Why doesn't Apple seize this opportunity to migrate from the x64 to their A series - A10, A11,...?
I expect this to happen eventually but as an end user there is no obvious benefit to me for the most part unless they do a lot of software development along with it. That's all behind the scenes plumbing for most use cases. It potentially benefits Apple which is fine but I don't really care about that as a customer. What I care about is what additional capabilities it gives me or how it helps my work flow. If it helps them make a seamless user experience where devices work well together then bring it on.
Ever since the iPhone X I held off on getting an iPad Pro update specifically to get FaceID and the same gesture support for operations on an iPad. It's a vastly better way to go than the home button.
Disagree at least for some use cases. There are many ome applications where FaceID is preferable (most really) but definitely there are some where TouchID works better. Sometimes I want to be able to open my device without staring directly at it with it square to my face and TouchID is generally better for that. I also prefer TouchID when using ApplePay. Ideally (form factor permitting) I'd prefer to have access to both on the same device though I understand the challenges of doing this.
Isn't it kind of Apple's job to figure that out? I can think of quite a few things they could do with the Mac or iPad that they aren't doing right off the top of my head (posted elsewhere in this thread). If they can't think of something new and interesting then they are doomed.
Computers really became "good enough" a good while back. Heck even my 2011 vintage Mac Mini with 8GB of RAM is still chugging along just fine.
They become good enough for stuff like word processing a while back. There are plenty of use cases for which current generations of hardware are still are no where near good enough. It's all about the use case and I don't buy the argument that there are no interesting problems left for desktop and laptop devices to address.
Software will always need bug fixes, but hardware just doesn't need to be constantly updated.
Hardware doesn't need to be updated if you aren't doing anything new. But Apple cannot survive long term if they aren't doing anything new. The iPhone has been a decade long hit precisely because it does something new that people actually can use and that required new hardware. Not like you were going to lug around a Mac Mini to use as a phone.
If only Apple also upgraded iTunes to a decent music player that does not skip randomly in the middle of a track to the next song
You actually use iTunes? I haven't fired that up in probably 3 years. Frankly Apple has bigger fish to fry than that obsolete piece of garbage. For example: 1) The Mac Mini and Mac Pro haven't seen a meaningful update in years and basically get ignored 2) The Mac Pro design is stupid and needs to be fixed ASAP 3) Apple still can't get seamless integration between their operating systems and devices for files and data 4) Apple still doesn't have a decent application for proper note taking with the Apple Pencil 5) It's time for the lightning connector to die in a fire and be replaced with USB-C 6) Apple needs more than a single USB-C port on certain of their laptops 7) Dongle hell 8) Apple Pay still not accepted enough places 9) Apple Pencil is a total afterthought with basically no useful software support unless you are a digital artist focused on the iPad (useless on a Mac) 10) Apple treats cases for their phones as an afterthought rather than an important part of the device despite nearly every customer buying one 11) iPhones can have a power cord or a wired headset attached but not both at the same time. 12) Apple Maps still lags behind Google's offerings 13) Apple is ignoring equipment for serious artists (why don't they buy Wacom?) 14) It's still unclear what Apple's next Big Thing will be. To grow the company they can't coast on the iPhone forever.
The list goes on and on. Apple does a lot of things right but they could be doing so much more/better.
Yeah I'll believe it when I see it. They haven't given a shit about this product for a long time and it's hard to believe they are going to start now. Their last attempt (the trash can) was DOA and stupid to boot. Plus if they treat it like the rest of the Mac lineup it will basically be sold with minimal changes for years to come with little prospect of meaningful improvement. They also keep talking about "Pro" users but seem to have no idea what those actually are or what they do. Apple's idea of a "Pro" user seems to be something relating to a heavy user of Photoshop but they don't seem very clear about it and their design reflects that confusion.
If I'm going to buy a Mac I want to see Apple start taking the Mac seriously again. Right now their attention is clearly focused on the iPhone. I like Macs but they literally don't sell anything at the moment that I'm interested in buying. It's not about the money (for me) it's about the design and the lack of clarity on who they are designing their Macintosh product line for.
So basically they are putting in newer processors into most of their Mac line but doing little else. Nice but not exactly mind blowing to understate things greatly. The Mac Pro is conspicuously absent from the list. As seems usual lately the Mac seems to be getting ignored and most of the design effort is going into the iPhone.
A study by analysts Vanson Bourne for self service automation specialist SnapLogic looks at the data priorities and investment plans of IT decision makers, along with what's holding them back from maximizing value.
Maximizing IT value or maximizing company value? Those are not necessarily the same thing. Just because you invest heavily in IT does not necessarily mean that those investments will equate to an improvement on the bottom line of the company. It might but it's not a given. There is an old maxim that local maximums often make for global minimums. Having the most efficient IT in the world doesn't matter if the rest of the company operations suffer as a result.
