Anyone has the right to manufacture a bicycle for use with cycle polo. Anyone has the right to breed ponies for use with traditional polo. And anyone has the right to think up new polo variants using newly developed personal vehicles.
...but none of them will end-up on prime time TV. You'll only find such sport in friend's backyards.
Only league's clubs actually get attention and money poured into them. You need already a commercial organisation to reap the benefits and play the big money/corruption game.
Game companies are basically the same : commercial entity with vested financial interests.
The closest to "playing soccer with a cheap sphere, or inventing my own e-scooter Polo variant" in the e-Sport world would be a small indie team writing some opensource video game. (e.g.: things like Tremulous). Things which are free, where anyone can participate, but there's no commercial entities trying to make money out of it and thus no media interest, only LAN parties at friends' flats.
Sorry, source in German only (well at least it's in Schriftdütsch and not in dialect).
Source A has a side bar with an interview of one of the potester. His arguments, he's feeling danger, because :
- Mixing E-Sport could divert kids attention away from "real" (his words) sport and keep them glued to the screen.
- He's actually not afraid of money being invested into e-Sport instead of soccer teams (i.e.: not afraid of money lacking). But he'll find it problematic once the league's clubs start to assemble E-Sport teams. "What could this lead to ?"
- He's not buying the argument that e-Sport could attract more fans. His opinion is that a video game is a wrong reason to become a fan. He's actually against bringing even more people into stadiums (?!). Specially given that Bern's team is already successful for the last 3-4 years. He's not interested in pseudo-"fans" who are just following some fad.
On their side, the proponent of the e-Sport investment actually want to fight the "fat nerd in the sofa" cliché. Actually the point is to have the e-Sport team have some fitness training and balance diets, some are actual soccer players, etc. They want to cultivate healthy gamers. At the end of the day, they see eSport as a marketing tool, able to reach out and attract more of the younger generation..
Taking more than you "should" is not corruption. {...} Taking more than you "should" is just ensuring you receive the maximum legal ROI and every sane person would do it if they had the brains.
staying within the bound of this "maximum legal" is what the parent poster meant. once you start getting more than what gour legally are allowed, then you are taking more than you should.
(well, that or your law was brocken in the first place, letting people get more than what's reasonable to keep the system working - which was the opinion of some other EU countries about the situation in Greece)
Capitalism works well because of evolutionary instinct.
but only works for as long there is a clear immediate personal benefit for the individual (i.e.: it's a good way to.get people go to work to earn money)
it doesn't work for long term goals (eg.: building roads and infrastructure), or to help cover risks (the "insurance" aspect as in public healthcare, etc.)
that's why you always need some social programs in anh government. but those aids need to be well balanced, other wise the Tatcher remark about other people's money might end up applying.
it has probably seen an elephant, but probably not in a living room.
and the net has probably a limited concept of the context. (the big gray blob with a leathery texture in the middle of aiving room is usy a sofa)
cue in the recently published research about machine vision and sheeps (whenever the system sees white dot spread on a green scenery backfround, it says "sheep". even if it is white rocks sprinkled around the grass. this prompted the researcher to crowd-mine pictures of goats and sheeps doing unusual stuff. and whenever the CV net saw a fluffy texture, it assumed the most frequent word in that context, calling "dog" any fluffy texture carried by a human in their arms, and "cat" any fluffy texture on a kitchen table, even in case of a shpeherdess carrying a lamb, or a mischievous goat invading a kitchen)
the thing is: CV Net are basically only at what they were trained for. if you give them something completely weird an unusual, they might reacg weirdly.
Using two steel or wooden tracks to guide a self propelled engine is just as applicable so it was James Watt in the late 1700s.
Using rails to guide a vehicle is just using a physical device to push the engine and keep it on track. The self propelled engine is only moving forward and doing nothing more.
In both modern and this old "self-driving" cars, the cars isn't only moving forward, there's also electronics that does some steering in order to keep following a given path. The subtle difference is in the sensor technology used.
The old car, uses a special purpose guide (a wire) that is easy for the onboard system to detect, and determine how to steer in order to stay on track.
Nowadays, thanks to Moore's law and other miniaturization tech, cars like Tesla, Mercedes, Volvo, etc. use the same visual guide that was laid out for humans (painted lanes marking on the ground) to detect and determine how to streer in order to stay in the lane.
The later has the advantage on using the exact same guide that is already laid out everywhere.
The former sadly has to rely on a custom solution, so it can't scale beyond a test track, and would never be useful to introduce self-driving in a city. But it is already useful : recording what parameters (steering/speed) was necessary to stay on track gives you an exact idea of what you're designing your tires for (having good grip and how it impacts the driving).
It's a distant cousin of the "small electronic cars that follows where you point your light at" gadget that was popular when we were kids. Again, extremely crude sensors (because that's the max you can pack inside your gadget back in the 80s), that give a target for the gadget to track and follow. But it's the device that (autonomously) steers toward the target.
and if they've finally started releasing enough information for there to be a good free driver in a timely fashion,
Oh, boy ! Have things changed since last time you've had a look.
AMD goes much beyond that. They don't only release information. They release code, and they have opensource developer on their own payroll.
End result: Mesa has opengl 4.5 support, Mesa has RADV vulkan driver, AMD has opensourced AMDVLK, and the latest bits to get ROCm/OpenCL 2.x are on their way to get accepted into upstream kernel.
(Plus the current opensource drivers offering stems from an effort at AMD to rewrite their own stack from scratch to have as many bits shared cross platform between Windows, Linux and their other "custom" platform, and the Linux variation thereof completely open-sourced. So AMD actually benefits from this whole stuff as much as Linux end-users do. And means faster development)
If you're interested into free drivers, as long as you use a rolling Linux distribution (e.g.: Tumbleweed) so you can fastly benefit from the latest driver upgrade, and maybe don't jump on newer graphic cards on release day (there might still be bugs here and there), you should be golden.
ATI has never really be all that great, given it eh linux support.
The Linux support of Radeons (back in ATI time) relying on the proprietary FGLRX driver : yes, it wasn't stellar.
