the ubiquiti route to smash their reputation to increase revenue.
In laptop processors they can easily show efficiency gains from the 10nm process and IPC improvement, It appears most laptop processors end up running a power envelope lower then the ideal performance per watt efficiency. Server Processors with higher core counts means you can run more workloads per server, again providing efficiency gains. However desktop / gaming tends to be smaller core count + higher frequency with little concern of efficiency outside of quality of life factors (i.e. don't make me use a 1KW chiller). Intel has been pushing 5ghz processor frequency for years, and rocket lake continues that push (5.3ghz boost), when they drop frequency to move to 10nm, its hard to see an IPC improvement that is able to paper over that.
However alder lake CPUs will have a thread count advantage, so at least with 24 threads it should be able to show generational improvement over the current 8c/16 rocket lake parts. That will allow them to at least argue their value with select benchmarks and intel only features. Those 8 efficiency cores will likely be a BIG win on laptop, but on desktop I doubt they will compare favourably to the full fat cores on a current Ryzen 5900x (i.e. a currently available 24 core processor).
Intel is going to have at least 1 more BAD mainstream desktop generation before they can truely compete on the mainstream high end, however there is a chance they have something like a HEDT part that would allow them to at least save face. That being said, given a choice, Intel will give up desktop market share for the faster growing laptop and server markets.
However I do know providers like this tend to run as lean as possible, so I could also imagine they wouldn't explicitly try not to hold any data longer then strictly necessary as not only does that storage cost, it would open up having to spend time and resources providing it to law enforcement when demanded.
I don't think personal credit limits is likely to occur. Companies wants to have the lowest amount of receivables possible, especially if they are looking for valuations. I think snapshotting and archiving this data for 90 or 180 days is more reasonable for long term customers of good standing (hell it probably would be worth it for retention).
If you get the data back, you might want to look at having a way to download the snapshots at least once a week, even if you just hold 2 on your development machine. Its not ideal, but it would at least limit the loss. Finally if you are charging a customer (assumed from the "service provider" usage), I would suggest looking at seeing if you can increase you price to cover storage on another provider.
My interpretation of the various data points was that it likely did result is a faster roll-out, at pretty much similar costs as FTTP w/ higher maintenance and sooner need to replace.
In other words it did what governments have become expert at, mortgaging the future for the present.
It fits well with being able to rapidly bring bodies into a project and implement change X across hundreds of stores, while having a standing IT team of 5.
If you have onsite (fulltime) IT, its likely not the best option.
Apple are a high margin business. I highly doubt they want to harm their gross margin, but its possible. Apple however have not been that successful co-designing.... well, anything. They are highly opinionated that they are correct and this has typically lead to them blazing new trails, but has also lead to mis-steps. For bespoke systems, that would rely on building what the customer asks for. Apple's generally isn't great with working with outside suppliers, generally trying to bring the work inside. Finally this would require apple to tie their hands (in the same way microsoft has) with compatibility to provide the long term support that the vendors require.
Apple would never become the suppliers the cloud providers want. The only way they would be chosen is if the product is significantly better then what otherwise exists. I can easily see Apple leapfrogging incumbent server vendors for performance or such for a short term, but I expect the others will catch up very quickly. Cloud hardware is already well integrated by companies motivated to eek out every little bit of performance (see facebook and the OCP). Despite being significantly more different from an engineering perspective, I actually think manufacturing cars is more similar from a business perspective for Apple.
However I do think there is value in Tarsnap if security is really that important. Colin is really switched on, and I trust both the service, and if anything happened, he would deal with it quickly and professionally. If I had the kind of profile that meant I needed to protect myself against determined attackers, then tarsnap would be a no-brainer for me.
That being said, of all the sources, Wikipedia actively license their content in such a way that google are well within their rights to slurp it all down and serve it however they want.
Google is already effectively paying for links to news sites as part of the negotiations in Australia. And I agree that this will be a dampener on any competition, I think the era of "ask for forgiveness, rather then permission" needs to stop.
There is a range of things the cryptography team could have done better.
1.) made it a major version change (i.e. 4.x) or even a new package name. This could be a bit extreme, but I would suggest if they are shifting to integrating more Rust, the package will likely have heavy internal changes.
2.) made a larger effort to understand how impactful the rust transition would be to non cryptography developers.
3.) Reached out to distro packagers to make sure they are aware. It appears they were focused more on PyPI users.
4.) Had a longer period of transition, Ideally with a public deprecation warning so that these users have had at least 6 months of logs they ignored before it broke.
However I think the blame needs to go to the packages that are using cryptography like ansible. They shouldn't have a floating dependency that allows a jump to a version that may be incompatible. Secondly the users of the package should be monitoring their upstream.
I think this is a larger issue under the surface for these alternative hardware platforms. Rust is becoming a major development language, and its side effects include much higher resource usage at compile time. I am not sure your going to be able to self host a Rust compiler on a m68k platform. This may be one of the points where a somewhat large portion of our computing hardware is "cut off", or alternative approaches will be required such as cross compilation. If Fedora, Debian, NetBSD and Gentoo wish to keep supporting these platforms it might require a considerable investment, however I wonder if it will be worth the time for most people.
Yes you could create a more energy efficient bank, but that is orthogonal to that bank using bitcoin. Many people have tried, but most have failed. Those that succeed are generally acquired and the bigger banks tend to (albeit slowly) integrate those efficiencies.
The post I was replying to originally was citing an article claiming that the energy costs of holding dollars and gold was higher then bitcoin. I was showing how tallying the total energy used by global banks was a false equivalency as much of what a bank does has no direct equivalent in the numbers given for Bitcoin.
This requires people, and locations. Software isn't going to solve this problem. The only way I think this will be solved is by becoming very similar to what already exists.
Add to this bitcoin does an infinitesimally small number of transactions compared to the global financial system and I am doubtful that on a per value or per transaction basis that it would be within an order of magnitude. A lot of this is inherent to the design, and while it may be able to be evolved or an alternative crypto may not have the caveats, Bitcoin as it stands now is VERY power inefficient.
The problem is the iOS demographic often correlates with one of the most valuable to advertise to. While targeting will become harder again, which might hurt prices, overall its not like that ad spend is going to go away. Targeting will become more coarse-grained, but at the end of the day, facebook has so many on platform data sources, that it remains quite profitable to serve them.
Google could do this, or pay even bigger $ for a timed exclusive from a AAA publisher. Instead google started their own studios, which would likely pay off in the long run, but google doesn't have the attention span to operate like that.
Shell appear to be becoming more of an energy trading / retail organisation, as they view fossil fuels are being commodities that they can trade for and sell at a higher price with their brand name.
No... They will just setup a block list and make the ISPs block it. Hell they might even add a levy to the NBN to pay for it.