We have to remember that IT is a cost. It is a (very important) tool. It is a means to an end and not an end itself. You invest in IT when it will permit the company to be more profitable. If the cost of upgrading the IT to maximum efficiency exceeds the profits enabled by that upgrade then you don't do it unless there is a strategic imperative forcing you to. And to be fair it's not always clear what the impact of an IT upgrade will be. I've seen them be hugely beneficial but I've also seen them bankrupt companies and of course lots of cases of it having little to no change.
If you want to upgrade the IT in a company the challenge is to make a case for how it will provide an ROI which is ultimately what most business owners actually care about.
Some bugs are harder to find than others, sure, but that's just a mealy-mouthed platitude.
"Platitude"? No, it's just a fact. Some bugs literally go decades without being found or repaired in open source projects and 20 seconds on google will find you examples of same. The platitude is saying "all bugs are shallow with enough eyeballs". The reality is that some bugs remain stubbornly difficult to find+repair even with large numbers of eyes. The false part of the all bugs are shallow statement is the word "all". Replace with "most" or "virtually all" and it's then a factually correct statement.
The point is, on a small team, some bugs are so hard that they don't even get fixed on the same day they're found. It could takes days or even weeks, historically. Even when they were really working on it.
I could say the exact same thing (and show examples) with large teams as well. And the harder bit is often finding the bugs in the first place regardless of team size. I've seen and reported bugs in large open source projects that have persisted for years - some still remaining to this day. Even when a bug has been reported it doesn't mean someone can be bothered to work on it.
Open Source hasn't had a hard bug since the 90s. Every bug, no matter how hard, is fixed within hours of there being public knowledge that it exists and hasn't been fixed yet.
That's complete nonsense. First off, fixing a bug once it is known is generally the "easy" part of the problem. What's often harder is finding the bugs in the first place. To say that there hasn't been a "hard bug" (whatever that is supposed to mean) since the 90s is just absurd. Second, nobody is arguing that Open Source doesn't have some substantial advantages for finding and dealing with bugs. But to pretend that somehow just being open source magically makes all bugs "easy" just simply isn't true.
The 200A drop is not standard except in buried systems.
200A service has been de-facto standard in much of the US for the last 30 years. Buried or not has nothing to do with it. The NEC does not mandate a minimum but with houses getting larger on average bigger service has become routine. While 100A service does get used with some regularity, 200A service is pretty much normal every place I've ever lived on homes built in the last few decades and 400A service is not rare.
Apple's support forum has been blowing up with complaints from users that battery life has been seriously curtailed since installing iOS 11.4.
Not disputing what other people are finding but my wife's phone and mine both are unaffected by this problem so it obviously isn't every phone. I'm curious what the common thread might be. Is it with certain devices or apps or something else?
The larger issue is that we need publicly-disclosed source code for some things, to assure the public good, whether it is proprietary or Open Source.
There is a famous saying with elections that it's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes. Similarly having some source code to audit is great but it's meaningless if the company doesn't actually utilize that exact code or finds some sneaky way to circumvent it.
Back in 1999, Eric Raymond coined the term "Linus' Law," which stipulates that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
That's only true if those eyeballs are actually looking for bugs and organized enough to do something about them. Even then it's more like a principle than an actual truth. Some bugs are much harder to find than others no matter how many people are looking.
Given that "conservative view points" generally amount to either cross burning racism, attempts to incite violence (see Alex Jones favorites such as "Pizzagate" or his 4th of July stunt this year), or a mixture of the two...
Don't forget about "family values" that only ever seem to apply to other people's families. Also hating taxes but still wanting things that taxes pay for like a big military so they borrow the money instead thus voiding their claim to be fiscally responsible.
Absolutely. Nobody is claiming that it is a primary source or should be trusted blindly but it's demonstrably a reliable source for quite a huge amount of information. Honestly I trust it more than I do quite a number of so-called "news" sources. No source should be trusted independently of verification.
That's hysterical, really. Wikipedia's lies-by-omission and scandals surrounding admins controlling and twisting content are legendary.
And that is different from any other source of news and information how exactly? Plus you clearly are overstating the scope of the problem substantially. ("Legendary"?) Most Wikipedia articles are fine and reliable sources of information that is entirely verifiable if you are concerned about any of it.
Admin conduct hasn't changed since, Wikipedia's a joke.
You sound butthurt about something though it's not clear what exactly. Wikipedia is useful. Nobody is claiming it is perfect. It's certainly proven reasonably reliable for a wide variety of use cases. It's not a primary source so if you need that go elsewhere and use appropriate skepticism at all times anyway.
The house main fuse is 60A, so anything over 15kW is going to risk popping it.
Sounds like they didn't really plan for the future so stuff will need upgrading. We did this in the US a long time ago. I have 200A service to my house (standard these days) and even older houses in the US rarely have less than 100A service. Sounds like the UK needs to get started sooner rather than later on this project. The longer they wait the more expensive it will be.
1) Not all houses in the UK come with a parking space right outside or garage. A lot are apartments or communal parking - how do you work out who is parking where without expensive infrastructure for telling what vehicle is plugged into where ?
