It's not really a gray area. Wikileaks/Assange coerced Manning into committing crimes and attempted to assist in the commission. That's all criminal activity. There's no hint at having done so for the public good. Wikileaks wanted information to make the US look bad and has admitted such on multiple occasions.
Manning could have been covered under whistleblower protections if she had sought specific information and released it to actual journalists, Congress persons, or almost anyone but Wikileaks. Even if she avoided her military chain of command fearing reprisal/prosecution she might have been covered. Instead she grabbed a bunch of shit and handed it over to Wikileaks that just dumped it all online (maybe not all, Wikileaks loves to editorialize through omission).
You're skirting a fine line there. Assange and Wikileaks were in active communication with Manning and helping her hack into systems or at least offering to do so. If a Washington Post reporter did the same thing and had the same evidence trail, they would be arrested and likely convicted as well. Being a member of the press is not a magic get out a jail free card or blanket immunity against being convicted for crimes.
Coercing someone to hack into a system to see what's there isn't really journalism. Helping someone do the hacking also isn't journalism. Simply publishing the hacked documents with no redaction or concern for PII in them (that can lead to retaliation against informants etc) also isn't journalism. Chelsea Manning was just angry/disaffected and wanted to lash out against the Army/USG. That again isn't journalism. If I hacked into a server at work and stole of random documents and dumped them online that wouldn't be journalism either.
The Internet Archive's robots.txt policy was amended two years ago. They now ignore robots.txt policies and want people to make a formal request to remove a site's archive. What's been unclear (to me) if this corrected the issue of new robots.txt files making old archives of sites unavailable. What often happen(ed|s) is a domain squatter picks up an expired domain that used to host something, blocked IA, and then IA would make all of that site's archives unavailable. This almost always meant content a previous owner of the domain had hosted.
I believe these are all the archives somebody on/r/DataHoarder snagged before Facebook accidentally hit delete 10,000 times and then accidentally dropped the backup drives in a volcano.
The stress of spacewalks in likely also a major consideration. Spacesuits are not easy to work in and are very uncomfortable. Astronauts do spacewalks because they're astronauts, not because spacewalks are easy or comfortable. There's also a hard limit on a suit's endurance, there's a limited amount of air, temperature control, and power available. For reference here's a list of all the ISS spacewalks, the longest was almost nine hours with the majority between six and eight hours. You'll notice that 214 spacewalks are listed over twenty one years. Spacewalks are not trivial for ISS crews to perform.
If they had ready access to telepresence robots they could perform a remote "spacewalk" whenever they had the slightest justification for doing so. If SpaceBot gets smacked with some orbital debris or bombarded with charged particles they don't need to write a sad letter to SpaceBot's family or watch them die from super cancer.
The ISS crew could also take turns controlling SpaceBot so the operator is always alert and rested. If they run into a blocking issue they can hit pause on SpaceBot for an indefinite period as there's no astronaut burning through O2 at the end of the MSS.
This little thing is pushing 500Gflops, a mid-range GPU has several times the power. So is some rampant "AI" was going to go all DIY SkyNet it would have happened a few years ago.
Most of NASA's equipment is built by contractors. The key difference is the design specs are created by NASA and the equipment is built by contractors according to those specs with feedback from those contractors' own engineers. The Dragon capsule on the other hand was designed and built entirely by SpaceX. It'll end up with an NSN and NASA will buy them like they buy Dell laptops or Bic pens.
That difference is significant. Even when the Apollo project was ongoing you couldn't buy a CSM and Saturn rocket for any price. With the Dragon being man-rated you, literally you, could buy a Falcon and Dragon pair and get launched into space. You'd probably have to wait as the slated production runs have been pre-sold but SpaceX's production capacity is the only real limitation now.
The only place where humans are adapted to live in the entire solar system is Earth. Even then we can only thrive on less than a quarter of the surface. The rest of the planet and solar system require significant amounts of resources to survive let alone thrive. The least hospitable places on Earth require orders of magnitude fewer resources to survive than anywhere off-planet and we don't bother trying to live there.
The odds of a civilization ending event off Earth are far higher than on Earth. It would take a mind boggling amount of effort and resources to build a self sufficient and sustainable colony on Venus or Mars. If any major component of said colony's technological infrastructure was to break it could kill everyone there. If my city has a blackout I'm inconvenienced, I don't die in an hour by freezing or suffocating. If a natural disaster happens and I need to leave my house I can survive outside it without some sort of spacesuit. I won't freeze, suffocate, or be melted by an acidic atmosphere.
