Do people here immediately recognize that this shakes down almost exactly the same in the Android vs iPhone marketplace? Or does the cluestick cease to cover the Pareto distribution once user ids reach six digits? (Exactly as predicted by the Pareto distribution through his hubba hubba spokesperson, Dunning Kruger.)

iPhone vs Android market share — 8 February 2019

Statcounter reports that over the January 2018 to January 2019 period Android made up a massive 74.45% of the sector, with iOS way back on 22.85%.

Profits are a much different lens.

There are a lot better choices in the middle of the road between the two - especially Asus and Netgear on the consumer side.

The Airport devices were very prone to overheating and then losing their configuration.

If your aging wifi equipment hasn't been updated recently, it's probably vulnerable to a bunch of WPA2 attacks.

Cool, he made it

They used to be totally separate, then someone decided or ran some study indicating that making the PC site look and behave as close as possible to the mobile site was a "better" way of doing things, either to not confuse millennials who were used to the mobile version if they ever accidentally found themselves using a PC, or maybe as part of a long term scheme to convince PC users to give the mobile version a try, or maybe a reason altogether much more moronic. But it's undeniable that in the last 5 years the overwhelming number of sites have switched to mobile UIs even for the PC.

Not as different as it used to be, and it depends greatly on the browser you're using. Firefox and Chrome are total bullshit; Waterfox is still halfway usable. I guess there's some user agent string magic going on here.

Google news is total shit. New Reddit is total shit (You can easily compare its mobile-i-fication by checking out "old.reddit.com", which they've threated to remove eventually.) The list goes on and on. And the new UI elements are clearly, *clearly* mobile UI elements. Especially the elimination of sidebars. Sidebars often make a shit ton of sense on widescreens; not so much on mobile.

A motorized paraglider is cheaper and simpler. Typical recreational outfits cost about ten grand have a range of about a hundred miles -- enough to cross the channel about 3x -- and a service ceiling of 18,000 feet. It's probably the cheapest way to get into powered flight.

Also be sure to set your WEP password to match your network's SSID.

My (aging but still chugging along) Apple Airport Extreme was not affected by the original Dragonfly attacks. I suspect these new variants won't impact my equipment either.

It's really too bad Apple stopped making wifi equipment. I found it to be pretty robust compared to the D-Link and Linksys hardware I'd previously owned.

Well, it is a playing of words about: "what's up!!?"

An american 'slang greeting' made 'famous' in a TV show. Many use it as s greeting in a phone call.

If they are going to crack everything that comes out, might as well go back to the simplest.

Even in the days of the x86, they got there by accident.

Guess you've never heard of a "pivot" before.

Before pivots had their Andy Warhol moment: lucky lightning strike; after pivots become the in thing: just another day in the office at Innovation Inc.

[*] Here "Inc." stands for Incarnate.

The 432 was intended to be the successor of the 386, but it was complicated and late.

Meanwhile Intel had an 860 team and a follow-on 486 team competing with each other.

———

Oral History of John H. Crawford 2014 Computer History Museum Fellow — 24 February 2014

So I think that the key to success of the 486 was not that we were going to beat RISC but we were going to be able to keep up and we were able to adopt a lot of the same engineering techniques, maybe not the same but we were able to get performance that was consistent with that.

Well, we had to spend more transistors. It was more complicated. But we had a big enough market to justify the investment, so our goal was not to beat all the RISC guys. Our goal was to be within, I don't know, 20 percent or something of performance, at which point we thought that other considerations would carry the day, and we still could be quite successful. Yeah, the key thing was the one clock per instruction throughput on the 486.

And a couple of interesting things about that. I had mentioned Pat Gelsinger's push to accommodate that within the execution pipeline. Even before that I remember a conversation with engineers from Sun and Bill Joy was in the audience, and we were probably trying to sell him on the 386, and back and forth questions.

And a question that he asked that really struck me as profound was, "Well, how do you know when to start ..." because we had this complicated instruction set. "How many clocks does it take you from the time you star t decoding one instruction to know where the next one starts?"

And that's a key parameter that we had to deal with in order to get one clock per instruction throughput. I mean in order to get one clock per instruction throughput everything has to happen at a one clock pace. So you start decoding one instruction. Next clock you better be decoding the next one or you missed it.

