The insane thing is it amounts to "I don't like the dongle that actually works (DisplayPort), I want to use that dongle (DisplayLink)."
Once again, we see customers being burned because they didn't buy products which use the actualDisplayPort over USB-C standard.
Seriously, if you buy half-baked proprietary garbage, expect problems. DisplayLink's proprietary "solution" is wholly dependent on OS drivers, and they can't be bothered to maintain them. They had months to validate their driver works with the beta releases of MacOS; anybody with an Apple Developer account has access to it. DisplayLink's Linux "Driver" is for Ubuntu LTS only, and they have made no effort to release or test for any other release of Ubuntu, let alone any other distribution. Now, it's quite clear they've given MacOS the same amount of attention they give to Linux.
How is DisplayLink's broken driver the fault of anybody except DisplayLink? They didn't follow the DisplayPort standard. Let them lie in the bed they shart.
advertisers won't pay to advertise to people with no money it sort of makes you sound like an idiot.
Advertising isn't just about selling goods - it's about increasing the "value" of the brand and its goods. In a sick way, it's the same principle that gives Bitcoin value "from nothing".
McDonalds brand carrot sticks are a great example. Kids prefer carrot sticks from McDonalds versus carrot sticks Mom just cut up. McDonalds has managed to get into the brains of toddlers - who can't buy anything - that their food is somehow better.
I've seen ads for Mercedes Benz since I was just as young, and as a result, I "know" that a Mercedes is a superior car... in spite of having never driven one or worked on one. It's unlikely I'll ever buy a Mercedes. But that same perception of value and superiority, in aggregate across the population, drives up the value (and cost) of a Mercedes beyond its materials, design, and build quality, and that is where Mercedes gets its value from advertising.
The thing is the more we study how Lead interacts with the body, the more we find that Lead is among the exceptions to the addage "the dose makes the poison." The more we look at it, the more we realize that there is no "safe" amount of Lead.
Even then, while the Missouri plant was shutdown, the key takeaway is that it's the last plant dedicated to processing Lead.
There are other mines which continue to produce lead in the US -- it's just that lead is a byproduct, not the main attraction.
The Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah started with the discovery of lead deposits in 1863. The "catch" is that lead isn't the mine/smelter's primary product (which is copper). They still produce quite a bit of lead, which is a byproduct of smelting the copper & gold ore.
The reality is that 88% of lead used in the US is from lead-acid batteries -- which are both produced and recycled outside the US (just like everything else, because of lower labor costs).
Eurpoe's RoHS all but eliminated lead use for electronics, and the high price of copper has caused everybody to switched to PEX for plumbing (which doesn't use/need solder).
That really only leaves ammunition as a major use of lead in the US, and the lead produced as a "byproduct" of producing other metals is sufficient for America's hunger to shoot more cast boolets. Even with shortages caused by "preppers" hoarding a decade's worth of ammo for the apocalypse du jour, the problem wasn't a shortage of lead -- but powder and brass.
Lead toxicity is only a problem for survivors of gun violence (which, to be fair, is still 65-70% of those affected). The Hollywood meme of removing the bullet in a darkened warehouse is the opposite of reality: removing the bullet is usually far more dangerous than leaving it in place.
The body usually encapsulates the bullet, and that usually eliminates further damage from the bullet. But not always.
The industry had a hard time with unleaded solder.
It's not a past tense thing. The industry continues to have a hard time with unleaded solder - the great "iPhone Touch Plague" that hit pretty much every iPhone 6 and 6+ comes to mind -- due to the solder joints cracking on a BGA chip.
Tin whiskers continue to be a poorly-understood reliability issue, with component manufacturers regularly publishing app notes about mitigation strategies. We've had huge improvements vs 2008, but it's not a "solved" problem yet.
Lead solder is one of those issues where exposure is not a problem if the people using it care about the risks, and can take the (almost trivial) precautions.
The problem, of course, is that employers often don't care about the risks of lead, combined with employees who don't care either -- and of course on the other end, we have countries that feel it's acceptable to ship any e-waste to a country that isn't able to recycle it safely.
The point of the 'dynamic range' bits of the summary are to say "just because the video didn't show enough light doesn't mean there actually wasn't enough light".
