Well, if you consider the man pages to be vague, maybe C just isn't for you? Maybe you should leave it to the old people, whose understand all that gobblygook.
Also, if you're hitting C language gotchas, rather than library gotchas, you should probably just believe yourself to be less clever, and you'll stop doing it. Clever C code is also known as a bug. Let the compiler do the clever parts unless you're on a microcontroller and then you write the clever parts in ASM.
Oh, I do plenty of searching when using C, but I wouldn't be searching for "C" I'd be searching for strncpy examples directly, without talking about C, and most of the results I'd be looking at would be code repos not paste sites.
Also, lot of C questions will actually be questions about make or autoconf.
Oh good, that means the pay for old programmers will go up again, like it was when the old people were doing the COBOL for the banks and the kids were using C.
The last website I made, it was in C. Welcome to the IoT. Java is too fat to fit on a microcontroller, after all.
I'm using C more and more all the time. I guess I'm getting old.
Actually, when I search for stuff about C, I have to use other search terms, like the library I'm using, because "C" isn't a very unique substring.;) Sometimes I even have to throw in a library I'm not even using, just to narrow the search terms to C. And for microcontroller stuff, C is actually spelled "avr-gcc" or "ESP8266 sdk".
You're casually throwing around this term "banned," but that might not actually be true. Especially since it is just coming from your "understanding," which is code for you don't know.
Not only are alternatives legal, in most States you can even duct tape a piece of home window glass to the top of the hood and be street legal!
From a manufacturing perspective there are very very few rules. Don't just wave your hands and presume that because you heard there are lots of safety rules, they must tell you exactly how to do everything. That isn't how it works. Very very few parts have specific requirements that tell you what technology to use. Things like the windshield, what they actually define is the amount of permissible entry into the "windshield area" that is allowed during a crash test. They also have rules for windshield mounting; it has to survive the test with at least some percent of the periphery attached.
Having lots of regulations does not mean that they tell you how you have to do it, or that you can't use new technologies, or that new technologies would need a rules change. The vast majority of whining about regulations is not even based on the actual regulations, but on very general political posturing.
The reasons you don't know what rule would need to be changed are twofold: you don't know the rules, and there is no rule that would need changing.
The Feds don't care if you windshield is made of Plasteel or transparent aluminum, they care about when the insurance company test center smashes the vehicle, does the windshield stay mounted, and do other parts of the vehicle poke through it?
If you had magic pixie dust to protect the windshield, you'd just need to have the crash tests done to get certified.
Wow, "you disagree with me, you must not be very smart."
I know you are but what am I?
You're right, I don't have anything but insults to respond to that with, because it is too fucking stupid to waste time with any other response. If you say shit like that to people, they are only going to respond for their own entertainment.
I'll leave it to you to figure out why your response is idiotic.
Since they have no way for customers to verify if a chip is a "clone" or not, and the company won't even give the name of a single trustable distributor, it is therefore impossible for a customer to verify that a bricked chip is actually a "clone" and not simply a false positive.
Pretty much every other parts supplier of any type of part in the world can, if they claim to care about "clones," give you the name of a trusted distributor that can provide a guaranteed-real part. FTDI, no such luck. If you buy it at full price from a reputable American distributor listed by FTDI as a company that they sell parts to, their official position is that you still might be buying clones.
The net result is: if you use FTDI in a product, it might stop working for your customers at any moment, and there is no way to verify if a particular board is safe or not. And as a customer you should be aware that the manufacturer of the end product has no way at all to promise you that they used "real" FTDI chips; even if they bought them from the factory, that same factory will not promise that what ever was delivered off the truck is "real" in their eyes.
For me the thing is that if I have two monitors, I'm still using virtual desktops to switch things around a lot, it becomes more work than just using one monitor. With three monitors, then I wouldn't need to change virtual desktops very often.
lol, perhaps, but this is the first time in probably 10 years somebody decided to make something that I instantly thought, "oh, I want that!"
Having a multiple-screen workstation really helps for old fogies who don't use an IDE.;) So the battery life doesn't matter, it just needs to be portable enough for travel.
