I wonder if running iPerf3 under WSL is better than using a version compiled with Cygwin libraries.

Not especially. iPerf3 is very performant and sensitive, which makes it a great tool for measuring network performance, but that also makes it sensitive to even small perturbations.

WSL2 is a virtual machine, so all network traffic goes through the virtual NAT system. WSL1 is technically a compatibility layer, but its recreating/emulating of Linux I/O typically comes at a pretty hefty performance hit.

And how much of that market share shift is Chrome gaining users on iOS devices?

Because fuck me if this ends up being a repeat of the PC desktop, where Google browbeats everyone to the point that the vast majority of users are all running Chrome.

It's pretty hilarious that the best set-top device you can buy for media playback, is one that was released 4.5 years ago and hasn't had a hardware update since.

4.5 years ago? The original NVIDIA Shield TV was launched in 2015. It turns 9 years old this year.

The Shield is really starting to show its age at this point (the Android TV home screen lags hard on 4K displays), but NVIDIA made a couple of key technical decisions with the SoC that have kept it relevant for so long. Making sure to include a cutting-edge media decoder block with full 8/10-bit HEVC decoding support, as well as VP9 Profile 0 support, has kept it from being obsoleted by newer video codecs. AV1 is just now taking off, and even then it's going to be years until it's commonly in use for home media (be it legit or pirated media).

Though NVIDIA was also the beneficiary of a free SoC porting, thanks to Nintendo. Since Big N paid to get the Tegra X1 ported from TSMC 20nm to 16nm, NVIDIA hasn't needed to take the risk of investing in a major new revision of the SoC to keep production going. Otherwise, they would have needed to stop selling the Shield TV since 20nm is no longer available.

And not to discount their software support, either. 9 years of updates on an Android device is practically unheard of. Even flagship Android smartphones aren't getting that kind of support!

It's a side project that has been far more successful than it has any right to be. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that NVIDIA will build a successor based on the Switch 2's SoC.

That would be my assumption as well. The TV guys aren't going to pay for DP, no matter how cheap the additional BoM hit is. So every chip and TCON on the market can do HDMI, but DP collects a premium due to the costs of its technical differences being amortized over fewer devices.

Eh, that much is definitely true. Prior to the street date release of TOTK, the only version of Yuzu that the game ran on was the experimental version. The free version could not run the game.

> because correlation does not imply causation

The causation would be that you had to donate to get access to the experimental version of Yuzu that supported the then-new Zelda game (TOTK).

Nintendo said the company has earned at least $50,000 in paid Yuzu downloads. Nintendo said that Yuzu's Patreon doubled its paid members in the period between May 1 and May 12, when Tears of the Kingdom was released.

Assuming that Nintendo's claims are valid, that is very damning evidence. Having money involved with piracy-adjacent tools is already a tight rope to walk, but having revenue/donations double right when a highly-anticipated NIntendo game is about to be released (and is already being pirated) makes it darn near impossible to claim that the emulator isn't being used significantly (if not predominantly) for piracy.

Emulators themselves are perfectly legal. But since you have to bypass copyright protection mechanisms to get them to play games, it's still possible to fall afoul of the law.

AMD's NPU isn't nearly powerful enough to run a 13B parameter LLM.

Don't get me wrong, it's very cool. But it's derived from a computer vision processor design. It's intended for "mundane" tasks such as providing low-energy background blurring in video conferences and the like.

Third party app stores on iOS will not be as unrestrictive. Apps will still need to adhere to Apple's technical requirements in order to get notarized. Emulators (still) violate the "executable code" provision, for example.

So anything that was unacceptable to run on the Apple app store for technical reasons will still be unacceptable on third-party stores. The only real difference is that Apple won't be enforcing content restrictions, or making sure apps aren't just straight-up lousy (e.g. quality and content checking).

Which to get back to the topic at hand, is why the idea that open source applications are banned seems misplaced. If anything, since open source applications are typically distributed for free, they'd want to stay on Apple's store in order to avoid distribution fees.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there a particular reason that open source applications would need to be on a third-party app store?

We already have things like VLC and Signal on the official app store. The only thing that comes to mind as not being distributable in the current store is browsers.

As far as freedom and choice go, this is undoubtedly the right direction to be going.

But I am not looking forward to having to support my idiot relatives. Their inability to load up malicious applications has been the only thing that's made it possible to have tech products that don't require constant maintenance and repair. I am greatly concerned that scammers and other scumbags are going to take advantage of this to get malware onto iPhones and use that as a springboard for stealing valuable information.

There's something to be said for the value of a small secure computing terminal.

Thank you! Now I can make sense of this article.

AAC and Opus have pretty much obsoleted Vorbis except for highly CPU constrained systems. And if you're constrained enough, MP3 decodes faster than Vorbis (Realtime on 33Mhz ARM), and is no longer patented.

AAC-LC decoder patents should also be close to or past expiration as well. That spec was written in 1997, around half a decade after MP3. And the patents for that expired 6 years ago.

The fact that it happened raises more questions though about the design of the fuselage and the door installation.

It's my understanding that it's the same plug as used on the 737-900ER (the predecessor to the MAX9). So the design is 20(ish) years old. Which is part of what makes this so unusual.

CableCard is well on its way out. It's a solution designed around traditional multicasting of digital QAM streams, which has become an outdated method of delivering TV.

Cable providers are all moving towards pure IP networks. So Cable TV will just be another application on top of that stack delivered by IP.

Once that happens, cable boxes in general can start to be phased out. Customers can instead just load up the cable company's app on their now Smart TV. Or get a Roku/Firestick/whathaveyou if they still need an input source.