While I fully agree with the SSD side, you seem to ignore that HDDs are also getting cheaper per TB (always have, and usually quite noticeably). Also the reliability of large to huge SSDs remains to be seen as well. Obviously a breakthrough in HDD technology would have an influence as well, as you mentioned.

I’m not saying SSDs aren’t here to take over, they surely will eventually (preferably sooner), but I think it’ll be a few more years until we got actual price parity per TB. Even when ignoring other aspects like reliability.

I’ve used windows since the 90s. Not once have I intentionally used WordPad.

It did open by default for some file types for a long time (.doc), usually mangling the content cause it couldn’t actually handle them properly. I think it was also the default for .txt files at some point, causing many curse words when editing plain text files, that invisibly weren’t so plain any more after… Programs expecting a configuration fine really don’t like that sort of thing.

So: I’m very ok with this. Just install LibreOffice or something if you needa Word-like experience. Install notepad++ for anything “plain”.

Any password manager should be able to “type in” the password. Or be a browser plugin that doesn’t rely on copy pasting, but use other mechanisms to inject it directly into the field.

But yes, if that’s their online portal, I am not kidding I would change banks.

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…

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

That is indeed US-specific. I’m in the EU, and here it’s defined by when and how it’s switched. Specifically, it is required to be tied to the brake pedal (i.e. then intention to brake) and/or the hand brake being pulled. It is not allowed to illuminate otherwise. But the exact specifics probably also vary by country here. That’s why I emphasized that part.

EDIT: There are actually deceleration values in some laws, possibly tied to regulation of EVs and the regenerative braking. Since that isn’t necessarily tied to the brake pedal when silmulating engine braking, but can be adjusted in strength at will (it isn’t tied to the mechanics of the drag of an idling engine as it would with an ICE). A quick google told me that the lights are allowed to come on at 0.7 m/s² and are required to come on at 1.3 m/s². This obviously implies that they are NOT allowed to come on below 0.7 m/s². This still applies only to (pure) EVs, as far as I can tell (not hybrids, and not ICE powered cars).

Oh yes, that sounds right. Thanks!

Because there are laws that specify when the brake light has to come on, and it isn’t when the car shows down (slightly). You could be starting to go up hill, or a list of other reasons. The point of brake lights isn’t too signify the car slowing, but that the driver intends to slow down. Which is also why it doesn’t come on if you’re motor breaking" (is that the right term?).

This obviously varies wildly depending on where you are in the world. I’m also sure there are some places where it would be allowed.