Unfortunately the weird choice of 4k resolution will probably inflate the price and make it unsuitable for the travel workstation role.
An SoC may or may not have each of the technologies you're worried about being able to include, and you learn what capabilities an IC has by reading its datasheet, not by worrying about if it the product listing had an SoC tag. It is not a meaningful term, it is a general term that improves rough sorting of a list of items but is not sufficient to tell anything about the product.
Stop imagining what I might not know, you'll get farther by trying to know things yourself. This is basic shit, how can you possibly claim to assess what my abilities would be at something where you barely know what the words mean?
I did address that. You know it, too, because I quoted it. But why would you want me to increase my focus on your typo? It was rather harmless IMO.
Also, that isn't what jeremiad means. It has to be sad or mournful for that, like a never-ending eulogy. My post was dismissive and flippant where not serious and technical, it wasn't at all mournful.
Right, in your response you get to the real issue you're talking about, and it isn't whatever Brandybrand(TM) of device that you used.
Your actual whole story is just, "I used to like doing my own networking as a hobby even though I didn't need any special capabilities, and now I switched to just buying networking appliances and I like it better; I'm happy to give up that hobby."
Has nothing to do with mesh networking. Those of us who still enjoy doing our own networking can do it exactly the same with mesh networks as with other networking topologies. I'm not going to read up on any of the Brandybrands(TM) that you mentioned, but I can tell you that most people who like to do this stuff themselves are going to prefer using embedded devices running normal server operating systems. Obviously, buying a bunch of different Brandybrands(TM) and trying to bailing-wire them into a mesh network is going to give inferior results to buying the Brandybrand(TM) that is actually designed with those features.
Same as, if you used to enjoy picking wild blueberries in the forest, and then you learn about wild blackberries, but at the same time you decide you don't like foraging for berries anymore, it doesn't mean that picking blackberries is too hard.
BTW, I've very impressed that you can make papyrus. I've made a few different types of homemade paper using easily accessible fibers like laundry lint or mushrooms, but growing a special type of sedge shows an unusual level of sophistication not normally present in homemade paper.
Same thing man. Clue up. I design circuits with this shit, I know what the difference is, and in this context, it is not different.
An SoC is a CPU that has flash memory and some application-specific built-in code that is generally accessed through an API that disguises itself as a CPU register. But actually, all the CPUs have flash memory, it just isn't always accessible to the user. There is no actual difference in what technology is being used, or how it consumes power.
The even funnier part is, what does the C in CPU stand for? OK, so if use an SoC as the main IC on a board with a bunch of other processors, (battery controller, USB controller, audio codec, GPS, etc) and I put the SoC in the middle, controlling the other devices, that makes it what? It makes it the Central Processing Unit. CPU might not mean whatever you thought it meant.;)
Noise on the power line is actually bad for a lot of devices, and that's what it does; it injects noise into the power line, then filters it back out to recover the signal. But all your electrical equipment sees extra noise.
And maybe you don't care, you figure, power supplies never go bad so it won't hurt. Still, your bandwidth goes down whenever an electrically noisy device turns on. Your bandwidth goes down if you go into the kitchen and turn on a blender. Using the microwave? Less bandwidth. Somebody doing some welding in the garage? You get the idea. Lots of things introduce noise onto the mains, and encoding your data signal as mains noise puts you at the mercy of whatever other noise is there.
Another factor is that the available bandwidth varies per house, and there is no easy way to measure it or predict what it will be unless you put the wiring in yourself. And you're unlikely to get the advertised speeds from wiring that was purchased to meet the minimum standards in most areas. Most wiring only meets the minimum standards. If you have 15A breakers, you probably have wires only rated for 15A. If you did the wiring yourself and bought wiring for 20A circuits but still used 15A breakers, then you would know that you have lots of available bandwidth for noise. But every kink in a wire reduces that bandwidth, and very few of those wires are accessible for inspection.