If you think some off-world colony is any way practical in any sort of near term schedule, you're deluding yourself with sci-fi handwavium.
When was Apple collecting unnecessary data and what data are you claiming they collected? I don't remember any news stories about Apple building a shadow profile of me or reading all my e-mail to show me "better" advertisements.
The idea of encoding content once for everyone (in the streaming case) is actually the totally incorrect thing to do. You actually want to encode a single source a number of times with different settings intended for different client environments. If you're Netflix you even encode different segments of each source video to different profiles.
Storage and CPU are much cheaper than bandwidth. HTTP streaming protocols like HLS and MPEG-DASH break video streams up temporally into time-based segments. The playlist files, m3u8 for instance, define different sets of stream segments for different network/device conditions. If the high bitrate segments are transferring slowly the client starts grabbing segments from a lower bandwidth stream.
So for any given video stream you want at least a few different copies tuned to different client bitrates. You also don't have to think of a video stream as movie.mp4, you can instead think of it as movie-scene1.mp4, movie-scene2.mp4, movie-scenen.mp4. Each scene can be analyzed for levels of motion, detail, etc and encoded with highly tuned parameters with an awareness of the actual content.
All of this goes towards the goal of delivering video with good visual quality using the least bandwidth possible. Being able to handle dynamic streams like this require relatively high power clients but even cheapo ARM SoCs can handle the job anymore. On the encoding side, everything is very parallalizable and can be hardware accelerated.
Is a way to tell not that the video is "sharp" but closely matched the original source in fidelity. If all you looked at was sharpness a scene that had motion blur or an out of focus effect would run afoul of the algorithm. Your end goal of name and shame is incredibly difficult to do well or even accurately.
There's ways to get video quality measures (SSIM, MSE, etc) but they require a comparison to the source (or a source you consider good enough) as they're relative measures. Interpreting the results is also not obvious.
Besides the challenge of the comparison it's also important to understand the video pipeline from raw source to what you see on screen. The video stream from the provider might be providing a high quality stream but the scaler on your TV might suck and muddies the image upon display or your LCD panel's dithering might be really shitty.
Video, especially streaming video (either Internet streaming or live delivery like cable), is really complicated. There's a lot of different dimensions where you might judge "quality" and even then it's an envelope and not a single scalar value. There's no objective "good" reference for any recorded scene, even the concept of "life-like" is not clear since the recording is entirely dependent on physical properties of the equipment.
You can tell a child that violence and murder are always bad. Children can understand binary things like good and bad. They can't however really understand things that are conditionally good or bad until they're in their teens. Even then they may not have enough sophistication to really understand the context of things they see.
So exposing younger children to sexual content means exposing them to situations that rarely fit into their binary understanding of appropriate and inappropriate. Violent behavior is also pretty easy to recognize (by children) for what it is, sexual behavior less so. Violent behavior isn't really used for anything but violence. Several sexual actions are also used non-sexually to show affection. It's difficult for most children to understand the difference when exposed to sexual content (or sexual abuse).
An attacker only needs to get through the defense once (for various values of once) to be successful while the defender needs to block every attack to be successful.
A little spy chip spitting out a DNS query for an innocuous looking domain to exfiltrate data and/or grab C&C instructions from a TXT record or something might never be noticed.
State of the art lithography is not a synonym for high-performance computer chips. In fact for a lot of uses, DoD included, state of the art lithography is nowhere in the requirements. Hardened chips on robust/insulated substrates is more important in many uses than smaller die traces.
The point of the Hornet was to reduce the number of planes needed for a sortie. In the first Gulf War a pair of Hornets on a bombing mission shot down two Iraqi fighters sent to intercept them and then continued on with their bombing mission. The planes it replaced could not have done that.
While mid-air refueling is a logistics challenge it's a common aspect of carrier operations. Hornets (or any attack plane) could launch with a full fuel load but it would necessitate a lighter combat load. It's better to launch with less fuel because it can be replenished in flight where weapons can't be.
Carrier-based ground attack missions have changed a lot in the past several decades. In Vietnam bombing missions against static targets required manned attack planes, today those missions are done with cruise missiles. Even when manned planes are needed there's guided stand off weapons that increase attack planes' effective combat radius.
The range for capability trade off seems to have been a good one for the Hornet based on its performance over the past 30 years. It's not the perfect plane but it's made CSGs' air wings more effective since most of the planes can pull double duty.
