LAwLz

Yes, because as we know on-prem setups are always 100% flawlessly configured and never have any issues... In case someone think I am serious, a recent estimate said that around 25% of all on-prem Exchange servers were not up to date with security patches and had big security vulnerabilities in them. I suspect the number for other on-prem services is about the same. That number doesn't even count misconfigurations which probably would result in an even higher number of vulnerabilities. People who think they do a better job than Google/Microsoft at configuring services properly are most likely naive and don't understand the complexity of the subject at hand. Not to mention the 20/20 hindsight and all that...

Or they might have gotten bored and quit 2 months later because programming wasn't for them. Which is why they should start off with what they have and don't start buying things before they feel like they need them. 3000 dollars worth of gym equipment will make workouts better, but it's not something someone who is just starting out should buy. You need to actually try things out before going all out and blowing a bunch of money on equipment you may end up never using or needing.

I would argue that iPadOS is already very friendly to professional work. The amount of iPads I see being used for work-related tasks is quite high. Here are some examples just at the top of my head: Wi-Fi Site Surveys (especially the LiDAR-equipped iPads are great for this). Real estate brokers who use them at house showings (check off people who signed up, or add new people who showed up). Event planners use them for guest lists and checklists. Construction managers who use them on sites. Sports coaches use them all the time from what I've seen. Some of the doctors I've seen use them to access patient data. They are super popular with inventory management software in warehouses and manufacturing plants. I've seen plenty of guides who use them when on holiday and at museums. Some photographers I've seen use them for showing images, and quickly do light edits. Plenty of restaurants I've been to use them for self-ordering kiosks, or the waiters use them when taking orders. We had an interior designer at work a while ago and then used an iPad to take notes and show examples. I think that when most people talk about how limited the iPad is for work, they are referring to a specific type of work that has traditionally been done on laptops. To me it seems more like it should be the programs that adapt to the iPad, rather than the other way around. The iPad has become so successful in a lot of areas because it works the way it does. There is a reason why the lines of work I mentioned earlier went to the iPad instead of a laptop or something similar. I think that morphing iPadOS into a more MacOS-like version would introduce some potential issues. A switch could be confusing, and app developers probably don't like the idea of having to adapt their apps so that they work on both a touch and a keyboard interface. I mean, it would be nice if I could just buy an iPad Pro and then have it run MacOS, but doing so introduces headaches for both iPadOS app developers as well as MacOS developers. At least from a usability and UI perspective. iPadOS apps are designed for the touch interface. MacOS apps are designed for the keyboard interface. As soon as you introduce touch screens to MacOS devices you run the risk of ending up in the same situation as Windows is in. Some apps support touch well, some poorly, and some not at all. It becomes hard to meet the users expectation, and every time their expectation isn't met they get disappointed.

I think sharing your experience can be a good thing. However, it's important to differentiate these scenarios from what the OP might require as a beginner hobbyist learning Python. In a corporate setting, the advantages of additional monitors are tied to the demands of multi-tasking, managing complex projects, and enhancing workflow efficiency over long hours. These setups are optimized for professional tasks and supported by company budgets. For someone just starting a hobby in programming, the scenario is quite different. The initial stages of learning to code focus more on understanding basic concepts and simple projects, which can be done on a single screen without issues. Since a beginner might not have the necessary knowledge to differentiate between different contexts (professional vs hobby, expert vs beginner) they may see your post as an encouragement to adopt a professional-grade setup that might not only be overkill but could also lead to confusion and unnecessary expense. They might mistakenly believe that equipment that optimizes a professional workflow is essential for learning effectively, which is not the case. As a more experienced member in a field, it is important to provide guidance that is not just accurate but also accessible and relevant to the learning stage the person you are responding to is at. Starting with what they already have, ensuring they can focus on the learning process itself without being overwhelmed by the idea that they need a professional setup to make any progress is usually the way to go. To make an analogy, if someone new to strength training asks for advice then it would be irresponsible for a professional bodybuilder to post their workout routine and go "this is what I do". Even if they posted an explanation for the workout it is not guaranteed that the person reading the response will understand it fully and think that adopting that routine is the wy to go. It would most likely result in physical harm and a feeling of failure for the beginner who tried to adopt that workout routine and who may think "this is what everyone else does so I should do it too". I don't want to single you out, because I see this happen on this forum a lot. Responses have to be tailored towards the person who asked the question. It is not enough to just go "this is what I do" without making sure it is understandable by someone who has little or no knowledge in the field.