There are real reasons why this technology hasn't taken off. You can't just buy it and assume it will work to the published specs the way you can with ethernet. You have to try it out in a particular building, and you have to be prepared that it might not work well. That makes it a very poor thing to recommend to the public, because you haven't tested all those homes. Having big "up to" numbers doesn't help any of that; nobody cares what their network's personal record speed is, they care about what speed they can reliably expect.
You also need to be prepared for weird audible artifacts on old audio equipment, etc. For example, some 70s solid state audio circuits used multiple half-bridge rectifiers powering separate DC-DC converters for the different voltages they need. This causes them to introduce a bit of ground noise that is out of phase. That's going to totally thrash your network speeds, and also magnifies the noise that the device sees from your network!
Also, computer geeks don't know what directional cables are, they think it is snake oil, so they already have lots of ground loops and won't be physically capable of trouble-shooting the problems. They'll end up blaming the wires even when there is a fixable problem.
You can totally do mesh networks yourself, it is just software. You brag about your geek cred being so awesome you're embarrassed to admit it, but want to trade on it anyways, and then you go full-marketing and claim that Brandybrand(TM) software can do stuff that software a sysadmin might install can't possibly do. Not impressed.
This is why I agree with RMS somewhat. If it can't accept updates, I don't need access, but if it accepts updates, it has to be open so that I can manage my own updates including updating the software myself since I have incentive for the device to work.
And if the device can't be updated, they have to do a lot more testing at the dev stage. With forced network updates they have no minimum standard; anything can just be fixed later, so very little testing is needed. They're only really incentivised to avoid bugs that would make the evening news!
That's why for routers I actually just want a small low powered generic computing device with the correct network hardware, and I can run a regular server OS on it. But for a switched hub I just want a dumb device that can't be updated, and I want it to follow the standards correctly.
I might be the odd one here, but what I find missing from the market is often just the non-updateable appliance-style device! Of course I can always just use a general purpose OS and free software. The updates are perhaps the greatest evil of all! The original fact of being proprietary is fine, it is the proprietary alterations that bring in all the evils. You can't embrace and extend without updates, after all.
Nice try, but your ability to decode marketing shit is weak.
First, the summary actually says enough charge for 5 hours use in 5 minutes, not 7 hours. Second, they talked about multimedia in sentences placed next to the one about charging, but they didn't actually say they were connected, so they're not. 5 hours of some type of use. What is the most common use for a smart phone? Idling and waiting for a call. So 5 hours of idle time in 5 minutes. But also they're talking about a CPU, not a complete device, so they probably mean that 5 minutes of charge would give you enough power for the CPU's part of that 5 hours of use. Then it doesn't even need to be idle for the numbers to work.
Existing devices often can charge at 5V 2A. That's 0.8 watt hours. If the CPU runs at 1.8V, then that could give you over 50 mA continuous draw for 5 hours. Very reasonable; the much weaker microcontrollers I use in my products use much less than that. 50mA is about what I would expect for the CPU even if it is doing a lot of work; idling it might reasonably be much less than 1mA.
Very reasonable, if you have fluent understanding of Horseshit. If you only speak English, of course, then it makes less sense than Greek would because at least Greek has the decency to use a different set of words than English.;)
"... It's designed to grab information from the air at gigabit speeds and turn it into rich virtual and augmented reality experiences, ".
Wait, wait, you mean this CPU doesn't actually have a built-in robot arm that extends an antenna?! Next you're going to tell me that it can't even convert radio waves into an experience.
You're waiting for evidence that the specific named mobile OSes used on smart TVs are less secure than the ones running on desktop computers?! WOW! Sorry man, I'm not gonna spoon feed you that. If you're that new to the subject of computer security, start in a curious mode, not in an argumentative mode. You're more likely to receive explanations that way. Personally, I'm happy to explain things if I think you at least attempted to RTFM, but clearly that isn't the case.
You can tick-tock until you turn blue in the face, it is all the same to me.