The thing is, that was a long time ago. Since then, AMD has massively invested into opensource development (lots of devs on their payroll).
Modern day opensource stack works very nicely, including latest bells and whistles (supports openGL 4.5, supports vulkan - actually two different drivers available, RADV written by mesa devs, and AMDVLK recently open-sourced by AMD devs).
(This comes as the result of giant re-writing efforts from AMD, where they basically rewrote their drivers from scratch, with the intent to make cross-platform drivers that share as much as possible code between (which includes Windows, Linux, but also the tons of various other custom platforms), and have the Linux portions fully opensourced, eventually. But because this meant that massive parts of this new efforts did got written by devs with less Linux experience than the previous wave of opensource efforts at AMD, that also meant that often the kernel code did need lots of polishing before reaching quality necessary to be accepted upstream : hence the long-drawn story behind DAL/DC, behind AMDKFD/ROCm/OpenCL, AMDVLK/XGL/PAL, etc. Took some time, but it's totally worth it, both from the end-user point of view (great quality opensource code with corporate support) and AMD's point of view (lots of shared bits across their platforms means easier to develop and less efforts. Newer GPU gets much faster support) )
Using a rolling distro (e.g.: like openSUSE's Tumbleweed) to frequently get driver & kernel updates, is a good idea.
Probably most implementation will be so bad (rushing to slap "voice capability" on any gadget, just to avoid tariffs. - See Amazon's Alexa-enabled microwave oven to get an idea of how far this shit can go) that the manufacturer probably won't be needed to be willing. Merely "existing" would open them enough to hacking.
Meaning large gaping security hole for any criminal or script kiddie to attack.
No tariffs on any technology that can be used to spy on Americans. Hmm.... Nope, that's not suspicious at all!
yup, even more so : as all it takes to avoid tariffs is apparently to slap some voice data capability on anything.
thus you can expect tons of gadget that haphazardly add voice capabilities that barely make sense, just to skip on the tariffs. So lots of buggy implementation in IoT devices *with mic*.
Probably even in your next microwave oven (case in point, in a related/. story, Amazon has exactly announced that !)
A paradise to happily hack into, for any three letter agencies (probably the original intent). Or any criminal organization that has a ploy to earn money by abusing large swaths of equipment (too bad that your micro-oven got enrolled into their zombie-bot swarm). Or any script kiddie that just want to wreck havock for the lulz.
The TOS allows playing in an emulated windows evironment.
But... Wine Is Not An Emulator.
And that's enough until they think of a better reason.
No, it's not a case of Blizzard playing with words in order to have an excuse to kick users out.
From the Phoronix article:
Blizzard is investigating and they will be looking to overturn the bans if this is indeed the case. There appears to be at least five reports of bans so far and does indeed seem that the most likely explanation is a false-positive from Blizzard's anti-cheat technology having issue with DXVK.
Blizzard official attention has always been to let Wine users in. (Hey, more customers == more cash flowing in! And thanks to Wine's / Crossover's / and Valve's Proton people all doing the hard work, it doesn't cost much to Blizzard to get all these extra customers)
But there's a big difference between intentions and practice : apparently, there's strong suspicion that it's the anti-cheat system that has went berzerk.
Blizzard is promicing to investigate to avoid unjustified bans (Common, they want all these extra customer money in !)
Battery capacity is somewhat nebulous. Operating the battery at a lower capacity extends operating life
Yeah, I totally agree with that. (And Tesla apparently have settings allowing the and user to artificially limit the battery to shallower cycles to extend their life). But the parent AC poster was saying that forcing a 60kWh vehicle to pack 75kWh was pushing it past what is safe for extended lifetime of the vehicle,.
Whereas 75kWh on these vehicle is still safe. They weren't limited to 60kWh for safety issue. They were limited for rebates.
You can mod your own car. (Personally, I've added two such gadgets, a similar to my mother-in-law's car, and one using the car manufacturer's proprietary connect on my mother's car)
But you won't by yourself modify every single analog only device, specially all those that you don't own :
- rental cars (these tend to be old and with as few options as possible)
- the speaker set at a friend's appartment when they throw a party, and some iPhone user want to stream their playlist instead of the friend's laptop's.
Also, bluetooth won't share sound (e.g.: two users watching s movie from the same tablet in a plane). Only some bluetooth headsets from some manufacturers are able to forward the sound stream to another headset *from the same exact brand*. We you and your girlfriend happen to have noise cancel headphone from two different manufacturers (say Bose and Logitech UE), you can't listen simultaneously. Whereas the analog cable doesn't give a fuck what brand is the other headset plugged into the other leg of the Y audio splitter.
Bullshit, it hasn't been attained despite massive investment. Put up or shut the fuck up.
It hasn't been attained despite a mere few billion.
If you invested *trillions* of budget, you could - e.g. - build an entirely separate network of highway dedicated to what autonomous car need, perhaps using tracks to make the path following more predictable and easier. Congratulation, you've successfully replicated the few autonomous subway that already exist out there.
By changing the environment to making it adapted to this type of cars, it's provably atteignable. But crazy expensive upfront. Instead the startups are trying to drop the autonomous cars into a highly unpredictible environment that has evolved around human drivers.
That is one area where I like how the Apple watch chargers work, because they magnetically suck the watch to the "wireless" charging pad so it's super easy to attach and cannot easily be jostled off the charger. That was another reason I never planned to buy the AirPower pad, because the Apple Watch chargers are much easier and more secure than the pad would have been... maybe Apple realized that as well.
What Apple should really do is try to make an Apple Watch charger that can also incidentally power the iPhone. Maybe if you flipped it over? That would be something I might use given I have to travel with an Apple Watch charger anyway.
Magnetically auto-homing the smartphone onto the wireless charger is something that Palm then HP were doing with the Pre line of smartphones and its Touchstone charger, a decade ago. I did work absolutely great. (I wonder who ones the patent currently ? LG, maybe ? Still HP ?)
Sadly the industry standardize into a different form (Qi charging). But you find multiple "how to" about salvaging the old hardware and adapting it to modern smartphones.
