Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car.
This I get. There are plenty of times you get into a car and don't need to start it either at all or yet. Heck the world would be better served if car makers removed the switch that disables the "auto stop" feature instead.
Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen
Huh? What kind of a 1990s era piece of crap are you driving that requires you to touch those controls?
On a lighter note, what kind of "average" car are you driving where taking your eyes off the road is a risk? Just let the car drive itself while you change your radio station, or do whatever strange thing you insist on manually doing with your wipers.;-)
The stock has collapsed lately. Is it because the "fundamentals" have changed somehow?
If you need that question answered you should re-read the post you're referring to.
Tesla is eventually going to run out of rich people to sell their vanity EV to.
And when they do, an EV that is smack bang in the middle of the average new car sales price is there to take the company the next steps. Not that they have a shortage of "rich" (reads middle class) people.
even a fucking pentium 'gold' has faster single core speed than the fastest ryzen
With a statement like this I'm sure "fanbois" could argue all they won't. It's not like you would listen, your paycheck won't allow you to. Or braindamage. I dare not call you a shill without proof. Mental illness is a very real problem these days.
is it more or less representative to tune every aspect of the system like this?
To tune it like this? Less representative. They've effectively overclocked one system while underclocked the other. Not to mention disabled half the cores on AMD chip.
With a 1080TI playing at 1080p there's not a game out there that is GPU bound.
However games are incredibly variable in how they utilise their CPU. Ashes of the Singularity is a good example. It's a very well threaded game that happily smashes all cores on a typical Ryzen process for benchmark purposes, but by enabling "Game mode" in Ryzen master they successfully disabled half the CPU. Youtube videos aplenty show that this incurs a huge performance hit in this particular game, as well as any other game that relies heavily on multi-threading.
Also "Gaming mode" doesn't benefit all games. Effectively it disables half the cores on a Ryzen chip in favour of a small MHz boost on the remainder. E.g. This could account for a close to 40% performance drop in Ashes of the Singularity during conditions just perfect to be CPU bound.
Speculation on Reddit about this seems to suggest they may have enabled the gaming profile* in Ryzen Master for games that don't benefit it (threadded / multi-core friendly games), and disabled it for those (single threadded dependent games).
For a multi-threadded suddenly loosing access to 4 cores, and for a single threadded game suddenly losing access to an additional 200MHz will give you some of those gimped benchmarks.
*For those who don't know, Gaming profile disables half the cores on a Ryzen 2, specifically targetting the poorest performing cores, and then raises the boost frequency thanks to the additional thermal / power headroom available. This is of great benefit to games that don't take advantage of multi-core processors.
While those are all problems to be contended with they all have engineering solutions which have resulted in images surpassing the quality of Hubble's results. The remaining issue is access time due to the sun being up for a portion of the day, and weather ruining some nights.
For anyone who likes a lighthearted movie based on this premise I can only recommend: The Boat That Rocked
That said I know British humour and American humour differ slightly so it may not be everyone's cup of te.... black watered down thing you call coffee.
Yes, we need to test and regulate some toys because of them damn punks are slightly unsafe. Also I want to be able to blow the drown out of the sky with my shotgun, because 'MURIKA!
Why can't banks have other financial institutions sign their certs?
Why can't each person individually verify and determine the trust of every request they send to the internet in order to determine their exposure and level of security? Oh wait I know the answer to this: It's fucking stupid.
I mean is there a reason I should give a single flying flipping fuck if someone knows I'm looking at a simple website serving only.txt
To you? No. Sounds like you're not in the position for being persecuted for a thought crime. I however would recomment against browsing innocent text in some coutries, certainly not anarchists_cookbook_v1.0.txt.
And that's just it. It's not up to the content creator to determine if the viewer needs the expectation of privacy when viewing the content.
Should it be expected for every householder to buy a domain name so that the web interface of his router, printer, and NAS can be issued a certificate for HTTPS?
Why is this relevant in a discussion about a public site? Why is this relevant when discussing a browser that still happily shows unencrypted communication?
None of the still-accepted certificates are any better.
Citation Required. The system has a set of rules that are followed. The remainder of the still accepted certificates have been shown to be issued in good faith, which makes them better than those issued in bad faith.