Everything I stated as a fact is a fact. Things not stated as a fact might be my opinion. You might simply be unaware of the facts, or don't care about my opinion, but then, why even respond? If I state a fact, and you offer a correction, I might read it. If you say I have "no clue," even though I actually did look into the subject and my comments were a mix of fact and educated opinion, then I know you're full of shit. I don't need to know whatever else you wrote to know that, because I know that I did go out and acquire some clues before forming my opinions.
You're not even logically competent enough to disagree with me without making an ass of yourself. If you think somebody has "no clue," don't respond to their comments. You're not even attempting to engage in constructive communication, and so why would anybody expect that to be followed with worthwhile words?
Even a business 101 class would inform you that predictability is an important business concern. Businesses do not do knee-jerk reactions that cost $900M based on new rules that haven't even been made! That's complete nonsense. No conjecture required to reject that as an explanation. Notice, I didn't actually engage in conjecture; I'm not saying why they did it, I'm saying exactly that we don't know why. We don't have enough information to make a reasonable claim, but we do have enough information to reject the stated claims.
That's a pretty daft response, showing an intentional lack of understanding of the context.
No, having small 2nd and 3rd world countries using something else as a reserve does not establish that as an alternative reserve currency.
And honestly, that is a really pathetic argument to be making at all, much less basing insults on it that literally accuse me of other-worldly ignorance.
Adding anti-American blathering to it doesn't make it smaht, you know.
There are a whole bunch of logical problems with your fantasy. Yeah, sure, before they didn't mind wasting $900M, but now since the President hand-waved and said that Congress will make a bunch of new (totally unspecified) rules, they're suddenly happy with it. That just doesn't work as an explanation. It is plain horse-shit. Your reply had zero content, zero logic. All you did is present a nonsense narrative that is clearly not true.
Obviously, some true series of events happened. But they're not what is claimed in the story, and they're not what you made up either.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you consider the man pages to be vague, maybe C just isn't for you? Maybe you should leave it to the old people, whose understand all that gobblygook.
Also, if you're hitting C language gotchas, rather than library gotchas, you should probably just believe yourself to be less clever, and you'll stop doing it. Clever C code is also known as a bug. Let the compiler do the clever parts unless you're on a microcontroller and then you write the clever parts in ASM.
Oh, I do plenty of searching when using C, but I wouldn't be searching for "C" I'd be searching for strncpy examples directly, without talking about C, and most of the results I'd be looking at would be code repos not paste sites.
Also, lot of C questions will actually be questions about make or autoconf.
No?
Yes.
A lot of people don't realize it, but even emacs is written in C. That's why it has such a great LISP interpreter!
On microcontrollers it is fairly normal to write the C, and then hand-tune the ASM that gcc outputs.
Oh good, that means the pay for old programmers will go up again, like it was when the old people were doing the COBOL for the banks and the kids were using C.
The last website I made, it was in C. Welcome to the IoT. Java is too fat to fit on a microcontroller, after all.
I'm using C more and more all the time. I guess I'm getting old.
Actually, when I search for stuff about C, I have to use other search terms, like the library I'm using, because "C" isn't a very unique substring. ;) Sometimes I even have to throw in a library I'm not even using, just to narrow the search terms to C. And for microcontroller stuff, C is actually spelled "avr-gcc" or "ESP8266 sdk".
You're casually throwing around this term "banned," but that might not actually be true. Especially since it is just coming from your "understanding," which is code for you don't know.
Not only are alternatives legal, in most States you can even duct tape a piece of home window glass to the top of the hood and be street legal!
From a manufacturing perspective there are very very few rules. Don't just wave your hands and presume that because you heard there are lots of safety rules, they must tell you exactly how to do everything. That isn't how it works. Very very few parts have specific requirements that tell you what technology to use. Things like the windshield, what they actually define is the amount of permissible entry into the "windshield area" that is allowed during a crash test. They also have rules for windshield mounting; it has to survive the test with at least some percent of the periphery attached.
Having lots of regulations does not mean that they tell you how you have to do it, or that you can't use new technologies, or that new technologies would need a rules change. The vast majority of whining about regulations is not even based on the actual regulations, but on very general political posturing.
