A reminder - this isn't like situations in so many struggling democracies around the world where you have a 51%-49% election result and violence erupts as people won't accept the result. The junta's party won something like 5% of seats. This is a brutal coup with no support from the populace.

If the international community were halfway functional at all - the way it was for a brief window of time during the Clinton administration - there would be a United Nations intervention. But it's in Putin's and Xi Jinping's interest to promote chaos and squalor and to ensure dictators hold on to power.

While SSSE3 would disqualify more CPUs, it is very clear from Google's document that they're requiring SSE3, not SSSE3.

And that makes sense. While Intel introduced SSSE3 in 2006 and not too many people are using Chrome for Windows on processors older than that, AMD didn't introduce SSSE3 until 2011. The Steam survey shows 100% of Steam users with SSE3 but only ~99% with SSSE support. If Google wants to make use of newer instructions they'll do runtime detection or something.

It is rather unlikely that you're actually using a machine that doesn't support SSE3. The summary was wrong; Atoms and most anything else people are still holding on to are fine.

If you really are running Windows 7+ on a 2003-era CPU, here's the proper procedure for hardware acceleration:

1. Open the nearest window.
2. Unplug your computer.
3. Defenestrate your computer.

You have now reached the proper hardware acceleration: 9.8m/s^2 as it descends.

Unfortunate that TechSpot didn't check the facts before publishing.

All Atom models support SSE3 - even the document linked mentions that march=atom implies not only SSE3 but also SSSE3. The Celerons that are impacted are those based on Banias or Dothan; Dothan is a 2003 design. Yonah, Merom, and Penryn Celeron M processors support SSE3. Any Intel Core (not just Core 2) supports it, as do even Prescott Pentium 4s.

This will impact almost exactly nobody. Chrome dropped Windows XP support 5 years ago. If you're running Windows 7 or later, here in the year 2021, you are pretty certainly not running it on a 2003-era CPU. No reason to be whining here.

Hard to tell from the vapid article, but I imagine the actual paper does have some real contribution to make.

But the "this is a huge breakthrough! machines inventing new math!" headlines are absurdly overblown. There have been plenty of other algorithms useful for conjecturing formulas and relationships for particular constants, like the Ferguson-Forcade algorithm (1979), LLL lattice basis reduction ('82), and PSLQ ('92). See wikipedia. That has resulted in lots of little curiosities and some handfuls of actually useful formulas. The algorithm in the paper may come up with some more of both.

But with all the hype in the headline here, you'd think they'd come up with an artificial general intelligence which was solving Millennium problems.

Some form of hybridization is going to make sense for a lot of vehicles for a long time.

And I say this as someone who drives an electric car.

For instance, electric cars do poorly in bitter cold. Lots of reasons why - battery performance in the cold, the need to get working components up to temperature, the need to keep the occupants at temperature.

Some enterprising DIYers have discovered ways to add tiny fuel-burning heaters to their electric cars (largely, using aftermarket heaters intended for diesel trucks). It makes complete thermodynamic sense. Use electricity - pure low entropy energy which took a lot to generate - for doing work. Use a fossil fuel for generating your max-entropy heat.

The efficiency losses in electricity generation and transmission and storage and the coefficient of performance of a small heat pump just mean it's vastly more efficient to have a fossil fuel do some of that. It could substantially improve the car's "eMPG" in severe winter conditions. You'd be using maybe a tenth of a gallon of gas an hour (as compared to say 2 gallons per hour used by a conventional car) while saving a *ton* of your electricity for propulsion. In some cases people report nearly doubling winter range.

But you won't see manufacturers adopting it, simply because "all-electric" is the sales pitch and too many "green buyers" don't know what actually makes things efficient and environmentally-friendly.

There's a whole range of ways to better use our energy options, and saying you'll only produce zero-emission cars (which, there's no such thing really till grid is 100% renewables) is almost as silly as people still producing gas-only cars. (At least some mild hybrid features like stop-start should be completely universal by now.)