Figuring out where a car is parked is a trivial exercise when they are plugged into an electric charging port. If you are going to install the charging equipment anyway then it is pretty much a non-issue at that point. Heck I have an EV and it has both LTE and WiFi and putting GPS on it would be a trivial exercise. Wouldn't be hard to pinpoint at all even if I wasn't plugged into something.
2) It's not just the cost of the charger - The supply cables going to the house will need to be upgraded along with ALL the infrastructure right back to the grid transformer - that isn't cheap. 3 phase to each house would be a good idea as it would solve the voltage issues but 3 phase to new builds is not common in the UK and I suspect the cost would be exorbitant.
Most houses can accommodate a car charger without any upgrades to service at all. Here in the US all construction for the last several decades has a 200A drop to the house which is more than adequate. The Level 2 charger I am currently adding to my house draws 32A max so even if I had 100A service that would still probably work. Three phase to the house isn't necessary or especially beneficial. Odds are all the equipment in your house already is single phase and it works fine. Most of the upgrades would really be the back end stuff the power company has to worry about anyway.
3) See 2). The current grid infrastructure in many areas may not be able to handle the increased load over time.
That's only a problem if we place demands on the grid for EVs faster than we can upgrade the grid. I see no evidence of that becoming a problem any time soon.
4) Vandalism - in many parts of the UK there are lots of little scrotes who will vandalise/destroy this kind of stuff in a day or two. Not to mention various gangs around the county who make a tidy living stealing cables along railway lines/motorways etc. Even if it's bolted to the ground in the UK someone will try and steal it.
There are well understood solutions to this too. Not as if cars and other stuff doesn't get stolen today. Worrying about vandalism and theft isn't something that should deter us from working towards a future with EVs.
If the future that eventuates is this car-summoned-on-demand one, then yes, this policy will waste money.
I think the probability of this is remarkable low for most of the globe. Presuming the technology works (not yet a given but good chance of it happening), the economics of "summon on demand" cars manifestly dictates you need to live in an area with a certain population density. There probably are other second order problems too like theft, vandalism, hacking, etc (remember nobody is guarding the vehicle) that people aren't really paying enough attention to yet but may/will turn out to be significant problems. There also will be the human psychology issue to work out. People don't like change and this would be a pretty major lifestyle change for millions.
I think if you live in an area where taxis are a daily reality then it might make sense for that locale. I don't really see it working out in suburbia or rural areas though. Demand would be very inconsistent (rush hour twice daily then... ?) and it would have a large number of vehicles sitting idle just like they do now. Hard to see where the profit to a company would be in doing that. But in a place like Manhattan where things operate a lot more 24/7 and with a high population density and limited garage space I could see it being a pretty useful technology.
If the future that eventuates is that most people own their own electric cars, this policy will save money.
Seems substantially more likely but you are right that there is still a non-negligible uncertainty involved. But I think if they require the garages to be wired for new construction and major renovations that's pretty minimal cost for pretty substantial long term gain.
So are most homes so your point is what exactly? Yes three phase has advantages but very little equipment in most houses is designed for it. You can get it if you want but it's extra hassle in a lot of cases.
However, just having high voltage to the right place and done in a way that it could be accessed/upgraded easily would be a great idea.
That's called an electrical socket. You may have heard of them. Neat thing is that you can plug anything you want into them.
Seriously, run the high voltage line to where it needs to be and allow for the charge station to be installed/replaced later. The expensive bit is the electrical contractor's time. Putting a charge station on the wall is easy and trivial. I'm in the process of doing that to my house this very week. I need a 240V line for a level 2 charging station run in my garage for my Bolt EV. Once the line is run, installing the charger itself is childs play. If someone had already installed a charger there so much the better even it it wasn't the latest tech. The electricians time is costing me more than the charger.
Basically it's easy and cheap to install the power lines when building a new home. It's a lot more expensive to do it after the fact. I don't know that it's necessary to actually install a charger but it might be reasonable to require that the house be wired to accommodate one.
Just don't require the actual charger to be installed, because it will be obsolete far too quickly.
Not very likely. It doesn't have to be the latest or greatest to be useful either and there is nothing prohibiting people from upgrading them in the future if necessary. Installing an actual charger is probably not sensible but running the lines to permit one seems like a very good idea on new construction.
Just because "everyone" has one (it's not anywhere near) doesn't mean it's not a status symbol.
It also doesn't mean it is one so you'd not really off to a good start.
>People on Social security SHOULD be budget conscious... yet they constantly select the brand that's known to overcharge for everything and have no easy way to get "free stuff" / pirate?
Overcharge is a matter of perspective. It's not overcharging if you regard it as good value for money. What might be overcharging to you might not be overcharging from my perspective or vice-versa. Apple's perception of charging a lot is more perception than reality. In actuality if you purchase a device with similar specification from one of their competitors you're going to pay a similar amount of money most of the time. People like yourself confuse or conflate the market segment with how it is priced within that segment. Apple's prices are reasonable for the segment they compete in but they don't compete in segments where price is the overriding consideration.