Anybody who uses dashcams can confirm this (I use 'em because I live in a city consistently ranked "worst drivers in America". They've been useful.)
The thing that stumps me is there are a lot of reasons to use near IR as well as visible light.
I am noticing this too. Any story on bitcoin sends the low UID accounts into fits of rage.
We've seen several "this will change the world" financial trends. We gave into "#FOMO" in our time as well, back in the dot-com days of 1998-2003, the housing craze of 2006-2008, the gold rush of 2009-2012, and so on.
We've seen the road already, and try to convince others not to go down it (as our elders did with us). I don't expect you to believe us any more than we believed our elders. It's the circle of life.
It's their way of rationalizing missing the boat on, what might be, the greatest wealth transfer in history.
I've watched Bitcoin shed over half its value in 30 days. I've seen Ethereum lose ~2/3 of its value in 90 days. I'm quite comfortable passing up that action.
Our feline overlords won't stand for it. They've reached the conclusion that they can't prevent Furries from mocking them in porn, and so demanded that human pornography be outlawed.
Yes, technically, the lizard people are in charge, but they aren't going to risk a vote of no confidence destroying their fragile governing coalition. They need the cat vote.
I do not want a Platform Security Processor, Management Engine, or any other hardware on my CPU that I cannot control.
These products serve absolutely no purpose for the general consumer - they are only useful in enterprise (corporate) environments for centralized control.
Mass production means we get features we don't need. CPU's and motherboards are designed to suit all buyers. It's cheaper to include the feature everywhere than it is to support an additional model.
Even in the 1990's, manufacturers were including features the customer didn't want (like integrated sound and video hardware), because it was cheaper to standardize across the board than to provide a different model that doesn't have it. I'm not sure it's even possible to get an Intel or AMD motherboard without integrated graphics and video.
If you refuse to manufacture CPUs lacking this component, then give customers the ability to request an unlock code that forever physically disables a component that is both dangerous and (to them) irrelevant.
Provide an avenue for malware to physically destroy hardware? That's an even worse idea.
No matter what the law says, the truth is that some idiot trusted the software for do that they should have been doing, which is paying attention and giving a crap.
It's too early to say where the "fault" in the collision lies; details are just not available, and it'll probably be a few days until the Police report is issued.
I caution about this, because when I was a kid, there was a neighbor boy who was seriously injured across the street from me. He rode his "big wheel" tricycle out into the street. The driver had no warning (even at 25 MPH) because there were shrubs lining the side of the road, blocking the driver's ability to see the kid. Were the child walking, he would have been visible above the shrubbery, but riding the big wheel lowered the child below the line of sight.
The collision didn't happen because the driver didn't care, or wasn't paying attention. It happened because a five-year old kid made an illegal blind merge into the road.
In this case, we literally don't know what happened, and it doesn't do anybody favors to lay harsh judgement on anyone at this point. Wait for the police report, and then blame Uber for being a wretched den of scum an villainy.
The Pi has a level of ubiquity its cousins can't even dream of. "Quantity has a quality all its own."
It's how better architectures and OSes lost out to the inferior but popular x86 and DOS.
Then, as now, being more popular means there is far better support to be found on the internet, better distro support, more experts, etc.
I design my own circuit boards, and program the microcontrollers from scratch; but I generally only do that when it's the only option. There have been a number of projects I chose the Pi over any other SoC board because I don't have to tinker around to make it work.
If that's your concern, then you can always network boot the Pi-3, which is a better option for reliability anyway.
At the end of the day, though, with the Raspberry Pi, you will always use a somewhat dated Broadcom SoC. (The Pi's designers are Broadcom employees).
Those SoC's aren't "general purpose" devices. The Pi is cheap because it repurposes a chip that is produced by the billion and designed for TV's, set top boxes, and disc players. The SoC's are designed to handle a few MiB/sec of HD Video, to be decoded & pushed via HDMI. They can do GPU tasks to give the set-top box a better UI. They are not designed for serious I/O.
The Pi is designed, first, foremost, and always, to be cheap. Every single one of the performance enhancements you mention don't matter to the million-unit lot SoC's used for set top boxes, and would require custom chips, driving the cost beyond the Pi foundation's goals.
If you want the latest and greatest technologies, then you better expect to pay dearly for them. The Pi uses old tech because it's cheap.