The CA system is fundamentally broken and what Google does here is not doing anything for security.
By punishing people who don't live by the rules the system is self regulating. Google not doing anything would undermine / break the CA system which otherwise is working just fine.
It does create a false sense of security though (making things actually worse) and it does inconvenience a lot of people.
I would call this horseshit, but to be honest that's an insult to horseshit.
you're totally cool with receiving whatever the sale value of a totaled car and half a donut is as compensation
If that would be the outcome of this situation then your country has far reaching problems with its insurance system regardless of what you think about Uber.
No I did not. The sun at its peak in the sky at noon is not usable light for the vast majority of people given the asymetric work day and the general approach to life that prioritises after work social life over anything that happens before work.
So I ask you again, I want to maximise my usable time, why are you obsessed with the sun being at its high point at noon rather than being at its high point at 2pm which would suit the needs of society better? Noon is just as arbitrary as any other point in time.
Documentation of the power source, and actual mission life are two completely different things. You heard that it was capable to going for 14 years, good story. That was never a consideration during design.
You would think with the endless string of daylight savings time related problems that Apple has faced in the past they'd have a dedicated part of the QC now checking to see how every device operates at the day DST changes.
you might as well fix your working schedule instead of redefining time itself
This is a great idea. I suggest we pick a standardised metric around which we can align a widely different group of people, businesses, schools, and society as a whole. To make it easy we could divide it into segments called "hours" and so people remember how it works we could make the top most hour roughly the time when the sun is in the sky.
This may just work!
I want to go to work 1 hour earlier
So do I but then who will take the kids to school?
So one can hope that we'll compromise on the solar zone.
Why? What's this obsession with aligning time so the sun is in the peak at noon rather than extending the usable light at the end of the work day?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be silly, your local taxi can still have an accident. https://electrek.co/2017/12/14...
Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car.
This I get. There are plenty of times you get into a car and don't need to start it either at all or yet. Heck the world would be better served if car makers removed the switch that disables the "auto stop" feature instead.
Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen
Huh? What kind of a 1990s era piece of crap are you driving that requires you to touch those controls?
On a lighter note, what kind of "average" car are you driving where taking your eyes off the road is a risk? Just let the car drive itself while you change your radio station, or do whatever strange thing you insist on manually doing with your wipers. ;-)
The stock has collapsed lately. Is it because the "fundamentals" have changed somehow?
If you need that question answered you should re-read the post you're referring to.
Tesla is eventually going to run out of rich people to sell their vanity EV to.
And when they do, an EV that is smack bang in the middle of the average new car sales price is there to take the company the next steps. Not that they have a shortage of "rich" (reads middle class) people.
even a fucking pentium 'gold' has faster single core speed than the fastest ryzen
With a statement like this I'm sure "fanbois" could argue all they won't. It's not like you would listen, your paycheck won't allow you to. Or braindamage. I dare not call you a shill without proof. Mental illness is a very real problem these days.
is it more or less representative to tune every aspect of the system like this?
To tune it like this? Less representative. They've effectively overclocked one system while underclocked the other. Not to mention disabled half the cores on AMD chip.
The thing is - some games are GPU-bound
With a 1080TI playing at 1080p there's not a game out there that is GPU bound.
However games are incredibly variable in how they utilise their CPU. Ashes of the Singularity is a good example. It's a very well threaded game that happily smashes all cores on a typical Ryzen process for benchmark purposes, but by enabling "Game mode" in Ryzen master they successfully disabled half the CPU. Youtube videos aplenty show that this incurs a huge performance hit in this particular game, as well as any other game that relies heavily on multi-threading.
Also "Gaming mode" doesn't benefit all games. Effectively it disables half the cores on a Ryzen chip in favour of a small MHz boost on the remainder. E.g. This could account for a close to 40% performance drop in Ashes of the Singularity during conditions just perfect to be CPU bound.
Speculation on Reddit about this seems to suggest they may have enabled the gaming profile* in Ryzen Master for games that don't benefit it (threadded / multi-core friendly games), and disabled it for those (single threadded dependent games).
For a multi-threadded suddenly loosing access to 4 cores, and for a single threadded game suddenly losing access to an additional 200MHz will give you some of those gimped benchmarks.