As for why folks on a fixed budget often pick Apple, they pick it because it has a well deserved reputation for being reliable, easy to use, and "just working" which is what they care about more than anything else. They aren't interested in tweaking settings or configuring things or any device that requires a lot of fiddling and maintenance.
As for pirating, why the f*** would my grandparents care about that? They want to see pics of the grand kids, make a few facetime calls, play solitaire, maybe send an email or two. They also want to do this with minimal hassle. They're not going to be pirating software or music or worried about fancy apps. The sure as hell don't care about "easy" ways to get free stuff or pirating software/media. YOU care about that and that's fine but don't project your needs on others.
So I ask you: why did your grantparents buy what they did?I bet it's to fit in, because they think "everyone has one" and they'd be stupid to not have one.
Nope. They bought one because they asked our generation what they should get for what they wanted to do (pics, video calls, email) and wanted something easier than a PC and we told them an iPad/iPhone. Had nothing to do with status because they would have bought whatever we told them to. Minimal hassle for everyone involved, works great, and does exactly what they want for reasonable amounts of money. If they have a problem the Apple store nearby can help them fix it if we aren't around. It cuts down on the problems we have to fix too. Android and Windows tend to require a lot more tech support and I've got years of experience backing that assertion up. (some of the best money I ever spent was getting my dad a Mac with an Applecare warranty and giving him my old iPhone - cut my tech support calls down to close to zero) Has nothing at all to do with status or the indication thereof.
That's the definition of a status symbol - it has nothing to do with actual exclusivity
See you are the one not understanding what a status symbol is. To be clear, my grandparents never take their iPad out in public so it certainly never serves any purpose for indicating social status. They purchased what was recommended to them for a specific purpose. It's a tool and a means to an end. The only people who give a shit about its utility as a social status indicator are people like yourself who seem overly concerned about such things or who are looking for a path to bash Apple. The rest of us are just busy doing the things we actually care about instead of worrying about other people's social status.
And the gun grabbers. After all, there wouldn't be any crime if we just rounded them all up, amirite?
Nice attempt to misrepresent the argument. The argument is that guns make violent crime MUCH easier which is undeniably true. Nobody thinks eliminating guns would eliminate crime and to pretend otherwise is to present a strawman argument. Confiscation of guns unquestionably would reduce the amount of crime committed with guns. Pretty hard to commit a crime with a gun if you can't get one in the first place. But since that won't (and IMO shouldn't) happen then the proper thing to do is to closely monitor gun ownership. The 2nd amendment does say "a well regulated militia". Which well regulated militia are you a member of again?
Remember kids, when they say "no one is coming for your guns," they really mean "we're totally coming for your guns."
There is a huge gap between sensible regulation of gun ownership and actual confiscation of guns and we are in no danger of crossing that gap and likely never will be in the US. Widespread confiscation of firearms is a political non-starter in the USA. But we have a situation where ownership of dangerous weapons are ludicrously under regulated. I own several guns and I think it's bonkers that I have to jump through more hoops to get a drivers license than to carry a deadly weapon whose sole purpose is to kill and which does so with horrifying efficiency. You can regulate a right to bear arms without abridging that right.
To an extent this is true. It certainly explains the success of the gun lobby. It also explains the desire (by some) for a border wall, much racism, and quite a lot of other features of our society. On the other hand we can be an incredibly brave and adventurous people too if properly motivated. We're complicated...
Of COURSE Americans distrust massive rich corporations that have a plausible desire to exploit them.
Except they do trust them. If they did not trust them then they wouldn't act the way they do. If you do not care enough to actually act on that mistrust then that is indistinguishable from in practice trusting that organization. And there are huge swaths of our voting public that may on occasion distrust corporations but they definitely distrust government - even under circumstances where they probably should fear the corporations more since they are less accountable. There are also huge swaths that feel exactly the opposite. Both are right at times and wrong at times. The truth is that some caution is always warranted and some trust is always necessary.
Given that it is one of our most important principals to be secure in our person and papers (aka - personal information) and these companies are in prime place to access that personal information, we have to continually ensure that the tentative trust of customer/vendor is sufficiently earned.
That's a nice theory about what we should do but it doesn't explain what we actually do. In reality we hand over our personal information quite readily to unknown parties without even
Iphones are not a status symbol, the only people who think they are status symbols are hopeless Apple fanboys.
Actually I'd say the only people who think (or hope) they are status symbols are people who are Apple haters. Given that each and every one of my grand parents (and yours too I'm betting) owns an iPhone or an iPad or both, I think we can pretty safely dispense with the myth that they are some sort of status symbol. There's nothing exclusive about them when my grandmother whose only income is Social Security has one.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't Apple seize this opportunity to migrate from the x64 to their A series - A10, A11,...?
I expect this to happen eventually but as an end user there is no obvious benefit to me for the most part unless they do a lot of software development along with it. That's all behind the scenes plumbing for most use cases. It potentially benefits Apple which is fine but I don't really care about that as a customer. What I care about is what additional capabilities it gives me or how it helps my work flow. If it helps them make a seamless user experience where devices work well together then bring it on.