Am I the only one that still uses the original Raspberry Pi?
Nope, I still have five or six...
Though the newer Raspberry Pi B+ models have an improved "hat" hardware interface. which wasn't as robust or standardized with the original Model B.
CPU speed has never been the selling point of em to me.
The improvements are far more than the SoC powering the Pi 2 & 3:
The Pi 2&3 are also able to deliver more power to audio/video interfaces, to USB devices, and to attached Hat's. I don't have to worry about plugging in a USB device and the Pi going into an unusuable state due to the USB device drawing power.
The Pi 2&3 have better network performance. The Pi 3 even allows network booting (say goodbye to endless boot cycles when the SD card fails).
The SoC's in the Pi 2&3 use more modern processes, and use less power per unit of work done.
The Pi 3's SOC (and GPU) is much more suited to running Wayland, and it also has Bluetooth, which opens up a range of IoT devices to fiddle with.
If you are interested in CPU's, though: I use a Pi 3 to run PiAware, which is an aircraft transponder/ADSB receiver. The original, single-core Pi doesn't cut it, but a multi-core Pi 2 (or Pi 3) runs it without any problem.
A huge number of put option (a bet that share price will fall dramatically) volume 5 days ago?
To play devil's advocate: Put options like that are an everyday occurrence. They're not unusual in any way.
There's even a solid reason for the bet: Much like Intel, AMD missed the boat for mobile processors. Neither Intel nor AMD have processors in the iOS world, nor do they have a serious competitor to Qualcomm's SnapDragon or NVIDIA's Tegra on Android. Most of the arguments that the Broadcom+Qualcomm merger being an "existential threat" to Intel also applies to AMD, because they both missed the fastest-growing market in the industry.
Five days ago, it wasn't unreasonable to say that the Broadcom+Qualcomm merger, if approved, could cause AMD's stock price to suffer.
Unsurprisingly, when news came out that President Trump would block the Broadcom purchase of Qualcomm for national security reasons, AMD's stock jumped.
Sounds like people are more butthurt over that then addressing their actual claims which are more damning
We saw the same thing happen when Spectre was announced - a lot of butthurt AC's were adamant that the only "real" problem was the Intel-only meltdown bug, and anyone who disagreed were "shills" for Intel; that Spectre was invented to smear AMD.
It seems there is a growing percentage of the population who instantly fall back on conspiracy theories whenever reality reveals something they don't like.
The proper reaction to a bug to curse, fix it, and move on.
If it's a stock scam, it's an amazingly ignorant one. The average day trader doesn't know about or really care about AMD. Even Intel is yesterday's news. They just don't have Apple's name recognition.
If they were shorting AMD stock they would have only made 4.5% if they were prescient and both bought and sold their stock perfectly. If they weren't so lucky, they would have been seriously in the hole (down to -7%) and likely would have given up before 2PM EST.
Coupled with the (expected) blocking of the Qualcomm sale to Broadcom today, and its corresponding gains to Intel & AMD's stock prices, it was just a really, really poor day to make that move.
This is both an attack on AMD (and possibly their stock price) and a way for the researchers to get publicity.
I'll buy publicity, but an attack on AMD... no.
Saying it's an attack on AMD is about as sensible as saying the (many) flaws published about Intel's products were attacks on Intel.
If there's a flaw, it doesn't exist because of the researchers. If the researchers were truly malicious, they wouldn't have disclosed anything at all.
Zero-day exploits give engineering departments heartburn and sleepless nights, but do little to the stock price over the long term. The only way this hurts AMD is if AMD says it isn't a problem and is proven wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The insane thing is it amounts to "I don't like the dongle that actually works (DisplayPort), I want to use that dongle (DisplayLink)."
Once again, we see customers being burned because they didn't buy products which use the actual DisplayPort over USB-C standard.
Seriously, if you buy half-baked proprietary garbage, expect problems. DisplayLink's proprietary "solution" is wholly dependent on OS drivers, and they can't be bothered to maintain them. They had months to validate their driver works with the beta releases of MacOS; anybody with an Apple Developer account has access to it. DisplayLink's Linux "Driver" is for Ubuntu LTS only, and they have made no effort to release or test for any other release of Ubuntu, let alone any other distribution. Now, it's quite clear they've given MacOS the same amount of attention they give to Linux.
