Maybe they can, but my experience with them was so horribly bad that I’ve sent it back after 3 days trying. From hardware issues that got through quality control somehow, software incompetence and finally the cloud-everything-approach.
If that’s the best we got, we’re in trouble…
The “key” of an m.2 defines what the pins mean, basically what signal they carry (PCIe, USB, …). There’s a nice table here, if you scroll down a bit. Some are extensions to others, and are pin compatible (meaning the things they have in common are on the same pins).
A key and E key are very similar, while E just provides a few more interfaces, but importantly A doesn’t provide anything the E doesn’t. So any card that can work in A can also work in E. This is why A+E is so common: they don’t require the Mainboard to provide E, only A, but both will work so both notches are present.
Maybe they down vote because they think I don’t like the research or think it’s pointless (far from it). The only thing I dislike is the reporting about it, and even there mostly the clickbaity headlines intentionally misrepresenting the facts. It’s clearly intentional, because when reading the articles it usually becomes quite clear that the author was well aware.
I can also imagine that articles like that stop at least a couple of people here and there from adopting solar for their home, cause they read what they think means that there’s about to be a 10% efficiency increase for panels. Clearly that’s a time to wait, not to buy! The number is people that only read the headline is probably uncomfortable high, but I got no clue what the actual percentage is, or if those that don’t click through take the headline at face value…
That’s pretty definite by any measure.
Not really, sorry. The complaint still is that the announcements are of some magical huge improvement that is just not real. They might work in a prototype, maybe in a laboratory, or the thing just disintegrates after being exposed to water or something. Of course the results influence existing or future products, that’s how the real world improvements come about.
By the time you modify the prototype (or whatever) into something that is actually real world production viable, with a reasonable lifespan and production costs, there’s barely anything left in common with the hyperbolic announcement about fantasy stuff.
I stand by that statement you highlighted. And the fact that it isn’t hyperbole. With all of these achievements being released as clickbait news articles, somehow when something exciting it’s actually everything the market, it’s crickets. Like solid state or “salt” batteries are starting to become products, seen any articles on those posted here recently? Or in news outlets in general? I haven’t, but I honestly could’ve just missed them, or they didn’t gain as much traction.
You might want to actually read the article, cause that’s completely missing the point of the program, and ignoring all context. As with all things, context matters.
It’s a free market though. You can just buy from the wonderful companies that are Dell or Lenovo instead. Don’t try to look to closely at them, or you won’t be able to but a laptop ever again.
You guys really seem to have a hard time to understand my point, so that’s on me. Clearly I didn’t explain it very well. First, look at my reply to GreyEyedGhost. Let me reemphasize from that post: I have never said or intended to imply that there were no advances made in the last 20 or 30 years. I have no idea why you keep bringing up long term (price) developments at all. It wasn’t even about price at all, please go back and read my comment again.
Let’s address your points: Of course stuff has gotten cheaper, as that’s how “scale of production” works. That’s how the price AND the “doubling of installed capacity every 3 years” were achieved. Nothing about that is a technological breakthrough, it’s just production capacity you need for this.
Of course there were improvements in technology (solar efficiency, battery density and others, wind “stuff”, …). But none of those were anywhere near those claims that you read in these pseudo-news. It’s a percent here or there. Look at the nice graph on Wikipedia. See how those lines go up very very little per year? Yet in the article that sparked this thread, it’s a whopping 10%! Unfortunately, the cells fall apart when they get warm. No idea how a solar panel would ever get warm. But hey, let’s make another headline claiming amazing gains, can’t ever have enough of those!
We’re saying the same thing with different words. Your prespective it’s “its’s so great”, mine is “it’s gotten slowly better”. I’m sick and tired of reading about some irrelevant technological breakthrough with +10% solar efficiency or +30% battery density in some laboratory every 2 weeks. Actual change comes in (very) low single digit percentages for efficency of panels per year (or similar for battery density). Not once in the last 30 years did we have an actual jump for stuff you can buy (within a short timeframe) that comes close to the hyperbole in these reports. The advancement in price can probably be attributed to scale of production most of all though. Who would buy
why are you reading posts in a technology community? That seems self-destructive. Go actually look at that community maybe? Only the energy-pseudo-news in here is like that. The rest is mostly actual (relevant) news around technology and/or companies in that space. That’s my ENTIRE POINT. Thanks for emphasizing it. It’s not just that: renewable energy news has been like that for actual decades, no other field has this problem as far as I can tell.
