“We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” according to the document from Meta’s Reality Labs, which works on hardware including smart glasses."
Because existing cameras don't automatically identify people in public when you point them at them? I mean, Meta clearly understands how it's different - they're trying to toe the line between hoping certain groups with certain mandates don't notice too much, but the glasses doing what other cameras don't do is obviously a part of the utility sales pitch - so why don't you?
To be fair, the entire governmental apparatus of the United States seems to be going "Ideology? Super. Caring about reality? Fuck off."
Giving a shit about the details right now is forest for trees stuff. The electorate has handed over the keys to the child in the backseat, thinking, "Well it can't be that bad, and the adults were telling us stuff we didn't like to hear. Yee haw, cut those programs! Tax us less! Money is magic!"
No one is born a bigot. You elect to be stupid enough to be one.
Well also Ford and everyone else that spent a decade or more saying “nobody wants EVs”, saw Teslas’ success, and various government invcentaves and says “we are all in on EVs!”, and then when the incentives went away said “nobody wants EVs!”, is after the last week or so seeing record EV sales about to swing back to: “Yes EVs!”
So I won’t really take their opinions on the future with a lot of faith.
”only” about 20% of the world oil passes through it, so if we cut oil needs by 20% that’ll take a significant amount of the problem away. Which I know takes more then say filling half a desert with solar panels, we also have to buffer that energy for non-productive times, and convert things like oil burning heating systems into heat pumps and/or resistive heat systems, or regular cars into EVs (which mostly come with their own solution to the buffering issues). Very little of that is an engineering issue, it is mostly a “pay money and it can be done” problem. Which is the boring kind to fix because it is so “easy", but also frequently doesn’t get fixed (want to end homelessness? Buy everyone a home! End world hunger? Move the food from where it is currently rotting to where the hungry people are! We know how to move food (and people!), we just don’t do it!).
You may be right, but there are definitely PC vender executives who claim to be very worried about the Neo. Maybe foolishly, or maybe for once they are seeing a bigger picture, Apple is hitting one narrow slice here but in ways they can’t counter. They may be legit worried about other configurations taking other slices with no real counter.
I think Windows will provide an extremely large area for that market to “retreat” into though where Apple won’t really follow. I mean with some serious compatibility systems maybe, but this isn’t an x86 Mac, I don’t think BootCamp or any sort of windows emulation systems are going to take large chunks of the market...and then I remember SteamOS. So yes, Apple could embrace something like that, and that would take a big chunk out of the traditional laptop market...
You might have intended it as a joke, but semiconductor supplies go through the SoH, and while I don’t believe production has been interrupted due to a lack yet the supplies are being drawn down and will eventually run out resulting in increased cost for RAM, CPUs and GPUs and possibly even shortages. About a third of the helium supply goes via SoH and without it you ain’t getting more RAM, nor am I. Or MRI scans. Fortunately there are a few months of supply, more or less. Maybe less.
Yeah well, we can't all be a person who doesn't understand how things work. Kudos to you for being simple minded!
" The Kathmandu Post"
Ah we don't to pay for journalism, says a planet of suckers
Oh, that's pretty neat. Microsoft is definitely the right level to address this at - they already have permission to enumerate the HW, own the hardware and software infra to tackle this, enjoy economy of scale other players are not privvy too, and can deliver a solution in a vendor agnostic way. Thanks for the heads up. It's the right thing to happen.
Of course there are. Tragedy of the commons. My point is that no single entity is likely to absorb the costs unless they're already enjoying economy of scale advantages and there are business experience/optic benefits to doing so. The poster above you pointed out that Microsoft seems to be addressing this, which makes a lot more sense to me than doing it at the 3d HW vendor level.
Sure, but many people would opt in, especially if you explained that they would benefit.
Maybe. Maybe not. Before committing to developing such a thing, you'd have to at least do some research and analysis to find out if that's true and how the likely opt in/out ratios would impact the business case. Remember, this is hosting content in a daemon on your machine
It can't be only when the game is open - this is when gamers are most sensitive to their computers doing other work, and the available of such a network would be far more limited.
Also a torrent like network would be absolute loaded with cache misses. You need to fetch a shader from somebody who has the exact same hardware/drive/game version combination as you do, and they need to have opted in. I highly suspect the majority case for many would be to cache miss and end up compiling locally.
Asking people to host and serve a non-trivial amount of content to other players is a non-starter. (The size of compiling all the shaders for CoD can range from a couple gigs to 10 gigs.) Opting in to a torrent-like network would have to be opt in - many people would just opt out (justifiably or not) minimizing the point of such a network.
You can probably assume that if you've thought of something, they've thought of it too. They simply have constraints and considerations - both technical and business oriented - you don't need or want to account for.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.