...because the Surface Go is all over the place. The lowest priced model, the from $399 model is not worth the price with its shitty specs running Windows 10. The higher end models with more capable specs fit their price a little better but are then hobbled by their shitty ergonomics and UX. In order to remedy the ergonomics you need to spend more money to add a keyboard and trackpad that doesn't totally destroy the mobility of the device.
At every step you've got a inadequate device. If you want a small Windows system there's much cheaper 10-13" laptops. You can also find Bay Trail/Cherry Trail 7-9" tablets for less than $100. If you want a capable Windows 2-in-1 there's also a lot better options in the higher price ranges.
One of the markets Microsoft talks about with the Surface Go is education but I don't see any place where it's a better option than Chromebooks, iPads, or just cheap Windows laptops. It's not really getting you anything above and beyond those devices.
If there's Win32 software you must run doing so on a tablet is usually a terrible experience at best and simply impossible at worst. Many Win32 apps don't scale well on HiDPI displays so you end up with teeny tiny widgets you can barely use with a stylus. On a small screen the Windows 10 on-screen keyboard eats a lot of real estate and again many Win32 apps don't scale appropriately around the keyboard. So to get a Surface Go to run must-have Windows software pretty much requires the added cost of keyboards and/or styluses.
Why would Apple bother buying 1Password when iCloud already does the same thing and is integrated into all their platforms? Do people making shit up just use MadLibs and go with whatever? Are the clicks really worth that much?
The biggest difference between a simple compute cluster and a supercomputer is the speed of the interconnect. A compute cluster might have individually fast nodes, potentially decked out with RAM, but it's not going to be able to access the contents of any other node's memory effectively. So a big problem needs to be partitioned into slices that fit on a node.
Supercomputers have fast enough interconnects that multiple nodes can act as a single machine image. Nodes can read and write to the shared memory so they can access the global state of the computation. So you can model a trillion particles in a system rather than millions or billions.
Besides the interesting point of this system using ARM over x86-64, it looks like it's all CPU powered. The past few TOP500 rankings have been giant GPU clusters with fast interconnects. The CPUs have provided little of their actual number crunching.
It's not like GPU heavy super computers are slacking or anything, I just think it's cool seeing a machine get high performance without them. I'm no expert but it seems an all CPU design would be easier to write code for since the problem set doesn't need to be sliced to fit into a GPU's often more limited RAM than the host.
Just because I need a portable computer, doesn't mean I need to sit at a cafe all day.
Wanting good battery life is not about sitting in a cafe all day. I want a portable computer that I can use places away from my office/desk for long periods of time without hunting for a power outlet. I also want to use my laptop and not have it throttle way down on the battery. It would also really nice for it to be light so it doesn't weigh down my bag.
Portables have aspects with inverse proportions. Intel dropping the ball after Skylake has meant any manufacturers wanting high performance parts in a small envelope can't pack a lot of RAM unless they sacrifice battery life by using much higher power draw DDR4.
A higher power draw means lower battery life (for the same sized battery) and likely a lot of thermal throttling issues. DDR4 uses several times as much power as LPDDR3E used in the MacBook lines. Even if you are willing to sacrifice the battery life, the thermals would be a major issue even on AC power. The higher power RAM/controller would eat up the thermal budget for the CPU meaning it would enter TurboBoost mode less often or worst case actually stay throttled down.
The ThinkPad in the story is a brick. This means thermals and battery life probably aren't major concerns. From the looks of it actual portability isn't much of a concern either.
Release a mobile chipset that supports LPDDR4 so vendors can support more than 16GB of RAM without using a memory controller using 2-3x the power of the low power chips. Lots of RAM in laptops would be great but not at the cost of battery life.
I too have a Surface 3, love the hardware but can't stand Windows. Every time I think "it won't be so bad" it ends up worse than I expected. The Surfaces are also a complete pain in the ass to get Linux on and running reliably. These unfeatures combined for me to just get an iPad Pro (10").
I want a tablet that wakes and sleeps instantly and works well primarily in tablet mode. The Surface 3 sort of sleeps and wakes reliably but far less so than the iPad. The on-screen keyboard is terrible which necessitates a hardware keyboard of some sort. The keyboard cover makes for a terrible hardware keyboard since it sits at an angle and isn't very sturdy.
So good luck Microsoft, maybe a fourth time is a charm. I'm not holding my breath.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really a gray area. Wikileaks/Assange coerced Manning into committing crimes and attempted to assist in the commission. That's all criminal activity. There's no hint at having done so for the public good. Wikileaks wanted information to make the US look bad and has admitted such on multiple occasions.