Ever since the iPhone X I held off on getting an iPad Pro update specifically to get FaceID and the same gesture support for operations on an iPad. It's a vastly better way to go than the home button.
Disagree at least for some use cases. There are many ome applications where FaceID is preferable (most really) but definitely there are some where TouchID works better. Sometimes I want to be able to open my device without staring directly at it with it square to my face and TouchID is generally better for that. I also prefer TouchID when using ApplePay. Ideally (form factor permitting) I'd prefer to have access to both on the same device though I understand the challenges of doing this.
Given what they did to the MacBook Pro the last time they “improved” the design, I’d rather they stick with processor upgrades.
I'd rather they try something and fail rather than do nothing at all.
Honestly - what is is there to do?
Isn't it kind of Apple's job to figure that out? I can think of quite a few things they could do with the Mac or iPad that they aren't doing right off the top of my head (posted elsewhere in this thread). If they can't think of something new and interesting then they are doomed.
Computers really became "good enough" a good while back. Heck even my 2011 vintage Mac Mini with 8GB of RAM is still chugging along just fine.
They become good enough for stuff like word processing a while back. There are plenty of use cases for which current generations of hardware are still are no where near good enough. It's all about the use case and I don't buy the argument that there are no interesting problems left for desktop and laptop devices to address.
Software will always need bug fixes, but hardware just doesn't need to be constantly updated.
Hardware doesn't need to be updated if you aren't doing anything new. But Apple cannot survive long term if they aren't doing anything new. The iPhone has been a decade long hit precisely because it does something new that people actually can use and that required new hardware. Not like you were going to lug around a Mac Mini to use as a phone.
If only Apple also upgraded iTunes to a decent music player that does not skip randomly in the middle of a track to the next song
You actually use iTunes? I haven't fired that up in probably 3 years. Frankly Apple has bigger fish to fry than that obsolete piece of garbage. For example:
1) The Mac Mini and Mac Pro haven't seen a meaningful update in years and basically get ignored
2) The Mac Pro design is stupid and needs to be fixed ASAP
3) Apple still can't get seamless integration between their operating systems and devices for files and data
4) Apple still doesn't have a decent application for proper note taking with the Apple Pencil
5) It's time for the lightning connector to die in a fire and be replaced with USB-C
6) Apple needs more than a single USB-C port on certain of their laptops
7) Dongle hell
8) Apple Pay still not accepted enough places
9) Apple Pencil is a total afterthought with basically no useful software support unless you are a digital artist focused on the iPad (useless on a Mac)
10) Apple treats cases for their phones as an afterthought rather than an important part of the device despite nearly every customer buying one
11) iPhones can have a power cord or a wired headset attached but not both at the same time.
12) Apple Maps still lags behind Google's offerings
13) Apple is ignoring equipment for serious artists (why don't they buy Wacom?)
14) It's still unclear what Apple's next Big Thing will be. To grow the company they can't coast on the iPhone forever.
The list goes on and on. Apple does a lot of things right but they could be doing so much more/better.
The modular Mac Pro is coming out next year.
Yeah I'll believe it when I see it. They haven't given a shit about this product for a long time and it's hard to believe they are going to start now. Their last attempt (the trash can) was DOA and stupid to boot. Plus if they treat it like the rest of the Mac lineup it will basically be sold with minimal changes for years to come with little prospect of meaningful improvement. They also keep talking about "Pro" users but seem to have no idea what those actually are or what they do. Apple's idea of a "Pro" user seems to be something relating to a heavy user of Photoshop but they don't seem very clear about it and their design reflects that confusion.
If I'm going to buy a Mac I want to see Apple start taking the Mac seriously again. Right now their attention is clearly focused on the iPhone. I like Macs but they literally don't sell anything at the moment that I'm interested in buying. It's not about the money (for me) it's about the design and the lack of clarity on who they are designing their Macintosh product line for.
So basically they are putting in newer processors into most of their Mac line but doing little else. Nice but not exactly mind blowing to understate things greatly. The Mac Pro is conspicuously absent from the list. As seems usual lately the Mac seems to be getting ignored and most of the design effort is going into the iPhone.
A study by analysts Vanson Bourne for self service automation specialist SnapLogic looks at the data priorities and investment plans of IT decision makers, along with what's holding them back from maximizing value.
Maximizing IT value or maximizing company value? Those are not necessarily the same thing. Just because you invest heavily in IT does not necessarily mean that those investments will equate to an improvement on the bottom line of the company. It might but it's not a given. There is an old maxim that local maximums often make for global minimums. Having the most efficient IT in the world doesn't matter if the rest of the company operations suffer as a result.