This was something that was originally intended for HDMI and SPDIF, the ability to have it so they would only output signals to "blessed" hardware that was guaranteed not to record.
Sorry but SPDIF signal (as well as TOS-Link, AES3, etc.) is purely uni-directionnal. There is no back-and-forth and therefor there's no way to negociate an encryption.
SPDIF's only form of protection is bit in the header telling if the source is original or a copy and if the material is allowed unrestricted copies or not. That's it. The rest of the audio is raw un-encrypted PCM (or optionnally AC3 or DTS bitstreams).
It's entirely up to the emitting program to emit the correct bits. You could as well control your PC (or a simple ardunio) to emit a copiable stream ("original", "copy as much as you want").
It's entriely up to the receiving program to honor what the bits imply. You could as well fetch the stream with a PC (or a simple arduino) and record it, even if says ("copy" and "please do not copy")
HDMI is the one actually having a cryptographic handshake to lock out non-complying software.
With the arduino approach (well it would take a very high Ghz micro-controller, but you got the idea), you only see encrypted garbage on the line. You'd need to have a valid signature, to do the handshake, so you get the decryption key.
Only certified drivers, running in a "secure" (from the point of view of content maker, not end-users) environment like Windows, come with the necessary key to negociate an encrypted link.
The same could be done with future lighning port & bluetooth speakers : only those come with the necessary signature to negociate an encrypted link.
I didn't mean "Look, the US does something bad too, so you're not in position to criticize US, you worthless ${slur}, your country sucks !" (and then progressively steer the discussion around that *other* aweful thing the US has done, completely avoiding the subject of the initial question) ( ^- that is Whataboutism. It's a diversion tactic. )
Neither addressing nor refuting the statement.
It was exactly addressing the statement by giving a clear example.
The USA (*united* *states* of america) is a *union* (a federation) of several *states*, that spans a whole (chunk of) continent ([north-] america). There's a higher-level of nationnal government above the state level that can regulate things. You probably understand how that works ? Yes ? Good, keep that in your mind, because the EU is basically the same (if you squint at it).
The EU (european *union*) is a *union* of countries (member-states), that spans a whole (chunk of) continent (europe). There's a higher hyper-level of government (Brussels European parliament) above the various national levels, that tries to regulate and coordinate things so the EU can work as a single entity instead of chunks of disjoint opposing countries. It's still similar to try herding cats, nonetheless. (EU isn't a real strong central government, just a central coordination for a few key fields)
The UN would have been the basic similar scheme, had they tried to design a "robot-killer-ban treaty". (Except that UN is even less a government, and more a place where national government meet to discuss. It can't order much, it can only design treaties that then the member countries will sign on a volunteer basis).
Of course :
- the above is much longer and boring the the pique in the above comment.
- the above comment will make you thing also about situations where the US has tried to regulate *Europe's countries* (or other non-US members), making a funny double interpretation. ( ^- this is not Whataboutism, this is a joke. The purpose is not to steer the discussion away, just make you smile.).
Intel underclocks and locks cores because if they didn't do the practice called binning, they'd have to throw out those chips. Binned products cannot be run at full spec because of manufacturing defects. If you override that, you are taking the huge gamble that your processor will fail in odd ways.
In theory yes.
In practice : not quite.
Due to how law of offer and demand work in market segmentation, they might end up binning a little bit more thing in the lower bins, if it helps them sell more SKU at more profit. (Rather than selling all SKU at their "true capability" at a lower price)
Mostly due to the high-end SKU being targetted at : - extreme enthusiasts (people with more money than brain and/or who'll throw any money required to get the fastest thing possible) - big corporate customers building HPC centers (entity with enormous budget, who won't shun throwing a bit more money to buy the best hardware they can - specially given that this price isn't that much impressive when compared to the support contracts, operating costs, etc.)
So lowering the price of the high-end SKU might make Intel lose on the extra money they could make of that market, which is where mostly this SKU are sold.
From that point, they could :
- trade out the unsold extra high-end SKU on special market (mostly education : such as universities building HPC centers. You know, you need to hook them while they are still young^H doing their PhD, so you give them their first shot free^H give them their first HPC cheap.) (Then they'll insist to having the same toys once they graduate and start working in the corporate world)
- put a bit of the extra unsold extra high-end SKUs in the lower bin right underneath. They'll still make a magrin on them, just a lower than the high-end high -margin one.
i.e.: keep artificial scarcity to rake up artificially keep the price, if the end result is that they'll make more money this way, rather than lowering the price to sell more units.
Thus, unlocked and overclocking is also an extra gamble : maybe, you processor was a "down-binned" one and you can overclock it beyond madness.
Back in the Celeron era, it was popular to buy a bunch of CPUs, to find the overclocking unicorn hidden in the middle and return the remaining to get your money.
That is different from Tesla because they don't bin their battery packs, in fact you can pay the more money later and unlock the higher capacity.
Same with the mad overclockable Intel CPUs, except Intel doesn't ask you any money for that.
It would be like buying a three-cushion sofa recliner, but you can only use it as a non-reclining love seat until you pay either the reclining fee or the third-cushion-unlock fee.
...in a context where the furniture manufacturing plant is unable to make sofas without the recliner part for technical reasons (would be to expensive to have it installed optionnally on demand, rather than on every product).
- you want to use only half a battery, and you paid half a battery. - because there's no such thing as half a battery for now, Tesla gives you actually a full battery, but you both agree that you will only use half of it and tesla will only bill you for half of it.
So basically, the battery is co-own, you own (and have paid) for your half of the battery, the half you use, Tesla owns the other half which you didn't pay for. You can buy back the other half at a later point (great agument for those customer who were reluctant to only have a real half-battery).
During huricanes, Tesla happily lend you their half for free.
That sounds like a useful feature. Can the owner of a 75kWh pack set it to 60 kWh ?
Yes. Any Tesla cars allows you to choose not to do 100% deep discharge, but only shallower cycles. This is supposed to help even more on battery longevity.
Metaphorically, every single cars comes with a slider going 0 to 10 that sets how deep the cycle go. Tesla can give you a rebate if you let them screw in a blot that blocks this slider going above 7. You can metaphorically pay the rebate back if you want to be able to use all the slider range up to 10 if you end up wanting it after all.