How is DisplayLink's broken driver the fault of anybody except DisplayLink? They didn't follow the DisplayPort standard. Let them lie in the bed they shart.
advertisers won't pay to advertise to people with no money it sort of makes you sound like an idiot.
Advertising isn't just about selling goods - it's about increasing the "value" of the brand and its goods. In a sick way, it's the same principle that gives Bitcoin value "from nothing".
McDonalds brand carrot sticks are a great example. Kids prefer carrot sticks from McDonalds versus carrot sticks Mom just cut up. McDonalds has managed to get into the brains of toddlers - who can't buy anything - that their food is somehow better.
I've seen ads for Mercedes Benz since I was just as young, and as a result, I "know" that a Mercedes is a superior car... in spite of having never driven one or worked on one. It's unlikely I'll ever buy a Mercedes. But that same perception of value and superiority, in aggregate across the population, drives up the value (and cost) of a Mercedes beyond its materials, design, and build quality, and that is where Mercedes gets its value from advertising.
The thing is the more we study how Lead interacts with the body, the more we find that Lead is among the exceptions to the addage "the dose makes the poison." The more we look at it, the more we realize that there is no "safe" amount of Lead.
Even then, while the Missouri plant was shutdown, the key takeaway is that it's the last plant dedicated to processing Lead.
There are other mines which continue to produce lead in the US -- it's just that lead is a byproduct, not the main attraction.
The Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah started with the discovery of lead deposits in 1863. The "catch" is that lead isn't the mine/smelter's primary product (which is copper). They still produce quite a bit of lead, which is a byproduct of smelting the copper & gold ore.
The reality is that 88% of lead used in the US is from lead-acid batteries -- which are both produced and recycled outside the US (just like everything else, because of lower labor costs).
Eurpoe's RoHS all but eliminated lead use for electronics, and the high price of copper has caused everybody to switched to PEX for plumbing (which doesn't use/need solder).
That really only leaves ammunition as a major use of lead in the US, and the lead produced as a "byproduct" of producing other metals is sufficient for America's hunger to shoot more cast boolets. Even with shortages caused by "preppers" hoarding a decade's worth of ammo for the apocalypse du jour, the problem wasn't a shortage of lead -- but powder and brass.
Lead toxicity is only a problem for survivors of gun violence (which, to be fair, is still 65-70% of those affected). The Hollywood meme of removing the bullet in a darkened warehouse is the opposite of reality: removing the bullet is usually far more dangerous than leaving it in place.
The body usually encapsulates the bullet, and that usually eliminates further damage from the bullet. But not always.
I seem to recall reading that our biggest Mercury exposure comes from burning coal as well.
The industry had a hard time with unleaded solder.
It's not a past tense thing. The industry continues to have a hard time with unleaded solder - the great "iPhone Touch Plague" that hit pretty much every iPhone 6 and 6+ comes to mind -- due to the solder joints cracking on a BGA chip.
Tin whiskers continue to be a poorly-understood reliability issue, with component manufacturers regularly publishing app notes about mitigation strategies. We've had huge improvements vs 2008, but it's not a "solved" problem yet.
Lead solder is one of those issues where exposure is not a problem if the people using it care about the risks, and can take the (almost trivial) precautions.
The problem, of course, is that employers often don't care about the risks of lead, combined with employees who don't care either -- and of course on the other end, we have countries that feel it's acceptable to ship any e-waste to a country that isn't able to recycle it safely.
The point of the 'dynamic range' bits of the summary are to say "just because the video didn't show enough light doesn't mean there actually wasn't enough light".
Anybody who uses dashcams can confirm this (I use 'em because I live in a city consistently ranked "worst drivers in America". They've been useful.)
The thing that stumps me is there are a lot of reasons to use near IR as well as visible light.
I am noticing this too. Any story on bitcoin sends the low UID accounts into fits of rage.
We've seen several "this will change the world" financial trends. We gave into "#FOMO" in our time as well, back in the dot-com days of 1998-2003, the housing craze of 2006-2008, the gold rush of 2009-2012, and so on.
We've seen the road already, and try to convince others not to go down it (as our elders did with us). I don't expect you to believe us any more than we believed our elders. It's the circle of life.
It's their way of rationalizing missing the boat on, what might be, the greatest wealth transfer in history.