The article is long on hype and short on detail. And it makes sense that there's a lot of skeptical posts here; increases in theoretical bandwidth with past WiFi standards often didn't translate to large real-world improvements.

But here's the thing: beyond just adding more available bandwidth, 6GHz will be unoccupied by any older clients, so the features of 802.11ax can really come into play. The better modulation scheme (OFDMA) and improved efficiency of 802.11ax can result in roughly 4x improvements in both bandwidth and latency in dense congested settings - if all the equipment involved is on 802.11ax. If older clients are on the same spectrum - a near certainty on 2.4 and 5GHz for some years to come - then those improvements are hampered.

Amen. To add a little more - if you look at the early concept work for the original Star Wars, Lucas had a lot of stupid ideas along with a lot of intriguing ones. He was ready to adopt good ideas wherever they came from (Hidden Fortress, Joseph Campbell, or just some special effects guy) and listen to criticism. The collaborative effort made something great.

In the prequels you can see some of the kind of expansive imagination and storytelling drive that was at work in the original films, but the plots and characters didn't get anywhere near the kind of refinement they needed. Nobody dared question the great George Lucas. The result was a train wreck. But the sequels were far worse. Imagination and storytelling had gone out the window. Plot holes all over the place and no coherent vision.

The basic mode of operation here is "Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." It's apparent that things aren't working out so well, so munging the UI gets tried yet again rather than dealing with their fundamental organizational problems.

The stuff Flash was enabling in the days of Macromedia and Homestar Runner and AtomFilms was great. Then Adobe tried to turn it into a full "rich media platform" and it became a monster.

We still don't have any good replacement for .swf for the one thing Flash was good at. SVG animation is a nightmare and all the alternatives are just as bad. Many people have resorted to encoding their vector animations as raster H.264, simultaneously looking worse than a vector animation would while taking literally a hundred times the bitrate.

Several who knew him better have characterized him as humble. Examples here, here, and here.

That doesn't contradict your characterization of him as "basically honest" - indeed it strengthens it. Any "dishonest humility" is usually, though not always, a sign of vanity and pride - trying to appear humble, ingratiating, etc. If it isn't vanity, a false humility arises from some form of delusion - lack of self-awareness, certain kinds of mental health issues, etc.

Any real humility goes hand in hand with honesty about oneself and others, honesty about your accomplishments and others' and all the outside factors that contributed to them, and treating yourself as well as others with human dignity.

802.3bz hardware is starting to trickle out, but it's been 4 years since the standard was finalized, and I would have thought hardware would have fully caught up by now.

Until 2.5G ports and routers are common household items - the way 1G has been for fifteen years - I and many others will pass on 2G service.

I think the advocates of Net Neutrality and its detractors have a strong tendency to talk past each other, and I think it's largely because of how people frame the issue.

Net Neutrality was not important in dial-up days when the last-mile connection was a public utility and the internet service running on it was a competitive market. If you have 50 options for ISPs, market pressures will generally keep any of them from choosing to do nefarious things. If they did, customers would flock to other providers.

When people have only one to four options for getting broadband, that's just not true any more. I think there's plenty of room to debate specifics of net neutrality. I'm not sure whether banning zero-rating outright is the best way to regulate the practice. But the basic idea - products and services which are vital to modern life and only provided by a few oligopolies should have some basic regulation to preserve the public interest - is nothing new or specific to the Internet. It's the same kind of antitrust concerns that have been part of how we keep open markets working ever since 1890.

Beware of hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Problematic police behavior may not seem to be getting better quickly, but the tide has changed.

Look, there are plenty of horribly coded video ads that devour much more network data than that, basically peg a full CPU core, and stay that way until you leave the site, even if they're not visible and even if the window doesn't have focus.

Of course I'd prefer the limits be lower. But even just having any limit at all will force changes in behavior. Those designing ads have simply treated bandwidth and CPU use as completely unlimited resources. Forcing them to rethink that will be revolutionary.