Figuratively you can pay for only half a battery if you want to only use half a battery.
I do still see a benefit in artificially limiting the available battery capacity. As rechargeable batteries age, they are unable to hold as much of a charge. So selling a 75 kWh battery pack artificially locked to 60 kWh should allow the car to retain the ability to recharge to 60 kWh capacity for longer than if it was a 60 kWh pack, right? Unless I misunderstand something about batteries, which is entirely possible.
In a big over simplification: yes.
Except that :
- it happens that the BMS (battery management system) of Tesla is doing a marvelous job beyond any expectations, current in the wild data seem to show that batteries haven't aged as dramatically as some have expected. (The oldest would be at 70kWh by now, still more than the 60kWh capacity)
- charging less is also a life extending feature on batteries (a battery locked to 60kWh will probably have only degraded to say 72-73kWh). to the point that the "lock" is a user-accessible setting. Any user can decide to only use 50kWh of their battery if they want - only the max ceiling is artificially limited for some.
Metaphorically: every car comes with a slider going 0 to 10 deciding how much deep you'll discharge a battery (for battery longevity purpose). If you let Tesla screw a bolt that blocks the slider going higher than 7, they'll give you a rebate. If you want to unscrew the bolt, you return the rebate.
(If you only want to use half of the battery, you're allowed to pay only half for now. Pay the other half to use the rest).
I'd imagine fewer warranty issues with a throttled battery
actually, nope. with the currently available numbers it seems that the battery management system of Tesla is doing a wonderful work. even when used at 100% they age very well.
It's just that Tesla is accepting to sell at a lower margin if it can make them sell more car (more profits at the end, and they need the money badly to invest into building their manufacturing capability). And put the software limit as a way to keep the higher-margin car more desirable. And making it a software limit, so that users wanting to pay less are less reluctant to pick the cheaper variant, because they know they can reverse at later point of time by paying (conceptually, returning back the rebate they have)
Basically :
Tesla : here's this car, it cost XXX User: Hum, it's expensive. Can you sell me only half a car for less ? Tesla : Well, we can't make only half a car... User: bummer! Tesla :...but we can make you a deal. You pay for half a car now (as long as you promise to use it only as a half car), and you pay the other half later (when you feel like using it fully)
(except that, given the money involve, it's actually a battery you're buying from Tesla, with a cheap complimentary car body bolted-in on the top)
Whether its using the full 75kwh or software throttled to 60kwh, its still the same battery and Tesla's manufacturing cost is exactly the same. If they can sell the car for $xxxx with the battery artificially limited to 60k then they can sell it for the same price without the limit.
It's a bit more complicated than that :
- market segmentation is a thing. read-up on that.
The demand/offer balance you've been hearing in school is a gross over-simplification. Items aren't simply sold at the price the market can bear. As a company, you don't just want to sell at the perfect price point. As a company, you actually want to cover as many diverse price-points at possible. Because otherwiese you'd be still missing all the money that the "poorer" customer would be okay to throw at your product, and customer who'd be willing to pay you even more will only pay a lower price. Thus you segment your market. You invent alternative "Deluxe" and "bagrain" offers targetting the lower end and higher end segment. And you try to make these product distinctive. Tesla is doing that by, at one (higher) end offering bigger battery (batteries which are actually 100kWh under the hood) that they sell fur much more, and tons of high-margin options (there no way that the camera for the autopilot cost a total of 5000$). At the other end, they also need to sell cheaper car for those who are only willing to pay less. The simplest way to do it, is to offer to limit the battery in exchange of a rebate - I works not so bad, because the potential buyer won't be feeling to be missing out by not going for the more expensive option : they can still pay at a later point to get the full battery ( <- this makes the people not wanting the expensive model even less reluctant to settle with the cheap option)
On the other hand, compared with Microsoft who is selling 20 different variations of Windows - which are all slight different configuration parameters (actually yes, just register the same DVD with a different product key and you get a different set of software based on what tier of Windows is that key for) - each sold at a different price, Tesla is pretty much tame.
- profits Tesla isn't a government run plan to bring you the cheapest possible EV. Tesla is acompany, and they are allowed to make money.
Even more so, if you squint a bit, you'll notice (given the invested money) that the current business of Tesla is *building manufacturing capabilities for EV*. They are basically in the business of building factories but in order to offset the costs of the factory, they'll sell you an expensive lithium-battery, and for that price, they'll bolt a complimentary (relatively cheap) car body on that battery.
In the current phase Tesla needs as much money as possible to throw on their factory building (that's why some are accusing them of being unable to make money). They'll do every single possible trick for that :
- they'll segement the model S market as much as possible to be able to sell even more units
- they'll currently only sell the high-end variations of Model 3, because they are a higher-margin, and only sell the cheapest variations later. Thus make even more profits (on the cars) and get a little bit more on the precious financial ressource they need to finish building their manufacturing capability.
Once again we see money-grubbing Jews {...}
For your information, Elon Musk happens to be non-religious.
in action, always trying to squeeze the customer for more money.
a.k.a. pretty much standard variety capitalism.
If you're not happy with that, vote with your wallet, don't buy a Tesla. Go see instead what Renault is collaborating in Portugal for a more state sponsored (more socialist / less capitalist) approach to EV. Go buy a Zoé instead.
(But beware, these only come with up to 44kWh battery with around 200-somethingish range (a.k.a. "400km NEDC"). On the other hand you don't need to buy the battery, you can also rent)
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone has the right to manufacture a bicycle for use with cycle polo. Anyone has the right to breed ponies for use with traditional polo. And anyone has the right to think up new polo variants using newly developed personal vehicles.
...but none of them will end-up on prime time TV. You'll only find such sport in friend's backyards.
Only league's clubs actually get attention and money poured into them. You need already a commercial organisation to reap the benefits and play the big money/corruption game.
Game companies are basically the same : commercial entity with vested financial interests.