We have to remember that IT is a cost. It is a (very important) tool. It is a means to an end and not an end itself. You invest in IT when it will permit the company to be more profitable. If the cost of upgrading the IT to maximum efficiency exceeds the profits enabled by that upgrade then you don't do it unless there is a strategic imperative forcing you to. And to be fair it's not always clear what the impact of an IT upgrade will be. I've seen them be hugely beneficial but I've also seen them bankrupt companies and of course lots of cases of it having little to no change.
If you want to upgrade the IT in a company the challenge is to make a case for how it will provide an ROI which is ultimately what most business owners actually care about.
Some bugs are harder to find than others, sure, but that's just a mealy-mouthed platitude.
"Platitude"? No, it's just a fact. Some bugs literally go decades without being found or repaired in open source projects and 20 seconds on google will find you examples of same. The platitude is saying "all bugs are shallow with enough eyeballs". The reality is that some bugs remain stubbornly difficult to find+repair even with large numbers of eyes. The false part of the all bugs are shallow statement is the word "all". Replace with "most" or "virtually all" and it's then a factually correct statement.
The point is, on a small team, some bugs are so hard that they don't even get fixed on the same day they're found. It could takes days or even weeks, historically. Even when they were really working on it.
I could say the exact same thing (and show examples) with large teams as well. And the harder bit is often finding the bugs in the first place regardless of team size. I've seen and reported bugs in large open source projects that have persisted for years - some still remaining to this day. Even when a bug has been reported it doesn't mean someone can be bothered to work on it.
Open Source hasn't had a hard bug since the 90s. Every bug, no matter how hard, is fixed within hours of there being public knowledge that it exists and hasn't been fixed yet.
That's complete nonsense. First off, fixing a bug once it is known is generally the "easy" part of the problem. What's often harder is finding the bugs in the first place. To say that there hasn't been a "hard bug" (whatever that is supposed to mean) since the 90s is just absurd. Second, nobody is arguing that Open Source doesn't have some substantial advantages for finding and dealing with bugs. But to pretend that somehow just being open source magically makes all bugs "easy" just simply isn't true.
The 200A drop is not standard except in buried systems.
200A service has been de-facto standard in much of the US for the last 30 years. Buried or not has nothing to do with it. The NEC does not mandate a minimum but with houses getting larger on average bigger service has become routine. While 100A service does get used with some regularity, 200A service is pretty much normal every place I've ever lived on homes built in the last few decades and 400A service is not rare.
Apple's support forum has been blowing up with complaints from users that battery life has been seriously curtailed since installing iOS 11.4.
Not disputing what other people are finding but my wife's phone and mine both are unaffected by this problem so it obviously isn't every phone. I'm curious what the common thread might be. Is it with certain devices or apps or something else?
The larger issue is that we need publicly-disclosed source code for some things, to assure the public good, whether it is proprietary or Open Source.
There is a famous saying with elections that it's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes. Similarly having some source code to audit is great but it's meaningless if the company doesn't actually utilize that exact code or finds some sneaky way to circumvent it.
That said I do agree with your point.
Back in 1999, Eric Raymond coined the term "Linus' Law," which stipulates that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
That's only true if those eyeballs are actually looking for bugs and organized enough to do something about them. Even then it's more like a principle than an actual truth. Some bugs are much harder to find than others no matter how many people are looking.
Given that "conservative view points" generally amount to either cross burning racism, attempts to incite violence (see Alex Jones favorites such as "Pizzagate" or his 4th of July stunt this year), or a mixture of the two...
Don't forget about "family values" that only ever seem to apply to other people's families. Also hating taxes but still wanting things that taxes pay for like a big military so they borrow the money instead thus voiding their claim to be fiscally responsible.
Wikipedia. As a trusted source.
Absolutely. Nobody is claiming that it is a primary source or should be trusted blindly but it's demonstrably a reliable source for quite a huge amount of information. Honestly I trust it more than I do quite a number of so-called "news" sources. No source should be trusted independently of verification.
That's hysterical, really. Wikipedia's lies-by-omission and scandals surrounding admins controlling and twisting content are legendary.
And that is different from any other source of news and information how exactly? Plus you clearly are overstating the scope of the problem substantially. ("Legendary"?) Most Wikipedia articles are fine and reliable sources of information that is entirely verifiable if you are concerned about any of it.
Admin conduct hasn't changed since, Wikipedia's a joke.
You sound butthurt about something though it's not clear what exactly. Wikipedia is useful. Nobody is claiming it is perfect. It's certainly proven reasonably reliable for a wide variety of use cases. It's not a primary source so if you need that go elsewhere and use appropriate skepticism at all times anyway.
The house main fuse is 60A, so anything over 15kW is going to risk popping it.
Sounds like they didn't really plan for the future so stuff will need upgrading. We did this in the US a long time ago. I have 200A service to my house (standard these days) and even older houses in the US rarely have less than 100A service. Sounds like the UK needs to get started sooner rather than later on this project. The longer they wait the more expensive it will be.
1) Not all houses in the UK come with a parking space right outside or garage. A lot are apartments or communal parking - how do you work out who is parking where without expensive infrastructure for telling what vehicle is plugged into where ?