All these news about in-development technologies in the renewable energy sector are causing real fatigue for me. This would be great news if it was commercialy viable, but it isn’t. It never is. If all the news about amazing new battery technologies were viable, we’d have 10x the capacity by now with cells that have zero fire risk and last 10 million cycles. But it’s always laboratory conditions.
Gonna be honest, I kinda stopped paying attention to news like this, it’s a flood of theoretical advancements. I care about it when I can buy it.
That being said, obviosuly the state-of-the-art technology has made significant advancements in the last 10 years, but it’s been incremental (it always is) and nowhere near the numbers that are thrown around in reports and articles like this.
I agree that the current state of laws is overkill by about an order of magnitude, and that’s obviously bad.
But you do need some amount of protection for works created. Imagine being a photographer, you can’t make money. You make some nice photos, and how do you sell them? If you send a sample to someone, they can just print that and you can do nothing. There’s no copyright after all. It isn’t somthing you can protect legally, so you can’t stop them or sue them for compensation. There’s also a flip side from the corporate perspective: You might find employment as a full time photographer in places that need them, but what about all the companies that just need an occasional picture? You can’t contract it out, because you have no way to negotiate anything if their work isn’t protected, you can’t even look at samples cause nobody would ever dare showing any or they might just be used.
Are you taking about patents? Cause a world without copyright doesn’t sound very fun to me. Or anyone in a remotely creative job.
Ever for patents: There’s a reason innovations are protected literally anywhere in the world, but the durations being ever longer is a real problem (5 years would probably be fine). The basic concept is still just straight up necessary.
It highly depends on the job. Some companies run fully on Windows, no exceptions. There it obviously would not help. But many still either host various services on Linux, or buy hosting/cloud commuting that is Linux based. There it might even be necessary.
It also depends on what you mean by “power user”. I would generally advise you to look into the server side of things. In my work, there are zero Linux machines that have a GUI of any kind installed. t The 50 or so Linux machines are all administered through SSH and Shell.
And that is why we don’t buy things that depend on proprietary apps and/or cloud connectivity. Can’t break my shit if it’s local only.
I remember that Asus did this back in the day at least, not sure if they still do. But I remember having rss feeds for at least 2 of my motherboards in my reader, back when rss was actually widely used. It’s been like 10-15 years though…
This is still not an ordinary failure by your definition of it being a single point that failed. It’s was like half a dozen “things” that went wrong for that plane to get into the air without those bolts. From not putting them in, to missing inspections, missing cross-checks. Sounds extraordinary to me. Which is the whole point of why it’s a deeper issue, showing systematic problems at Boeing and it’s partners, and the FAA not doing it’s job, too.
Arguably gambling.
It’s also numbers. YouTube has given creators tools to literally benchmark thumbnails. You can just see which one does better. The vast majority of people unfortunately are susceptible to the same patterns. In the end, you need people to click on your video or they can’t watch it (which is the point here, to inform people). So here we are.
For example, thumbnails with faces work much better than without (doesn’t really matter what or who the face is). I find that monumentally stupid and weird, it just is what it is.
Ah so it’s a linux problem when the gpu driver causes instability, cause NVidia is making a shitty and proprietary linux driver and the market share is too small to warrant putting more effort in. Linux doesn’t have it’s own fully-featured graphics driver, so that company has to come in and provide their own since linux can’t supply it. And mistakes happen. Roughly the same logic.
That’s not linux fault. Neither is it Microsofts fault when a company selling a security product decides it has to run in kernel mode and then they don’t properly test a release and just decide to yolo it.
It isn’t a Microsoft issue in the first place. Doesn’t mean switching to alternatives isn’t a good idea, but this one isn’t on them for a change.
QOwnNotes for me. Also such a catchy name. Seriously though, ignore the stupid name, just give it a try.
That story is genuinely hilarious. And from the judges summary judgement it really does sound like the license holder of the disputed songs did some legal juggling just to be able to play the victim and sue Spotify. What an odd business plan…