The closest to "playing soccer with a cheap sphere, or inventing my own e-scooter Polo variant" in the e-Sport world would be a small indie team writing some opensource video game. (e.g.: things like Tremulous).
Things which are free, where anyone can participate, but there's no commercial entities trying to make money out of it and thus no media interest, only LAN parties at friends' flats.
Source A, local free small news paper "20min"
Source B, the national ISP and IPTV service provider Bluewin
Sorry, source in German only (well at least it's in Schriftdütsch and not in dialect).
Source A has a side bar with an interview of one of the potester. His arguments, he's feeling danger, because :
- Mixing E-Sport could divert kids attention away from "real" (his words) sport and keep them glued to the screen.
- He's actually not afraid of money being invested into e-Sport instead of soccer teams (i.e.: not afraid of money lacking). But he'll find it problematic once the league's clubs start to assemble E-Sport teams. "What could this lead to ?"
- He's not buying the argument that e-Sport could attract more fans. His opinion is that a video game is a wrong reason to become a fan. He's actually against bringing even more people into stadiums (?!). Specially given that Bern's team is already successful for the last 3-4 years. He's not interested in pseudo-"fans" who are just following some fad.
On their side, the proponent of the e-Sport investment actually want to fight the "fat nerd in the sofa" cliché. Actually the point is to have the e-Sport team have some fitness training and balance diets, some are actual soccer players, etc. They want to cultivate healthy gamers.
At the end of the day, they see eSport as a marketing tool, able to reach out and attract more of the younger generation..
the public rail system of several European countries (Switzerland, Germany, etc.) seem to disagree with your statement.
Taking more than you "should" is not corruption. {...} Taking more than you "should" is just ensuring you receive the maximum legal ROI and every sane person would do it if they had the brains.
staying within the bound of this "maximum legal" is what the parent poster meant.
once you start getting more than what gour legally are allowed, then you are taking more than you should.
(well, that or your law was brocken in the first place, letting people get more than what's reasonable to keep the system working - which was the opinion of some other EU countries about the situation in Greece)
Capitalism works well because of evolutionary instinct.
but only works for as long there is a clear immediate personal benefit for the individual (i.e.: it's a good way to.get people go to work to earn money)
it doesn't work for long term goals (eg.: building roads and infrastructure), or to help cover risks (the "insurance" aspect as in public healthcare, etc.)
that's why you always need some social programs in anh government.
but those aids need to be well balanced, other wise the Tatcher remark about other people's money might end up applying.
it has probably seen an elephant, but probably not in a living room.
and the net has probably a limited concept of the context.
(the big gray blob with a leathery texture in the middle of aiving room is usy a sofa)
cue in the recently published research about machine vision and sheeps
(whenever the system sees white dot spread on a green scenery backfround, it says "sheep". even if it is white rocks sprinkled around the grass.
this prompted the researcher to crowd-mine pictures of goats and sheeps doing unusual stuff. and whenever the CV net saw a fluffy texture, it assumed the most frequent word in that context, calling "dog" any fluffy texture carried by a human in their arms, and "cat" any fluffy texture on a kitchen table, even in case of a shpeherdess carrying a lamb, or a mischievous goat invading a kitchen)
the thing is: CV Net are basically only at what they were trained for. if you give them something completely weird an unusual, they might reacg weirdly.
Using two steel or wooden tracks to guide a self propelled engine is just as applicable so it was James Watt in the late 1700s.
Using rails to guide a vehicle is just using a physical device to push the engine and keep it on track. The self propelled engine is only moving forward and doing nothing more.
In both modern and this old "self-driving" cars, the cars isn't only moving forward, there's also electronics that does some steering in order to keep following a given path. The subtle difference is in the sensor technology used.
The old car, uses a special purpose guide (a wire) that is easy for the onboard system to detect, and determine how to steer in order to stay on track.
Nowadays, thanks to Moore's law and other miniaturization tech, cars like Tesla, Mercedes, Volvo, etc. use the same visual guide that was laid out for humans (painted lanes marking on the ground) to detect and determine how to streer in order to stay in the lane.
The later has the advantage on using the exact same guide that is already laid out everywhere.
The former sadly has to rely on a custom solution, so it can't scale beyond a test track, and would never be useful to introduce self-driving in a city. But it is already useful : recording what parameters (steering/speed) was necessary to stay on track gives you an exact idea of what you're designing your tires for (having good grip and how it impacts the driving).
It's a distant cousin of the "small electronic cars that follows where you point your light at" gadget that was popular when we were kids. Again, extremely crude sensors (because that's the max you can pack inside your gadget back in the 80s), that give a target for the gadget to track and follow. But it's the device that (autonomously) steers toward the target.
You had computer ? You were lucky !
We only had slide rulers and abacuses to compute our type setting and then ink feathers and parchment to render it !
Now snow out of my lawn both ways uphill !...
Ooops, somehow I think I botched that last one.
and if they've finally started releasing enough information for there to be a good free driver in a timely fashion,
Oh, boy ! Have things changed since last time you've had a look.
AMD goes much beyond that. They don't only release information. They release code, and they have opensource developer on their own payroll.
End result: Mesa has opengl 4.5 support, Mesa has RADV vulkan driver, AMD has opensourced AMDVLK, and the latest bits to get ROCm/OpenCL 2.x are on their way to get accepted into upstream kernel.
(Plus the current opensource drivers offering stems from an effort at AMD to rewrite their own stack from scratch to have as many bits shared cross platform between Windows, Linux and their other "custom" platform, and the Linux variation thereof completely open-sourced.
So AMD actually benefits from this whole stuff as much as Linux end-users do. And means faster development)
If you're interested into free drivers, as long as you use a rolling Linux distribution (e.g.: Tumbleweed) so you can fastly benefit from the latest driver upgrade, and maybe don't jump on newer graphic cards on release day (there might still be bugs here and there), you should be golden.
ATI has never really be all that great, given it eh linux support.
The Linux support of Radeons (back in ATI time) relying on the proprietary FGLRX driver : yes, it wasn't stellar.
The thing is, that was a long time ago.
Since then, AMD has massively invested into opensource development (lots of devs on their payroll).