I've watched Bitcoin shed over half its value in 30 days. I've seen Ethereum lose ~2/3 of its value in 90 days. I'm quite comfortable passing up that action.
Do as you will; it's your money. Just remember to periodically ask yourself the same question all of us need to ask from time to time: Am I willing to ride the bomb all the way down?
What next, banning cat pictures?
Our feline overlords won't stand for it. They've reached the conclusion that they can't prevent Furries from mocking them in porn, and so demanded that human pornography be outlawed.
Yes, technically, the lizard people are in charge, but they aren't going to risk a vote of no confidence destroying their fragile governing coalition. They need the cat vote.
This one isn't due to partisan ignorance, just the general kind.
I do not want a Platform Security Processor, Management Engine, or any other hardware on my CPU that I cannot control.
These products serve absolutely no purpose for the general consumer - they are only useful in enterprise (corporate) environments for centralized control.
Mass production means we get features we don't need. CPU's and motherboards are designed to suit all buyers. It's cheaper to include the feature everywhere than it is to support an additional model.
Even in the 1990's, manufacturers were including features the customer didn't want (like integrated sound and video hardware), because it was cheaper to standardize across the board than to provide a different model that doesn't have it. I'm not sure it's even possible to get an Intel or AMD motherboard without integrated graphics and video.
If you refuse to manufacture CPUs lacking this component, then give customers the ability to request an unlock code that forever physically disables a component that is both dangerous and (to them) irrelevant.
Provide an avenue for malware to physically destroy hardware? That's an even worse idea.
It’s profoundly unwise to attempt for a company to bribe the police in the US. Given the NTSB is involved, it would be exponentially worse of an idea.
The NTSB’s standard faire is investigating airline accidents, and are used to far higher stakes than a mere traffic collision.
The police chief is using non-technical, human terms, rather than quibbling over semantics of idioms.
"Shadows" can simply mean "obscured from view," and is a common American English idiom.
It could also mean "shadows cast by the headlights" or "shadows cast by the LIDAR beam".
If you're in the shadows of a car's headlights, it's a sure bet the driver can't see you.
In many states, we’ve passed the point where driverless cars share the same lanes.
Separate lanes are an expensive fantasy, and would have done nothing to help in this case.
No matter what the law says, the truth is that some idiot trusted the software for do that they should have been doing, which is paying attention and giving a crap.
It's too early to say where the "fault" in the collision lies; details are just not available, and it'll probably be a few days until the Police report is issued.
I caution about this, because when I was a kid, there was a neighbor boy who was seriously injured across the street from me. He rode his "big wheel" tricycle out into the street. The driver had no warning (even at 25 MPH) because there were shrubs lining the side of the road, blocking the driver's ability to see the kid. Were the child walking, he would have been visible above the shrubbery, but riding the big wheel lowered the child below the line of sight.
The collision didn't happen because the driver didn't care, or wasn't paying attention. It happened because a five-year old kid made an illegal blind merge into the road.
In this case, we literally don't know what happened, and it doesn't do anybody favors to lay harsh judgement on anyone at this point. Wait for the police report, and then blame Uber for being a wretched den of scum an villainy.
The Pi has a level of ubiquity its cousins can't even dream of. "Quantity has a quality all its own."
It's how better architectures and OSes lost out to the inferior but popular x86 and DOS.
Then, as now, being more popular means there is far better support to be found on the internet, better distro support, more experts, etc.
I design my own circuit boards, and program the microcontrollers from scratch; but I generally only do that when it's the only option. There have been a number of projects I chose the Pi over any other SoC board because I don't have to tinker around to make it work.
The SD card is insanely slow.
If that's your concern, then you can always network boot the Pi-3, which is a better option for reliability anyway.
At the end of the day, though, with the Raspberry Pi, you will always use a somewhat dated Broadcom SoC. (The Pi's designers are Broadcom employees).
Those SoC's aren't "general purpose" devices. The Pi is cheap because it repurposes a chip that is produced by the billion and designed for TV's, set top boxes, and disc players. The SoC's are designed to handle a few MiB/sec of HD Video, to be decoded & pushed via HDMI. They can do GPU tasks to give the set-top box a better UI. They are not designed for serious I/O.