Manning could have been covered under whistleblower protections if she had sought specific information and released it to actual journalists, Congress persons, or almost anyone but Wikileaks. Even if she avoided her military chain of command fearing reprisal/prosecution she might have been covered. Instead she grabbed a bunch of shit and handed it over to Wikileaks that just dumped it all online (maybe not all, Wikileaks loves to editorialize through omission).
You're skirting a fine line there. Assange and Wikileaks were in active communication with Manning and helping her hack into systems or at least offering to do so. If a Washington Post reporter did the same thing and had the same evidence trail, they would be arrested and likely convicted as well. Being a member of the press is not a magic get out a jail free card or blanket immunity against being convicted for crimes.
Coercing someone to hack into a system to see what's there isn't really journalism. Helping someone do the hacking also isn't journalism. Simply publishing the hacked documents with no redaction or concern for PII in them (that can lead to retaliation against informants etc) also isn't journalism. Chelsea Manning was just angry/disaffected and wanted to lash out against the Army/USG. That again isn't journalism. If I hacked into a server at work and stole of random documents and dumped them online that wouldn't be journalism either.
The Internet Archive's robots.txt policy was amended two years ago. They now ignore robots.txt policies and want people to make a formal request to remove a site's archive. What's been unclear (to me) if this corrected the issue of new robots.txt files making old archives of sites unavailable. What often happen(ed|s) is a domain squatter picks up an expired domain that used to host something, blocked IA, and then IA would make all of that site's archives unavailable. This almost always meant content a previous owner of the domain had hosted.
The Zuckerberg Files.
I believe these are all the archives somebody on /r/DataHoarder snagged before Facebook accidentally hit delete 10,000 times and then accidentally dropped the backup drives in a volcano.
The stress of spacewalks in likely also a major consideration. Spacesuits are not easy to work in and are very uncomfortable. Astronauts do spacewalks because they're astronauts, not because spacewalks are easy or comfortable. There's also a hard limit on a suit's endurance, there's a limited amount of air, temperature control, and power available. For reference here's a list of all the ISS spacewalks, the longest was almost nine hours with the majority between six and eight hours. You'll notice that 214 spacewalks are listed over twenty one years. Spacewalks are not trivial for ISS crews to perform.
If they had ready access to telepresence robots they could perform a remote "spacewalk" whenever they had the slightest justification for doing so. If SpaceBot gets smacked with some orbital debris or bombarded with charged particles they don't need to write a sad letter to SpaceBot's family or watch them die from super cancer.
The ISS crew could also take turns controlling SpaceBot so the operator is always alert and rested. If they run into a blocking issue they can hit pause on SpaceBot for an indefinite period as there's no astronaut burning through O2 at the end of the MSS.
This little thing is pushing 500Gflops, a mid-range GPU has several times the power. So is some rampant "AI" was going to go all DIY SkyNet it would have happened a few years ago.
Most of NASA's equipment is built by contractors. The key difference is the design specs are created by NASA and the equipment is built by contractors according to those specs with feedback from those contractors' own engineers. The Dragon capsule on the other hand was designed and built entirely by SpaceX. It'll end up with an NSN and NASA will buy them like they buy Dell laptops or Bic pens.
That difference is significant. Even when the Apollo project was ongoing you couldn't buy a CSM and Saturn rocket for any price. With the Dragon being man-rated you, literally you, could buy a Falcon and Dragon pair and get launched into space. You'd probably have to wait as the slated production runs have been pre-sold but SpaceX's production capacity is the only real limitation now.
The only place where humans are adapted to live in the entire solar system is Earth. Even then we can only thrive on less than a quarter of the surface. The rest of the planet and solar system require significant amounts of resources to survive let alone thrive. The least hospitable places on Earth require orders of magnitude fewer resources to survive than anywhere off-planet and we don't bother trying to live there.
The odds of a civilization ending event off Earth are far higher than on Earth. It would take a mind boggling amount of effort and resources to build a self sufficient and sustainable colony on Venus or Mars. If any major component of said colony's technological infrastructure was to break it could kill everyone there. If my city has a blackout I'm inconvenienced, I don't die in an hour by freezing or suffocating. If a natural disaster happens and I need to leave my house I can survive outside it without some sort of spacesuit. I won't freeze, suffocate, or be melted by an acidic atmosphere.