*For those who don't know, Gaming profile disables half the cores on a Ryzen 2, specifically targetting the poorest performing cores, and then raises the boost frequency thanks to the additional thermal / power headroom available. This is of great benefit to games that don't take advantage of multi-core processors.
While those are all problems to be contended with they all have engineering solutions which have resulted in images surpassing the quality of Hubble's results. The remaining issue is access time due to the sun being up for a portion of the day, and weather ruining some nights.
https://www.popularmechanics.c...
In other news, it turns out the gyros have been broken all along and those pictures of spiral galaxies are actually star shaped.
For anyone who likes a lighthearted movie based on this premise I can only recommend: The Boat That Rocked
That said I know British humour and American humour differ slightly so it may not be everyone's cup of te.... black watered down thing you call coffee.
Yes, we need to test and regulate some toys because of them damn punks are slightly unsafe. Also I want to be able to blow the drown out of the sky with my shotgun, because 'MURIKA!
Why can't banks have other financial institutions sign their certs?
Why can't each person individually verify and determine the trust of every request they send to the internet in order to determine their exposure and level of security? Oh wait I know the answer to this: It's fucking stupid.
I mean is there a reason I should give a single flying flipping fuck if someone knows I'm looking at a simple website serving only .txt
To you? No. Sounds like you're not in the position for being persecuted for a thought crime. I however would recomment against browsing innocent text in some coutries, certainly not anarchists_cookbook_v1.0.txt.
And that's just it. It's not up to the content creator to determine if the viewer needs the expectation of privacy when viewing the content.
Uh, google.com has been HTTPS only for some time now. Not sure what you're talking about,
No one is sure about what the GP was talking about. To quote a really shit movie: "Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong."
Should it be expected for every householder to buy a domain name so that the web interface of his router, printer, and NAS can be issued a certificate for HTTPS?
Why is this relevant in a discussion about a public site?
Why is this relevant when discussing a browser that still happily shows unencrypted communication?
My personal domain with my artwork isn't viewable via Chrome or Safari because it doesn't have (or need) a cert.
Err. no. If your personal domain isn't viewable then you fucked something up that is completely unrelated to certificates or not.
None of the still-accepted certificates are any better.
Citation Required. The system has a set of rules that are followed. The remainder of the still accepted certificates have been shown to be issued in good faith, which makes them better than those issued in bad faith.
The CA system is fundamentally broken and what Google does here is not doing anything for security.
By punishing people who don't live by the rules the system is self regulating. Google not doing anything would undermine / break the CA system which otherwise is working just fine.
It does create a false sense of security though (making things actually worse) and it does inconvenience a lot of people.
I would call this horseshit, but to be honest that's an insult to horseshit.
you're totally cool with receiving whatever the sale value of a totaled car and half a donut is as compensation
If that would be the outcome of this situation then your country has far reaching problems with its insurance system regardless of what you think about Uber.
No I did not. The sun at its peak in the sky at noon is not usable light for the vast majority of people given the asymetric work day and the general approach to life that prioritises after work social life over anything that happens before work.
So I ask you again, I want to maximise my usable time, why are you obsessed with the sun being at its high point at noon rather than being at its high point at 2pm which would suit the needs of society better? Noon is just as arbitrary as any other point in time.
Unless you are wearing one of these: http://pandeiastudio.com/
LOL :-)
Documentation of the power source, and actual mission life are two completely different things. You heard that it was capable to going for 14 years, good story. That was never a consideration during design.
You would think with the endless string of daylight savings time related problems that Apple has faced in the past they'd have a dedicated part of the QC now checking to see how every device operates at the day DST changes.
you might as well fix your working schedule instead of redefining time itself
This is a great idea. I suggest we pick a standardised metric around which we can align a widely different group of people, businesses, schools, and society as a whole. To make it easy we could divide it into segments called "hours" and so people remember how it works we could make the top most hour roughly the time when the sun is in the sky.
This may just work!
I want to go to work 1 hour earlier
So do I but then who will take the kids to school?
So one can hope that we'll compromise on the solar zone.
Why? What's this obsession with aligning time so the sun is in the peak at noon rather than extending the usable light at the end of the work day?