He goes on to explain that you sort of had to guess about instruction boundaries, but your accuracy turned out to be 95 to 99 percent. And then you also had to guess a bit prefetching from the microcode ROM, but here your quick path covered 90% of the cases.

———

So Intel actually had three different approaches running in parallel, and the different groups sometimes cross fertilized.

But it was a friendly rivalry; in fact, Les Kohn [of the 860 RISC team] was very helpful in helping us set direction for the cache that we were going to put on the 486. I think he provided a cache simulator and a couple of other things we were able then to change to try to predict how things might operate and what size we should try to focus on and some of those kind of questions.

Through the fuller lens of history, this begins to look less like a pivot, and more like covering your bases in spades.

———

Intel is no stranger to bad management. We don't need to revise history to invent more bad management that actually existed, over and above what's already tumbling out of the horn of plenty.

"Flying car"? Calling bullshit right now. That sounds like a straight up scam in the making.

Until there is some massive Nobel Prize winning breakthrough in power generation/storage (think Tony Stark's fictional arc reactor), flying cars aren't going to be a thing in any practical sense. Yes we can make a "car" that can fly or a plane that can drive but nothing you'd actually want to use for both because physics is kind of a bitch that way. To make it light enough to fly you have to make huge compromises on the features that make it a good car. And all the stuff that allows it to drive merely adds weight when it gets in the air making it a shitty plane too. With a power supply of sufficient density you could get around this but there is nothing we are even in the slightest danger of making within my lifetime even in theory. (and if it is that powerful heat is going to be a BIG issue)

Then there is the chicken and egg problem of infrastructure. Let's say for the sake of argument that someone does develop a practical flying car. Great. Problem is that there is NO infrastructure in place to support such a beast. Where would you land it from the air? Your only options right now are airports and helipads and if you are landing there then there is literally no economic advantage to a flying car. You certainly won't be able to land in a typical parking lot. And then how do you plan to fly and navigate? Very few people are trained pilots and our automation systems are still a long way off from being able to fly grandma to/from the local megamart with confidence and safety. Not to say all this couldn't be eventually developed but unless there is actually a practical flying car nobody is going to bother developing the (very very expensive) infrastructure and ripping up the systems we already.

My company for a while make parts for a company that made a jet ski that had retractable wheels to become an ATV. It was even featured on Top Gear (with a positive reaction from Jeremy Clarkson) and it was a pretty cool piece of tech that actually worked. If flopped and the company that made it went tits up. Why? Because it was cheaper to just buy an jetski and an ATV - a LOT cheaper. Hardly anyone actually needed or wanted a machine that could do both but they might have been able to sell it if it cost less than the devices it replaced. Even if they solve the technical problems with a flying car (unlikely) the economics of it still are likely to kill it dead. Sometimes it's just better to have a device that does one thing well than a machine that does multiple things inefficiently.

But why

Ask Youtube.

And can pick later from hundreds of submissions?

Other than the decades of evidence against it.

Of course, anything to avoid addressing that various social issues that have turned modern society into a pressure cooker for enough people that they're starting to crack with alarming regularity.

People are making the mistake of reading too much into the Zen2 family release. Whether AMD or Intel, the first, freshest release of CPUs are always in small quantity, and have growing pains. This is all aimed for November/December.

A room full of bored Russians posting memes and propaganda.

Some Koreans with a picture of the Dear Leader in the background and a stack of bitcoin miners.

British guys in business apparel checking their latest assignments from the NSA, with one guy in the corner spying on his ex.

Man in India with a headset on, with an open RDP session to grandma's desktop, reading from a script.

We should hold off on buying that new AP we've been coveting.

And the vegetation regrowth in Florida is darn quick.

You have to be kidding. What steam user is going to buy 6TB worth of SSD storage for their games? They'll just buy 2TB, and swap in and out the games they *very* infrequently play. Change that picture to someone who likes to play games while transcoding their latest movie/TV series. Those people will still buy 6TB worth of SSD, but they'll be buying the AMD CPUs. Intel's multithreading is nerfed for another family generation.