The reasons you don't know what rule would need to be changed are twofold: you don't know the rules, and there is no rule that would need changing.
The Feds don't care if you windshield is made of Plasteel or transparent aluminum, they care about when the insurance company test center smashes the vehicle, does the windshield stay mounted, and do other parts of the vehicle poke through it?
If you had magic pixie dust to protect the windshield, you'd just need to have the crash tests done to get certified.
Wow, "you disagree with me, you must not be very smart."
I know you are but what am I?
You're right, I don't have anything but insults to respond to that with, because it is too fucking stupid to waste time with any other response. If you say shit like that to people, they are only going to respond for their own entertainment.
I'll leave it to you to figure out why your response is idiotic.
Since they have no way for customers to verify if a chip is a "clone" or not, and the company won't even give the name of a single trustable distributor, it is therefore impossible for a customer to verify that a bricked chip is actually a "clone" and not simply a false positive.
Pretty much every other parts supplier of any type of part in the world can, if they claim to care about "clones," give you the name of a trusted distributor that can provide a guaranteed-real part. FTDI, no such luck. If you buy it at full price from a reputable American distributor listed by FTDI as a company that they sell parts to, their official position is that you still might be buying clones.
The net result is: if you use FTDI in a product, it might stop working for your customers at any moment, and there is no way to verify if a particular board is safe or not. And as a customer you should be aware that the manufacturer of the end product has no way at all to promise you that they used "real" FTDI chips; even if they bought them from the factory, that same factory will not promise that what ever was delivered off the truck is "real" in their eyes.
For me the thing is that if I have two monitors, I'm still using virtual desktops to switch things around a lot, it becomes more work than just using one monitor. With three monitors, then I wouldn't need to change virtual desktops very often.
So two just gets in the way.
Why not?
3 minute battery life.
lol, perhaps, but this is the first time in probably 10 years somebody decided to make something that I instantly thought, "oh, I want that!"
Having a multiple-screen workstation really helps for old fogies who don't use an IDE. ;) So the battery life doesn't matter, it just needs to be portable enough for travel.
Unfortunately the weird choice of 4k resolution will probably inflate the price and make it unsuitable for the travel workstation role.
An SoC may or may not have each of the technologies you're worried about being able to include, and you learn what capabilities an IC has by reading its datasheet, not by worrying about if it the product listing had an SoC tag. It is not a meaningful term, it is a general term that improves rough sorting of a list of items but is not sufficient to tell anything about the product.
Stop imagining what I might not know, you'll get farther by trying to know things yourself. This is basic shit, how can you possibly claim to assess what my abilities would be at something where you barely know what the words mean?
I did address that. You know it, too, because I quoted it. But why would you want me to increase my focus on your typo? It was rather harmless IMO.
Also, that isn't what jeremiad means. It has to be sad or mournful for that, like a never-ending eulogy. My post was dismissive and flippant where not serious and technical, it wasn't at all mournful.
Right, in your response you get to the real issue you're talking about, and it isn't whatever Brandybrand(TM) of device that you used.
Your actual whole story is just, "I used to like doing my own networking as a hobby even though I didn't need any special capabilities, and now I switched to just buying networking appliances and I like it better; I'm happy to give up that hobby."
Has nothing to do with mesh networking. Those of us who still enjoy doing our own networking can do it exactly the same with mesh networks as with other networking topologies. I'm not going to read up on any of the Brandybrands(TM) that you mentioned, but I can tell you that most people who like to do this stuff themselves are going to prefer using embedded devices running normal server operating systems. Obviously, buying a bunch of different Brandybrands(TM) and trying to bailing-wire them into a mesh network is going to give inferior results to buying the Brandybrand(TM) that is actually designed with those features.
Same as, if you used to enjoy picking wild blueberries in the forest, and then you learn about wild blackberries, but at the same time you decide you don't like foraging for berries anymore, it doesn't mean that picking blackberries is too hard.
BTW, I've very impressed that you can make papyrus. I've made a few different types of homemade paper using easily accessible fibers like laundry lint or mushrooms, but growing a special type of sedge shows an unusual level of sophistication not normally present in homemade paper.