Figuring out where a car is parked is a trivial exercise when they are plugged into an electric charging port. If you are going to install the charging equipment anyway then it is pretty much a non-issue at that point. Heck I have an EV and it has both LTE and WiFi and putting GPS on it would be a trivial exercise. Wouldn't be hard to pinpoint at all even if I wasn't plugged into something.
2) It's not just the cost of the charger - The supply cables going to the house will need to be upgraded along with ALL the infrastructure right back to the grid transformer - that isn't cheap. 3 phase to each house would be a good idea as it would solve the voltage issues but 3 phase to new builds is not common in the UK and I suspect the cost would be exorbitant.
Most houses can accommodate a car charger without any upgrades to service at all. Here in the US all construction for the last several decades has a 200A drop to the house which is more than adequate. The Level 2 charger I am currently adding to my house draws 32A max so even if I had 100A service that would still probably work. Three phase to the house isn't necessary or especially beneficial. Odds are all the equipment in your house already is single phase and it works fine. Most of the upgrades would really be the back end stuff the power company has to worry about anyway.
3) See 2). The current grid infrastructure in many areas may not be able to handle the increased load over time.
That's only a problem if we place demands on the grid for EVs faster than we can upgrade the grid. I see no evidence of that becoming a problem any time soon.
4) Vandalism - in many parts of the UK there are lots of little scrotes who will vandalise/destroy this kind of stuff in a day or two. Not to mention various gangs around the county who make a tidy living stealing cables along railway lines/motorways etc. Even if it's bolted to the ground in the UK someone will try and steal it.
There are well understood solutions to this too. Not as if cars and other stuff doesn't get stolen today. Worrying about vandalism and theft isn't something that should deter us from working towards a future with EVs.
If the future that eventuates is this car-summoned-on-demand one, then yes, this policy will waste money.
I think the probability of this is remarkable low for most of the globe. Presuming the technology works (not yet a given but good chance of it happening), the economics of "summon on demand" cars manifestly dictates you need to live in an area with a certain population density. There probably are other second order problems too like theft, vandalism, hacking, etc (remember nobody is guarding the vehicle) that people aren't really paying enough attention to yet but may/will turn out to be significant problems. There also will be the human psychology issue to work out. People don't like change and this would be a pretty major lifestyle change for millions.
I think if you live in an area where taxis are a daily reality then it might make sense for that locale. I don't really see it working out in suburbia or rural areas though. Demand would be very inconsistent (rush hour twice daily then... ?) and it would have a large number of vehicles sitting idle just like they do now. Hard to see where the profit to a company would be in doing that. But in a place like Manhattan where things operate a lot more 24/7 and with a high population density and limited garage space I could see it being a pretty useful technology.
If the future that eventuates is that most people own their own electric cars, this policy will save money.
Seems substantially more likely but you are right that there is still a non-negligible uncertainty involved. But I think if they require the garages to be wired for new construction and major renovations that's pretty minimal cost for pretty substantial long term gain.
Except that J1772 is a single phase solution.
So are most homes so your point is what exactly? Yes three phase has advantages but very little equipment in most houses is designed for it. You can get it if you want but it's extra hassle in a lot of cases.
However, just having high voltage to the right place and done in a way that it could be accessed/upgraded easily would be a great idea.
That's called an electrical socket. You may have heard of them. Neat thing is that you can plug anything you want into them.
Seriously, run the high voltage line to where it needs to be and allow for the charge station to be installed/replaced later. The expensive bit is the electrical contractor's time. Putting a charge station on the wall is easy and trivial. I'm in the process of doing that to my house this very week. I need a 240V line for a level 2 charging station run in my garage for my Bolt EV. Once the line is run, installing the charger itself is childs play. If someone had already installed a charger there so much the better even it it wasn't the latest tech. The electricians time is costing me more than the charger.
Basically it's easy and cheap to install the power lines when building a new home. It's a lot more expensive to do it after the fact. I don't know that it's necessary to actually install a charger but it might be reasonable to require that the house be wired to accommodate one.
Just don't require the actual charger to be installed, because it will be obsolete far too quickly.
Not very likely. It doesn't have to be the latest or greatest to be useful either and there is nothing prohibiting people from upgrading them in the future if necessary. Installing an actual charger is probably not sensible but running the lines to permit one seems like a very good idea on new construction.
Just because "everyone" has one (it's not anywhere near) doesn't mean it's not a status symbol.
It also doesn't mean it is one so you'd not really off to a good start.
>People on Social security SHOULD be budget conscious... yet they constantly select the brand that's known to overcharge for everything and have no easy way to get "free stuff" / pirate?
Overcharge is a matter of perspective. It's not overcharging if you regard it as good value for money. What might be overcharging to you might not be overcharging from my perspective or vice-versa. Apple's perception of charging a lot is more perception than reality. In actuality if you purchase a device with similar specification from one of their competitors you're going to pay a similar amount of money most of the time. People like yourself confuse or conflate the market segment with how it is priced within that segment. Apple's prices are reasonable for the segment they compete in but they don't compete in segments where price is the overriding consideration.