If you think some off-world colony is any way practical in any sort of near term schedule, you're deluding yourself with sci-fi handwavium.
So your response is Google used to read your e-mail until recently but now they just cyber-stalk you. That's technically an improvement.
When was Apple collecting unnecessary data and what data are you claiming they collected? I don't remember any news stories about Apple building a shadow profile of me or reading all my e-mail to show me "better" advertisements.
The idea of encoding content once for everyone (in the streaming case) is actually the totally incorrect thing to do. You actually want to encode a single source a number of times with different settings intended for different client environments. If you're Netflix you even encode different segments of each source video to different profiles.
Storage and CPU are much cheaper than bandwidth. HTTP streaming protocols like HLS and MPEG-DASH break video streams up temporally into time-based segments. The playlist files, m3u8 for instance, define different sets of stream segments for different network/device conditions. If the high bitrate segments are transferring slowly the client starts grabbing segments from a lower bandwidth stream.
So for any given video stream you want at least a few different copies tuned to different client bitrates. You also don't have to think of a video stream as movie.mp4, you can instead think of it as movie-scene1.mp4, movie-scene2.mp4, movie-scenen.mp4. Each scene can be analyzed for levels of motion, detail, etc and encoded with highly tuned parameters with an awareness of the actual content.
All of this goes towards the goal of delivering video with good visual quality using the least bandwidth possible. Being able to handle dynamic streams like this require relatively high power clients but even cheapo ARM SoCs can handle the job anymore. On the encoding side, everything is very parallalizable and can be hardware accelerated.
Is a way to tell not that the video is "sharp" but closely matched the original source in fidelity. If all you looked at was sharpness a scene that had motion blur or an out of focus effect would run afoul of the algorithm. Your end goal of name and shame is incredibly difficult to do well or even accurately.
There's ways to get video quality measures (SSIM, MSE, etc) but they require a comparison to the source (or a source you consider good enough) as they're relative measures. Interpreting the results is also not obvious.
Besides the challenge of the comparison it's also important to understand the video pipeline from raw source to what you see on screen. The video stream from the provider might be providing a high quality stream but the scaler on your TV might suck and muddies the image upon display or your LCD panel's dithering might be really shitty.
Video, especially streaming video (either Internet streaming or live delivery like cable), is really complicated. There's a lot of different dimensions where you might judge "quality" and even then it's an envelope and not a single scalar value. There's no objective "good" reference for any recorded scene, even the concept of "life-like" is not clear since the recording is entirely dependent on physical properties of the equipment.
What the fuck? Do you smell burnt toast? Please get help. :(
You can tell a child that violence and murder are always bad. Children can understand binary things like good and bad. They can't however really understand things that are conditionally good or bad until they're in their teens. Even then they may not have enough sophistication to really understand the context of things they see.
So exposing younger children to sexual content means exposing them to situations that rarely fit into their binary understanding of appropriate and inappropriate. Violent behavior is also pretty easy to recognize (by children) for what it is, sexual behavior less so. Violent behavior isn't really used for anything but violence. Several sexual actions are also used non-sexually to show affection. It's difficult for most children to understand the difference when exposed to sexual content (or sexual abuse).
An attacker only needs to get through the defense once (for various values of once) to be successful while the defender needs to block every attack to be successful.
A little spy chip spitting out a DNS query for an innocuous looking domain to exfiltrate data and/or grab C&C instructions from a TXT record or something might never be noticed.
State of the art lithography is not a synonym for high-performance computer chips. In fact for a lot of uses, DoD included, state of the art lithography is nowhere in the requirements. Hardened chips on robust/insulated substrates is more important in many uses than smaller die traces.
The point of the Hornet was to reduce the number of planes needed for a sortie. In the first Gulf War a pair of Hornets on a bombing mission shot down two Iraqi fighters sent to intercept them and then continued on with their bombing mission. The planes it replaced could not have done that.
While mid-air refueling is a logistics challenge it's a common aspect of carrier operations. Hornets (or any attack plane) could launch with a full fuel load but it would necessitate a lighter combat load. It's better to launch with less fuel because it can be replenished in flight where weapons can't be.
Carrier-based ground attack missions have changed a lot in the past several decades. In Vietnam bombing missions against static targets required manned attack planes, today those missions are done with cruise missiles. Even when manned planes are needed there's guided stand off weapons that increase attack planes' effective combat radius.