The Pi is designed, first, foremost, and always, to be cheap. Every single one of the performance enhancements you mention don't matter to the million-unit lot SoC's used for set top boxes, and would require custom chips, driving the cost beyond the Pi foundation's goals.
If you want the latest and greatest technologies, then you better expect to pay dearly for them. The Pi uses old tech because it's cheap.
Getting a bigger PSU is more a function on whether you hook up many external devices (HAT's, USB devices, etc.)
The only thing that's ever "broken" on my original model B's are not technically the Pi: The external power supply, and the SD card.
I've had a few original model B's running more or less continuously since they were first released. (I do reboot for kernel updates).
Am I the only one that still uses the original Raspberry Pi?
Nope, I still have five or six...
Though the newer Raspberry Pi B+ models have an improved "hat" hardware interface. which wasn't as robust or standardized with the original Model B.
CPU speed has never been the selling point of em to me.
The improvements are far more than the SoC powering the Pi 2 & 3:
The Pi 2&3 are also able to deliver more power to audio/video interfaces, to USB devices, and to attached Hat's. I don't have to worry about plugging in a USB device and the Pi going into an unusuable state due to the USB device drawing power.
The Pi 2&3 have better network performance. The Pi 3 even allows network booting (say goodbye to endless boot cycles when the SD card fails).
The SoC's in the Pi 2&3 use more modern processes, and use less power per unit of work done.
The Pi 3's SOC (and GPU) is much more suited to running Wayland, and it also has Bluetooth, which opens up a range of IoT devices to fiddle with.
If you are interested in CPU's, though: I use a Pi 3 to run PiAware, which is an aircraft transponder/ADSB receiver. The original, single-core Pi doesn't cut it, but a multi-core Pi 2 (or Pi 3) runs it without any problem.
A huge number of put option (a bet that share price will fall dramatically) volume 5 days ago?
To play devil's advocate: Put options like that are an everyday occurrence. They're not unusual in any way.
There's even a solid reason for the bet: Much like Intel, AMD missed the boat for mobile processors. Neither Intel nor AMD have processors in the iOS world, nor do they have a serious competitor to Qualcomm's SnapDragon or NVIDIA's Tegra on Android. Most of the arguments that the Broadcom+Qualcomm merger being an "existential threat" to Intel also applies to AMD, because they both missed the fastest-growing market in the industry.
Five days ago, it wasn't unreasonable to say that the Broadcom+Qualcomm merger, if approved, could cause AMD's stock price to suffer.
Unsurprisingly, when news came out that President Trump would block the Broadcom purchase of Qualcomm for national security reasons, AMD's stock jumped.
Sounds like people are more butthurt over that then addressing their actual claims which are more damning
We saw the same thing happen when Spectre was announced - a lot of butthurt AC's were adamant that the only "real" problem was the Intel-only meltdown bug, and anyone who disagreed were "shills" for Intel; that Spectre was invented to smear AMD.
It seems there is a growing percentage of the population who instantly fall back on conspiracy theories whenever reality reveals something they don't like.
The proper reaction to a bug to curse, fix it, and move on.
If it's a stock scam, it's an amazingly ignorant one. The average day trader doesn't know about or really care about AMD. Even Intel is yesterday's news. They just don't have Apple's name recognition.
If they were shorting AMD stock they would have only made 4.5% if they were prescient and both bought and sold their stock perfectly. If they weren't so lucky, they would have been seriously in the hole (down to -7%) and likely would have given up before 2PM EST.
Coupled with the (expected) blocking of the Qualcomm sale to Broadcom today, and its corresponding gains to Intel & AMD's stock prices, it was just a really, really poor day to make that move.
This is both an attack on AMD (and possibly their stock price) and a way for the researchers to get publicity.
I'll buy publicity, but an attack on AMD... no.
Saying it's an attack on AMD is about as sensible as saying the (many) flaws published about Intel's products were attacks on Intel.
If there's a flaw, it doesn't exist because of the researchers. If the researchers were truly malicious, they wouldn't have disclosed anything at all.
Zero-day exploits give engineering departments heartburn and sleepless nights, but do little to the stock price over the long term. The only way this hurts AMD is if AMD says it isn't a problem and is proven wrong.
There have been MFi certified adapters for quite some time now... This isn't news, it's clickbait.