As for why folks on a fixed budget often pick Apple, they pick it because it has a well deserved reputation for being reliable, easy to use, and "just working" which is what they care about more than anything else. They aren't interested in tweaking settings or configuring things or any device that requires a lot of fiddling and maintenance.
As for pirating, why the f*** would my grandparents care about that? They want to see pics of the grand kids, make a few facetime calls, play solitaire, maybe send an email or two. They also want to do this with minimal hassle. They're not going to be pirating software or music or worried about fancy apps. The sure as hell don't care about "easy" ways to get free stuff or pirating software/media. YOU care about that and that's fine but don't project your needs on others.
So I ask you: why did your grantparents buy what they did?I bet it's to fit in, because they think "everyone has one" and they'd be stupid to not have one.
Nope. They bought one because they asked our generation what they should get for what they wanted to do (pics, video calls, email) and wanted something easier than a PC and we told them an iPad/iPhone. Had nothing to do with status because they would have bought whatever we told them to. Minimal hassle for everyone involved, works great, and does exactly what they want for reasonable amounts of money. If they have a problem the Apple store nearby can help them fix it if we aren't around. It cuts down on the problems we have to fix too. Android and Windows tend to require a lot more tech support and I've got years of experience backing that assertion up. (some of the best money I ever spent was getting my dad a Mac with an Applecare warranty and giving him my old iPhone - cut my tech support calls down to close to zero) Has nothing at all to do with status or the indication thereof.
That's the definition of a status symbol - it has nothing to do with actual exclusivity
See you are the one not understanding what a status symbol is. To be clear, my grandparents never take their iPad out in public so it certainly never serves any purpose for indicating social status. They purchased what was recommended to them for a specific purpose. It's a tool and a means to an end. The only people who give a shit about its utility as a social status indicator are people like yourself who seem overly concerned about such things or who are looking for a path to bash Apple. The rest of us are just busy doing the things we actually care about instead of worrying about other people's social status.
Does Via Technologies still exist?
Does the google search engine still exist?
I guess the bigger question is really if x86 should be the basis for a new processor initiative from China.
Why not? They copy pretty much everything else so why stop now?
And the gun grabbers. After all, there wouldn't be any crime if we just rounded them all up, amirite?
Nice attempt to misrepresent the argument. The argument is that guns make violent crime MUCH easier which is undeniably true. Nobody thinks eliminating guns would eliminate crime and to pretend otherwise is to present a strawman argument. Confiscation of guns unquestionably would reduce the amount of crime committed with guns. Pretty hard to commit a crime with a gun if you can't get one in the first place. But since that won't (and IMO shouldn't) happen then the proper thing to do is to closely monitor gun ownership. The 2nd amendment does say "a well regulated militia". Which well regulated militia are you a member of again?
Remember kids, when they say "no one is coming for your guns," they really mean "we're totally coming for your guns."
There is a huge gap between sensible regulation of gun ownership and actual confiscation of guns and we are in no danger of crossing that gap and likely never will be in the US. Widespread confiscation of firearms is a political non-starter in the USA. But we have a situation where ownership of dangerous weapons are ludicrously under regulated. I own several guns and I think it's bonkers that I have to jump through more hoops to get a drivers license than to carry a deadly weapon whose sole purpose is to kill and which does so with horrifying efficiency. You can regulate a right to bear arms without abridging that right.
Americans are a fearful people.
To an extent this is true. It certainly explains the success of the gun lobby. It also explains the desire (by some) for a border wall, much racism, and quite a lot of other features of our society. On the other hand we can be an incredibly brave and adventurous people too if properly motivated. We're complicated...
Of COURSE Americans distrust massive rich corporations that have a plausible desire to exploit them.
Except they do trust them. If they did not trust them then they wouldn't act the way they do. If you do not care enough to actually act on that mistrust then that is indistinguishable from in practice trusting that organization. And there are huge swaths of our voting public that may on occasion distrust corporations but they definitely distrust government - even under circumstances where they probably should fear the corporations more since they are less accountable. There are also huge swaths that feel exactly the opposite. Both are right at times and wrong at times. The truth is that some caution is always warranted and some trust is always necessary.
Given that it is one of our most important principals to be secure in our person and papers (aka - personal information) and these companies are in prime place to access that personal information, we have to continually ensure that the tentative trust of customer/vendor is sufficiently earned.
That's a nice theory about what we should do but it doesn't explain what we actually do. In reality we hand over our personal information quite readily to unknown parties without even
Iphones are not a status symbol, the only people who think they are status symbols are hopeless Apple fanboys.
Actually I'd say the only people who think (or hope) they are status symbols are people who are Apple haters. Given that each and every one of my grand parents (and yours too I'm betting) owns an iPhone or an iPad or both, I think we can pretty safely dispense with the myth that they are some sort of status symbol. There's nothing exclusive about them when my grandmother whose only income is Social Security has one.