LOL *woosh*
Same thing man. Clue up. I design circuits with this shit, I know what the difference is, and in this context, it is not different.
An SoC is a CPU that has flash memory and some application-specific built-in code that is generally accessed through an API that disguises itself as a CPU register. But actually, all the CPUs have flash memory, it just isn't always accessible to the user. There is no actual difference in what technology is being used, or how it consumes power.
The even funnier part is, what does the C in CPU stand for? OK, so if use an SoC as the main IC on a board with a bunch of other processors, (battery controller, USB controller, audio codec, GPS, etc) and I put the SoC in the middle, controlling the other devices, that makes it what? It makes it the Central Processing Unit. CPU might not mean whatever you thought it meant. ;)
Noise on the power line is actually bad for a lot of devices, and that's what it does; it injects noise into the power line, then filters it back out to recover the signal. But all your electrical equipment sees extra noise.
And maybe you don't care, you figure, power supplies never go bad so it won't hurt. Still, your bandwidth goes down whenever an electrically noisy device turns on. Your bandwidth goes down if you go into the kitchen and turn on a blender. Using the microwave? Less bandwidth. Somebody doing some welding in the garage? You get the idea. Lots of things introduce noise onto the mains, and encoding your data signal as mains noise puts you at the mercy of whatever other noise is there.
Another factor is that the available bandwidth varies per house, and there is no easy way to measure it or predict what it will be unless you put the wiring in yourself. And you're unlikely to get the advertised speeds from wiring that was purchased to meet the minimum standards in most areas. Most wiring only meets the minimum standards. If you have 15A breakers, you probably have wires only rated for 15A. If you did the wiring yourself and bought wiring for 20A circuits but still used 15A breakers, then you would know that you have lots of available bandwidth for noise. But every kink in a wire reduces that bandwidth, and very few of those wires are accessible for inspection.
There are real reasons why this technology hasn't taken off. You can't just buy it and assume it will work to the published specs the way you can with ethernet. You have to try it out in a particular building, and you have to be prepared that it might not work well. That makes it a very poor thing to recommend to the public, because you haven't tested all those homes. Having big "up to" numbers doesn't help any of that; nobody cares what their network's personal record speed is, they care about what speed they can reliably expect.
You also need to be prepared for weird audible artifacts on old audio equipment, etc. For example, some 70s solid state audio circuits used multiple half-bridge rectifiers powering separate DC-DC converters for the different voltages they need. This causes them to introduce a bit of ground noise that is out of phase. That's going to totally thrash your network speeds, and also magnifies the noise that the device sees from your network!
Also, computer geeks don't know what directional cables are, they think it is snake oil, so they already have lots of ground loops and won't be physically capable of trouble-shooting the problems. They'll end up blaming the wires even when there is a fixable problem.
You missed the words "on-topic" in his sig. If it uses 2 bands or 3 bands while claiming to be "tri-band" is indeed on-topic.
You can totally do mesh networks yourself, it is just software. You brag about your geek cred being so awesome you're embarrassed to admit it, but want to trade on it anyways, and then you go full-marketing and claim that Brandybrand(TM) software can do stuff that software a sysadmin might install can't possibly do. Not impressed.
This is why I agree with RMS somewhat. If it can't accept updates, I don't need access, but if it accepts updates, it has to be open so that I can manage my own updates including updating the software myself since I have incentive for the device to work.
And if the device can't be updated, they have to do a lot more testing at the dev stage. With forced network updates they have no minimum standard; anything can just be fixed later, so very little testing is needed. They're only really incentivised to avoid bugs that would make the evening news!
That's why for routers I actually just want a small low powered generic computing device with the correct network hardware, and I can run a regular server OS on it. But for a switched hub I just want a dumb device that can't be updated, and I want it to follow the standards correctly.