The range for capability trade off seems to have been a good one for the Hornet based on its performance over the past 30 years. It's not the perfect plane but it's made CSGs' air wings more effective since most of the planes can pull double duty.
...because the Surface Go is all over the place. The lowest priced model, the from $399 model is not worth the price with its shitty specs running Windows 10. The higher end models with more capable specs fit their price a little better but are then hobbled by their shitty ergonomics and UX. In order to remedy the ergonomics you need to spend more money to add a keyboard and trackpad that doesn't totally destroy the mobility of the device.
At every step you've got a inadequate device. If you want a small Windows system there's much cheaper 10-13" laptops. You can also find Bay Trail/Cherry Trail 7-9" tablets for less than $100. If you want a capable Windows 2-in-1 there's also a lot better options in the higher price ranges.
One of the markets Microsoft talks about with the Surface Go is education but I don't see any place where it's a better option than Chromebooks, iPads, or just cheap Windows laptops. It's not really getting you anything above and beyond those devices.
If there's Win32 software you must run doing so on a tablet is usually a terrible experience at best and simply impossible at worst. Many Win32 apps don't scale well on HiDPI displays so you end up with teeny tiny widgets you can barely use with a stylus. On a small screen the Windows 10 on-screen keyboard eats a lot of real estate and again many Win32 apps don't scale appropriately around the keyboard. So to get a Surface Go to run must-have Windows software pretty much requires the added cost of keyboards and/or styluses.
Drink your ovaltine?
Son of a bitch!
Why would Apple bother buying 1Password when iCloud already does the same thing and is integrated into all their platforms? Do people making shit up just use MadLibs and go with whatever? Are the clicks really worth that much?
The biggest difference between a simple compute cluster and a supercomputer is the speed of the interconnect. A compute cluster might have individually fast nodes, potentially decked out with RAM, but it's not going to be able to access the contents of any other node's memory effectively. So a big problem needs to be partitioned into slices that fit on a node.
Supercomputers have fast enough interconnects that multiple nodes can act as a single machine image. Nodes can read and write to the shared memory so they can access the global state of the computation. So you can model a trillion particles in a system rather than millions or billions.
Besides the interesting point of this system using ARM over x86-64, it looks like it's all CPU powered. The past few TOP500 rankings have been giant GPU clusters with fast interconnects. The CPUs have provided little of their actual number crunching.
It's not like GPU heavy super computers are slacking or anything, I just think it's cool seeing a machine get high performance without them. I'm no expert but it seems an all CPU design would be easier to write code for since the problem set doesn't need to be sliced to fit into a GPU's often more limited RAM than the host.
Wanting good battery life is not about sitting in a cafe all day. I want a portable computer that I can use places away from my office/desk for long periods of time without hunting for a power outlet. I also want to use my laptop and not have it throttle way down on the battery. It would also really nice for it to be light so it doesn't weigh down my bag.
Portables have aspects with inverse proportions. Intel dropping the ball after Skylake has meant any manufacturers wanting high performance parts in a small envelope can't pack a lot of RAM unless they sacrifice battery life by using much higher power draw DDR4.
A higher power draw means lower battery life (for the same sized battery) and likely a lot of thermal throttling issues. DDR4 uses several times as much power as LPDDR3E used in the MacBook lines. Even if you are willing to sacrifice the battery life, the thermals would be a major issue even on AC power. The higher power RAM/controller would eat up the thermal budget for the CPU meaning it would enter TurboBoost mode less often or worst case actually stay throttled down.
The ThinkPad in the story is a brick. This means thermals and battery life probably aren't major concerns. From the looks of it actual portability isn't much of a concern either.
Dear Intel,
Release a mobile chipset that supports LPDDR4 so vendors can support more than 16GB of RAM without using a memory controller using 2-3x the power of the low power chips. Lots of RAM in laptops would be great but not at the cost of battery life.
I too have a Surface 3, love the hardware but can't stand Windows. Every time I think "it won't be so bad" it ends up worse than I expected. The Surfaces are also a complete pain in the ass to get Linux on and running reliably. These unfeatures combined for me to just get an iPad Pro (10").
I want a tablet that wakes and sleeps instantly and works well primarily in tablet mode. The Surface 3 sort of sleeps and wakes reliably but far less so than the iPad. The on-screen keyboard is terrible which necessitates a hardware keyboard of some sort. The keyboard cover makes for a terrible hardware keyboard since it sits at an angle and isn't very sturdy.
So good luck Microsoft, maybe a fourth time is a charm. I'm not holding my breath.