Modern day opensource stack works very nicely, including latest bells and whistles (supports openGL 4.5, supports vulkan - actually two different drivers available, RADV written by mesa devs, and AMDVLK recently open-sourced by AMD devs).
(This comes as the result of giant re-writing efforts from AMD, where they basically rewrote their drivers from scratch, with the intent to make cross-platform drivers that share as much as possible code between (which includes Windows, Linux, but also the tons of various other custom platforms), and have the Linux portions fully opensourced, eventually. But because this meant that massive parts of this new efforts did got written by devs with less Linux experience than the previous wave of opensource efforts at AMD, that also meant that often the kernel code did need lots of polishing before reaching quality necessary to be accepted upstream : hence the long-drawn story behind DAL/DC, behind AMDKFD/ROCm/OpenCL, AMDVLK/XGL/PAL, etc.
Took some time, but it's totally worth it, both from the end-user point of view (great quality opensource code with corporate support) and AMD's point of view (lots of shared bits across their platforms means easier to develop and less efforts. Newer GPU gets much faster support) )
Using a rolling distro (e.g.: like openSUSE's Tumbleweed) to frequently get driver & kernel updates, is a good idea.
willing to deliver tracking data to the NSA.
Probably most implementation will be so bad (rushing to slap "voice capability" on any gadget, just to avoid tariffs. - See Amazon's Alexa-enabled microwave oven to get an idea of how far this shit can go)
that the manufacturer probably won't be needed to be willing.
Merely "existing" would open them enough to hacking.
Meaning large gaping security hole for any criminal or script kiddie to attack.
No tariffs on any technology that can be used to spy on Americans. Hmm.... Nope, that's not suspicious at all!
yup, even more so : as all it takes to avoid tariffs is apparently to slap some voice data capability on anything.
thus you can expect tons of gadget that haphazardly add voice capabilities that barely make sense, just to skip on the tariffs.
So lots of buggy implementation in IoT devices *with mic*.
Probably even in your next microwave oven (case in point, in a related /. story, Amazon has exactly announced that !)
A paradise to happily hack into, for any three letter agencies (probably the original intent).
Or any criminal organization that has a ploy to earn money by abusing large swaths of equipment (too bad that your micro-oven got enrolled into their zombie-bot swarm).
Or any script kiddie that just want to wreck havock for the lulz.
The TOS allows playing in an emulated windows evironment.
But... Wine Is Not An Emulator.
And that's enough until they think of a better reason.
No, it's not a case of Blizzard playing with words in order to have an excuse to kick users out.
From the Phoronix article :
Blizzard official attention has always been to let Wine users in. (Hey, more customers == more cash flowing in! And thanks to Wine's / Crossover's / and Valve's Proton people all doing the hard work, it doesn't cost much to Blizzard to get all these extra customers)
But there's a big difference between intentions and practice :
apparently, there's strong suspicion that it's the anti-cheat system that has went berzerk.
Blizzard is promicing to investigate to avoid unjustified bans (Common, they want all these extra customer money in !)
Battery capacity is somewhat nebulous. Operating the battery at a lower capacity extends operating life
Yeah, I totally agree with that. (And Tesla apparently have settings allowing the and user to artificially limit the battery to shallower cycles to extend their life).
But the parent AC poster was saying that forcing a 60kWh vehicle to pack 75kWh was pushing it past what is safe for extended lifetime of the vehicle,.
Whereas 75kWh on these vehicle is still safe. They weren't limited to 60kWh for safety issue. They were limited for rebates.
You can mod your own car.
(Personally, I've added two such gadgets, a similar to my mother-in-law's car, and one using the car manufacturer's proprietary connect on my mother's car)
But you won't by yourself modify every single analog only device, specially all those that you don't own :
- rental cars (these tend to be old and with as few options as possible)
- the speaker set at a friend's appartment when they throw a party, and some iPhone user want to stream their playlist instead of the friend's laptop's.
Also, bluetooth won't share sound (e.g.: two users watching s movie from the same tablet in a plane). Only some bluetooth headsets from some manufacturers are able to forward the sound stream to another headset *from the same exact brand*. We you and your girlfriend happen to have noise cancel headphone from two different manufacturers (say Bose and Logitech UE), you can't listen simultaneously. Whereas the analog cable doesn't give a fuck what brand is the other headset plugged into the other leg of the Y audio splitter.
etc.
Bullshit, it hasn't been attained despite massive investment. Put up or shut the fuck up.
It hasn't been attained despite a mere few billion.
If you invested *trillions* of budget, you could - e.g. - build an entirely separate network of highway dedicated to what autonomous car need, perhaps using tracks to make the path following more predictable and easier. Congratulation, you've successfully replicated the few autonomous subway that already exist out there.
By changing the environment to making it adapted to this type of cars, it's provably atteignable. But crazy expensive upfront.
Instead the startups are trying to drop the autonomous cars into a highly unpredictible environment that has evolved around human drivers.
That is one area where I like how the Apple watch chargers work, because they magnetically suck the watch to the "wireless" charging pad so it's super easy to attach and cannot easily be jostled off the charger. That was another reason I never planned to buy the AirPower pad, because the Apple Watch chargers are much easier and more secure than the pad would have been... maybe Apple realized that as well.
What Apple should really do is try to make an Apple Watch charger that can also incidentally power the iPhone. Maybe if you flipped it over? That would be something I might use given I have to travel with an Apple Watch charger anyway.
Magnetically auto-homing the smartphone onto the wireless charger is something that Palm then HP were doing with the Pre line of smartphones and its Touchstone charger, a decade ago.
I did work absolutely great. (I wonder who ones the patent currently ? LG, maybe ? Still HP ?)
Sadly the industry standardize into a different form (Qi charging).
But you find multiple "how to" about salvaging the old hardware and adapting it to modern smartphones.
This was something that was originally intended for HDMI and SPDIF, the ability to have it so they would only output signals to "blessed" hardware that was guaranteed not to record.
Sorry but SPDIF signal (as well as TOS-Link, AES3, etc.) is purely uni-directionnal.