I might be the odd one here, but what I find missing from the market is often just the non-updateable appliance-style device! Of course I can always just use a general purpose OS and free software. The updates are perhaps the greatest evil of all! The original fact of being proprietary is fine, it is the proprietary alterations that bring in all the evils. You can't embrace and extend without updates, after all.
Nice try, but your ability to decode marketing shit is weak.
First, the summary actually says enough charge for 5 hours use in 5 minutes, not 7 hours. Second, they talked about multimedia in sentences placed next to the one about charging, but they didn't actually say they were connected, so they're not. 5 hours of some type of use. What is the most common use for a smart phone? Idling and waiting for a call. So 5 hours of idle time in 5 minutes. But also they're talking about a CPU, not a complete device, so they probably mean that 5 minutes of charge would give you enough power for the CPU's part of that 5 hours of use. Then it doesn't even need to be idle for the numbers to work.
Existing devices often can charge at 5V 2A. That's 0.8 watt hours. If the CPU runs at 1.8V, then that could give you over 50 mA continuous draw for 5 hours. Very reasonable; the much weaker microcontrollers I use in my products use much less than that. 50mA is about what I would expect for the CPU even if it is doing a lot of work; idling it might reasonably be much less than 1mA.
Very reasonable, if you have fluent understanding of Horseshit. If you only speak English, of course, then it makes less sense than Greek would because at least Greek has the decency to use a different set of words than English. ;)
Dang I'm getting sick of marketing speak:
"... It's designed to grab information from the air at gigabit speeds and turn it into rich virtual and augmented reality experiences, ".
Wait, wait, you mean this CPU doesn't actually have a built-in robot arm that extends an antenna?! Next you're going to tell me that it can't even convert radio waves into an experience.
A personal anecdote isn't even a metric, so no.
You're waiting for evidence that the specific named mobile OSes used on smart TVs are less secure than the ones running on desktop computers?! WOW! Sorry man, I'm not gonna spoon feed you that. If you're that new to the subject of computer security, start in a curious mode, not in an argumentative mode. You're more likely to receive explanations that way. Personally, I'm happy to explain things if I think you at least attempted to RTFM, but clearly that isn't the case.
You can tick-tock until you turn blue in the face, it is all the same to me.
Stopped reading at "you obviously have no clue."
Everything I stated as a fact is a fact. Things not stated as a fact might be my opinion. You might simply be unaware of the facts, or don't care about my opinion, but then, why even respond? If I state a fact, and you offer a correction, I might read it. If you say I have "no clue," even though I actually did look into the subject and my comments were a mix of fact and educated opinion, then I know you're full of shit. I don't need to know whatever else you wrote to know that, because I know that I did go out and acquire some clues before forming my opinions.
You're not even logically competent enough to disagree with me without making an ass of yourself. If you think somebody has "no clue," don't respond to their comments. You're not even attempting to engage in constructive communication, and so why would anybody expect that to be followed with worthwhile words?
Even a business 101 class would inform you that predictability is an important business concern. Businesses do not do knee-jerk reactions that cost $900M based on new rules that haven't even been made! That's complete nonsense. No conjecture required to reject that as an explanation. Notice, I didn't actually engage in conjecture; I'm not saying why they did it, I'm saying exactly that we don't know why. We don't have enough information to make a reasonable claim, but we do have enough information to reject the stated claims.
That's a pretty daft response, showing an intentional lack of understanding of the context.
No, having small 2nd and 3rd world countries using something else as a reserve does not establish that as an alternative reserve currency.
And honestly, that is a really pathetic argument to be making at all, much less basing insults on it that literally accuse me of other-worldly ignorance.
Adding anti-American blathering to it doesn't make it smaht, you know.
There are a whole bunch of logical problems with your fantasy. Yeah, sure, before they didn't mind wasting $900M, but now since the President hand-waved and said that Congress will make a bunch of new (totally unspecified) rules, they're suddenly happy with it. That just doesn't work as an explanation. It is plain horse-shit. Your reply had zero content, zero logic. All you did is present a nonsense narrative that is clearly not true.
Obviously, some true series of events happened. But they're not what is claimed in the story, and they're not what you made up either.