>In fact, Google has effectively stopped publishing the breakdown percentage of which Android devices are running which version of Android entirely

I've found that Google's Android Stuidio app creator regularly provides an updated summary showing percent of devices running various versions of Android. Android Studio 4.0 was released in May 2020. Just go to create a new project in Android Studio and it shows you this summary:

Min Android Version Percent of Devices
4.1 Jelly Bean 99.80%
4.4 KitKat 98.10%
5.0 Lollipop 94.10%
6.0 Marshmallow 84.90%
7.0 Nougat 73.70%
8.0 Oreo 60.80%
9.0 Pie 39.50%
10 Android 10 8.20%

Agree on the up to $650. I went to the trade-in site and see an old Macbook A1181 trade-in is only $75. Of course that device was released in 2009.

We need to better address security implications before autonomous cars become mainstream. How do you stop someone from programming a car to drive to a destination and then explode? If the driver doesn't have to be in the car, that same single "driver" can continue to cause mayhem with multiple cars.

Plenty of people have people are already running Windows 10. Anyone can signup and download it for free: http://windows.microsoft.com/e...

I'm running it on this 2008 laptop right now. This box was previously running Windows 7 and was running slow after several years without a clean OS install. Windows 10 seems pretty snappy and is much more intuitive as a desktop OS than Windows 8.

A few features I like better than Windows 7 in my first 24 hours of usage:
*Improved task manager detail (looks like the Windows 8 version at a quick blush)
*Improved file transfer speed information (same as Windows 8)
*The start menu is back, and it's easy to add/remove items from the quick access list

Features I don't like as much:
*I can see bars of strength for my wifi connection but I haven't figured out how to easily see whether I'm connected via G, N, or AC and current Mbps settings of the connection
*The news application has potential, but is so slow starting up most people won't bother with it

The apps that almost every day release an update with no apparent change in functionality really get under my skin. I hate getting notified that there is a new update or a new version installed for special events the vendors have way too often. Those are the first ones to go for me.

Here's a summary of some of the most insightful discussions posted on slashdot when this discussion came up last week:

nVidia Issues:
*Proprietary drivers that don’t always survive kernel upgrades. So people who rely on nVidia's proprietary binary drivers can't always update their kernel or they lose their graphics until nVidia puts out an update. (from UnknowingFool) nVidia only provide a binary blob driver which makes bug fixing for it dependent on Nvidia's whims. (from AC)
*open source drivers – nVidia refuses to provide specs and API's for their hardware which make writing open drivers much more difficult and time-consuming because of having to reverse-engineer everything to get a workable driver. (from AC) As a result, open source drivers are unable to use full card functionality like full 3D acceleration (from UnknowingFool)

Summary of graphic chip vendor support (from Lonewolf666):
*AMD provides specifications and a small developer team that actually works on open source drivers.
*Intel provides open source drivers.
*NVIDIA makes good binary drivers, but those have problems when a new kernel version comes out with changed interfaces: Only NVIDIA can adapt them, and until they get around to it, NVIDIA may not work with the latest kernel version.

From rajafarian: If the kernel maintainers have a question about the hardware, they can't ask NVIDIA they have to test and reverse engineer to find the answer whereas with other companies, they may get an answer directly from the manufacturer. Get it? "...NVIDIA just made the damn drivers. Now that is not good enough." Not from a kernel maintainer's or Stallman's point of view, I'm pretty sure.

From jmorris42 : Name another major chip vendor who hasn't figured out that getting into the Linux kernel is a required checkoff for market success. Doubly so for any product used in the enterprise vs the fanboi market. NVidia's CUDA is about the entire list these days, the last major holdout.

From basscomm: Windows users who have SLI and multiple monitors have been able to enable SLI and use both of their monitors at the same time since about 2008. But under Linux, no dice. So if I had two monitors (which I do), and two Nvidia GPUs in SLI mode (which I do), and I wanted to run some 3D app that took advantage of SLI, I would have to: reconfigure X to disable my second monitor and enable SLI, restart X, play the game/use the app I wanted, when I was done I would have to reconfigure X again to enable my second monitor and disable SLI, restart X again, and reopen all my apps. Hardly ideal.

Given all of this discussion, here are a few ways nVidia could work better with the community:
*Open Source drivers - 1) provide specs 2) provide developer team that works on the OS drivers 3) provide rep to interface with the OS community 4) provide enough detail to get 3D working well
*Proprietary drivers - 1) monitor upcoming kernel builds and proactively update drivers before the next kernel release or 2) have a dedicated nVidia contact to work on updating drivers ASAP when notified that an upcoming kernel build breaks them
*Overall - enhannce SLI and multiple monitor support,

Back in Feb, slashdot posted Google's White Paper on Hard Disk Failures. This is the largest known study on hard drive failure rates.

If a drive is showing strong SMART errors, it is a good indication that the drive is failing. However, only 44% of the failed drives in this study had any count in any of the four strong SMART signals, namely scan errors, reallocation count, offline reallocation, and probational count. "In other words, models based only on those [SMART] signals can never predict more than half of the failed drives."

Other cool findings:

• Lack of a consistent pattern of higher failure rates for higher temperature drives
• Lack of a consistent pattern for drives at higher utilization levels.