There is no back-and-forth and therefor there's no way to negociate an encryption.
SPDIF's only form of protection is bit in the header telling if the source is original or a copy and if the material is allowed unrestricted copies or not.
That's it.
The rest of the audio is raw un-encrypted PCM (or optionnally AC3 or DTS bitstreams).
It's entirely up to the emitting program to emit the correct bits. You could as well control your PC (or a simple ardunio) to emit a copiable stream ("original", "copy as much as you want").
It's entriely up to the receiving program to honor what the bits imply. You could as well fetch the stream with a PC (or a simple arduino) and record it, even if says ("copy" and "please do not copy")
HDMI is the one actually having a cryptographic handshake to lock out non-complying software.
With the arduino approach (well it would take a very high Ghz micro-controller, but you got the idea), you only see encrypted garbage on the line.
You'd need to have a valid signature, to do the handshake, so you get the decryption key.
Only certified drivers, running in a "secure" (from the point of view of content maker, not end-users) environment like Windows, come with the necessary key to negociate an encrypted link.
The same could be done with future lighning port & bluetooth speakers : only those come with the necessary signature to negociate an encrypted link.
Whataboutism in action.
You didn't understand the argument.
I didn't mean "Look, the US does something bad too, so you're not in position to criticize US, you worthless ${slur}, your country sucks !" (and then progressively steer the discussion around that *other* aweful thing the US has done, completely avoiding the subject of the initial question)
( ^- that is Whataboutism. It's a diversion tactic. )
Neither addressing nor refuting the statement.
It was exactly addressing the statement by giving a clear example.
The USA (*united* *states* of america) is a *union* (a federation) of several *states*, that spans a whole (chunk of) continent ([north-] america).
There's a higher-level of nationnal government above the state level that can regulate things.
You probably understand how that works ?
Yes ?
Good, keep that in your mind, because the EU is basically the same (if you squint at it).
The EU (european *union*) is a *union* of countries (member-states), that spans a whole (chunk of) continent (europe).
There's a higher hyper-level of government (Brussels European parliament) above the various national levels, that tries to regulate and coordinate things so the EU can work as a single entity instead of chunks of disjoint opposing countries. It's still similar to try herding cats, nonetheless.
(EU isn't a real strong central government, just a central coordination for a few key fields)
The UN would have been the basic similar scheme, had they tried to design a "robot-killer-ban treaty".
(Except that UN is even less a government, and more a place where national government meet to discuss.
It can't order much, it can only design treaties that then the member countries will sign on a volunteer basis).
Of course :
- the above is much longer and boring the the pique in the above comment.
- the above comment will make you thing also about situations where the US has tried to regulate *Europe's countries* (or other non-US members), making a funny double interpretation.
( ^- this is not Whataboutism, this is a joke. The purpose is not to steer the discussion away, just make you smile.).
Intel underclocks and locks cores because if they didn't do the practice called binning, they'd have to throw out those chips. Binned products cannot be run at full spec because of manufacturing defects. If you override that, you are taking the huge gamble that your processor will fail in odd ways.
In theory yes.
In practice : not quite.
Due to how law of offer and demand work in market segmentation, they might end up binning a little bit more thing in the lower bins, if it helps them sell more SKU at more profit. (Rather than selling all SKU at their "true capability" at a lower price)
Mostly due to the high-end SKU being targetted at :
- extreme enthusiasts (people with more money than brain and/or who'll throw any money required to get the fastest thing possible)
- big corporate customers building HPC centers (entity with enormous budget, who won't shun throwing a bit more money to buy the best hardware they can - specially given that this price isn't that much impressive when compared to the support contracts, operating costs, etc.)
So lowering the price of the high-end SKU might make Intel lose on the extra money they could make of that market, which is where mostly this SKU are sold.
From that point, they could :
- trade out the unsold extra high-end SKU on special market (mostly education : such as universities building HPC centers. You know, you need to hook them while they are still young^H doing their PhD, so you give them their first shot free^H give them their first HPC cheap.) (Then they'll insist to having the same toys once they graduate and start working in the corporate world)
- put a bit of the extra unsold extra high-end SKUs in the lower bin right underneath. They'll still make a magrin on them, just a lower than the high-end high -margin one.
i.e.: keep artificial scarcity to rake up artificially keep the price, if the end result is that they'll make more money this way, rather than lowering the price to sell more units.
Thus, unlocked and overclocking is also an extra gamble : maybe, you processor was a "down-binned" one and you can overclock it beyond madness.
Back in the Celeron era, it was popular to buy a bunch of CPUs, to find the overclocking unicorn hidden in the middle and return the remaining to get your money.
That is different from Tesla because they don't bin their battery packs, in fact you can pay the more money later and unlock the higher capacity.
Same with the mad overclockable Intel CPUs, except Intel doesn't ask you any money for that.
It would be like buying a three-cushion sofa recliner, but you can only use it as a non-reclining love seat until you pay either the reclining fee or the third-cushion-unlock fee.
...in a context where the furniture manufacturing plant is unable to make sofas without the recliner part for technical reasons (would be to expensive to have it installed optionnally on demand, rather than on every product).
When you look at it :
- you want to use only half a battery, and you paid half a battery.
- because there's no such thing as half a battery for now, Tesla gives you actually a full battery, but you both agree that you will only use half of it and tesla will only bill you for half of it.
So basically, the battery is co-own, you own (and have paid) for your half of the battery, the half you use, Tesla owns the other half which you didn't pay for.
You can buy back the other half at a later point (great agument for those customer who were reluctant to only have a real half-battery).
During huricanes, Tesla happily lend you their half for free.
That sounds like a useful feature. Can the owner of a 75kWh pack set it to 60 kWh ?
Yes. Any Tesla cars allows you to choose not to do 100% deep discharge, but only shallower cycles.
This is supposed to help even more on battery longevity.
Metaphorically, every single cars comes with a slider going 0 to 10 that sets how deep the cycle go.
Tesla can give you a rebate if you let them screw in a blot that blocks this slider going above 7.
You can metaphorically pay the rebate back if you want to be able to use all the slider range up to 10 if you end up wanting it after all.
Figuratively you can pay for only half a battery if you want to only use half a battery.
I do still see a benefit in artificially limiting the available battery capacity. As rechargeable batteries age, they are unable to hold as much of a charge. So selling a 75 kWh battery pack artificially locked to 60 kWh should allow the car to retain the ability to recharge to 60 kWh capacity for longer than if it was a 60 kWh pack, right? Unless I misunderstand something about batteries, which is entirely possible.
In a big over simplification: yes.
Except that :
- it happens that the BMS (battery management system) of Tesla is doing a marvelous job beyond any expectations, current in the wild data seem to show that batteries haven't aged as dramatically as some have expected. (The oldest would be at 70kWh by now, still more than the 60kWh capacity)
- charging less is also a life extending feature on batteries (a battery locked to 60kWh will probably have only degraded to say 72-73kWh).
to the point that the "lock" is a user-accessible setting. Any user can decide to only use 50kWh of their battery if they want - only the max ceiling is artificially limited for some.
Metaphorically:
every car comes with a slider going 0 to 10 deciding how much deep you'll discharge a battery (for battery longevity purpose).
If you let Tesla screw a bolt that blocks the slider going higher than 7, they'll give you a rebate.
If you want to unscrew the bolt, you return the rebate.
(If you only want to use half of the battery, you're allowed to pay only half for now. Pay the other half to use the rest).
I'd imagine fewer warranty issues with a throttled battery
actually, nope. with the currently available numbers it seems that the battery management system of Tesla is doing a wonderful work.
even when used at 100% they age very well.
It's just that Tesla is accepting to sell at a lower margin if it can make them sell more car (more profits at the end, and they need the money badly to invest into building their manufacturing capability).
And put the software limit as a way to keep the higher-margin car more desirable.
And making it a software limit, so that users wanting to pay less are less reluctant to pick the cheaper variant, because they know they can reverse at later point of time by paying (conceptually, returning back the rebate they have)
Basically :
Tesla : here's this car, it cost XXX ...but we can make you a deal. You pay for half a car now (as long as you promise to use it only as a half car), and you pay the other half later (when you feel like using it fully)
User: Hum, it's expensive. Can you sell me only half a car for less ?
Tesla : Well, we can't make only half a car...
User: bummer!
Tesla :
(except that, given the money involve, it's actually a battery you're buying from Tesla, with a cheap complimentary car body bolted-in on the top)
Whether its using the full 75kwh or software throttled to 60kwh, its still the same battery and Tesla's manufacturing cost is exactly the same. If they can sell the car for $xxxx with the battery artificially limited to 60k then they can sell it for the same price without the limit.
It's a bit more complicated than that :
- market segmentation is a thing. read-up on that.
The demand/offer balance you've been hearing in school is a gross over-simplification. Items aren't simply sold at the price the market can bear.
As a company, you don't just want to sell at the perfect price point. As a company, you actually want to cover as many diverse price-points at possible. Because otherwiese you'd be still missing all the money that the "poorer" customer would be okay to throw at your product, and customer who'd be willing to pay you even more will only pay a lower price.
Thus you segment your market. You invent alternative "Deluxe" and "bagrain" offers targetting the lower end and higher end segment. And you try to make these product distinctive.
Tesla is doing that by, at one (higher) end offering bigger battery (batteries which are actually 100kWh under the hood) that they sell fur much more, and tons of high-margin options (there no way that the camera for the autopilot cost a total of 5000$).
At the other end, they also need to sell cheaper car for those who are only willing to pay less. The simplest way to do it, is to offer to limit the battery in exchange of a rebate - I works not so bad, because the potential buyer won't be feeling to be missing out by not going for the more expensive option : they can still pay at a later point to get the full battery ( <- this makes the people not wanting the expensive model even less reluctant to settle with the cheap option)
On the other hand, compared with Microsoft who is selling 20 different variations of Windows - which are all slight different configuration parameters (actually yes, just register the same DVD with a different product key and you get a different set of software based on what tier of Windows is that key for) - each sold at a different price, Tesla is pretty much tame.
- profits
Tesla isn't a government run plan to bring you the cheapest possible EV.
Tesla is acompany, and they are allowed to make money.
Even more so, if you squint a bit, you'll notice (given the invested money) that the current business of Tesla is *building manufacturing capabilities for EV*.
They are basically in the business of building factories but in order to offset the costs of the factory, they'll sell you an expensive lithium-battery, and for that price, they'll bolt a complimentary (relatively cheap) car body on that battery.
In the current phase Tesla needs as much money as possible to throw on their factory building (that's why some are accusing them of being unable to make money).
They'll do every single possible trick for that :
- they'll segement the model S market as much as possible to be able to sell even more units
- they'll currently only sell the high-end variations of Model 3, because they are a higher-margin, and only sell the cheapest variations later.
Thus make even more profits (on the cars) and get a little bit more on the precious financial ressource they need to finish building their manufacturing capability.
Once again we see money-grubbing Jews {...}
For your information, Elon Musk happens to be non-religious.
in action, always trying to squeeze the customer for more money.
a.k.a. pretty much standard variety capitalism.
If you're not happy with that, vote with your wallet, don't buy a Tesla.
Go see instead what Renault is collaborating in Portugal for a more state sponsored (more socialist / less capitalist) approach to EV. Go buy a Zoé instead.
(But beware, these only come with up to 44kWh battery with around 200-somethingish range (a.k.a. "400km NEDC"). On the other hand you don't need to buy the battery, you can also rent)
Warning: enabling this setting will allow your battery to drain past what is safe for extended lifetime of the vehicle,
Read again the summary.
The batteries are actually 75kWh batteries.
But when buying the car it's possible to ask them to be artificially limited to 60kWh and get a rebate.
Draining them to 75kWh is in no way unsafe to the batteries themselves, they were designed for that.
It's just Tesla offering to temporarily disable this agreed limitation, for free.
Whereas under normal circumstance, the user is free to ask it removed, but needs to pay (conceptually: needs to return the rebate).
It's a way to pay less now, and then get more further down the line by paying the extra at a later time.