The ToS explicitly states that you have access to Netflix content primarily within the country in which you have established your account. Using a VPN to access content outside of the geographic location outside of the one where you established your account would violate these rules. The rules also explicitly states that you are not allowed to circumvent any content protection (which is also part of the DMCA). Using a VPN do circumvent DRM, since geo-restrictions are a type of DRM. You are not allowed to use a tool to get around DRM. The DRM is circumvented. "The detection isn't completely removed, just tricked" holds about as much water as spoofing an activation server and redirecting activation requests for let's say a game to the spoofed server. It's true that you didn't remove the DRM, but you circumvented its intended purpose, which is not allowed. Netflix also do continuously hunt down and block VPNs. The law is fairly clear about this. Is there some mechanism in place that restricts access and control over content? Then you are not allowed to mess with it. You're not allowed to disable it, modify it, trick it, block it from serving its purpose, or anything of that sort. That is both in the DMCA, as well as the Netflix ToS. There are plenty of things sold as a service that can be used for illegal things. I just looked through the marketing material for some big VPN providers such as NordVPN, PIA, SurfShark and ExpressVPN, and none of the advertising for example accessing the Netflix catalog of countries for other countries. ExpressVPN advertise watching Netflix, but it seems very carefully worded to not mention getting around geo-restrictions. It basically just says "you can watch Netflix while connected to the VPN" and then nearby it mentions being able to secure a video stream while on public Wi-Fi. AdBlockers are different because you aren't circumventing DRM. AdBlockers modify which content is fetched (and/or disabled). It's basically like writing a script that changes the background color of a website. There are also arguments to be made about the ToS of the websites and the agreement process. It's just a very different situation compared to Netflix. Tricking a website into serving you content that would otherwise not have been available to you by using an AdBlocker on the other hand is far more clear-cut. That is not allowed for the same reasons using a VPN to trick a server into serving you content that you would otherwise not have access to isn't allowed. The EU hasn't made region blocking illegal, and Netflix are still allowed to block content based on region. I assume you are referring to EU Regulation 2018/302. There are some very important details in that regulation. 1) It only applies to restrictions between different EU countries. Even if Netflix was subject to this regulation (more on this later), they would still be allowed to put up geo-restrictions between for example the US and some European countries. The restrictions are only not allowed to exist when it is between EU member countries. 2) The regulation specifically addresses what it calls "unjustified geo-blocking". It is not a blanket ban on all geo-restrictions. 3) The important part in the regulation regarding this debate is in paragraph 8. I'll quote it for you: The law itself specifically mentions broadcasting of sports events as an example, but the way I read it (with my very limited legal knowledge), the exemption applies to other audiovisual services where territorial licenses exist as well.

I'm not sure why some are referencing work-related environments. While it's true that an additional monitor could boost productivity in a corporate setting, the original poster didn't suggest this is related to their job. They mentioned they are just beginning to learn Python. Just because something is beneficial for a corporation doesn't necessarily mean it's a practical investment for someone who is exploring a potentially short-lived hobby

That's not how it works. Like, actually not how it works, at all. You might think it is how it should work, but that doesn't mean it works that way. When you subscribe to for example Netflix, you are only allowed access to the library for the country you reside in. Using a VPN to trick Netflix into thinking you are in a different country is against the terms of service, as well as the contracts signed with Netflix and the content providers. You are breaking the terms of service if you use a VPN, and you are potentially committing an act of piracy as well since you are using techniques to circumvent DRM protection. You are accessing material you did not rightfully pay for. You paid for the content library that is available in the country you are physically located in, not the content library for a country you are pretending to be in. I know it sucks that it works this way, but just because we disagree with the contracts doesn't mean we are free to break them. Think of digital goods as being shipped into the country. There is a substance very similar to Zyklon B that you can buy in certain countries. Just because it is legal to buy in those countries doesn't mean you can just buy it online and have it shipped to your country (presumably the US) and go "well I paid for it so you can't say I can't have it".

When I studied programming I used a 13" 1360x768 laptop (with a core 2 duo). It wasn't optimal, but it wasn't really a limiting factor either. I feel like a lot of people on this forum pick up some computer-related hobby (programming, video editing, 3D modeling etc) and then the first thing they do is start buying a bunch of stuff. I am not sure if they just use the thing they are learning as an excuse to justify buying a bunch of things, or if they think that buying things will make them better programmers/artists/editors. In any case, you do not need a bunch of expensive stuff when learning the fundamentals. If you feel like you are getting neck strains then I would look into maybe moving things around on your desk instead. Maybe some monitor is too far away? Maybe you should try having both monitors in portrait? Maybe the desk and/or chair is the wrong height? Things like that.

I am not so sure VPNs do tout anonymity as one of the main benefits. I think a lot of them talk about privacy but that's not the same thing as anonymity. I think the "privacy" argument is very much overplayed as well though, since that too relies on a "we pinky promise that we don't look at your traffic".

I wonder what they are going to use all that power for. When Qualcomm announced their NPU upgrade they demoed running LLM models like Llama and generating images with Stable Diffusion locally. Maybe I missed it but the only thing I saw Apple demo was "hold to cut out", which is something they can already do.

I just noticed that the M4 in the 256GB and 512GB version of the iPad Pro has 3 performance cores (+6 efficiency), while the M4 in the 1TB and 2TB model has 4 performance cores (+6 efficiency). Has Apple done this before? Disabled one perform core. They also bumped the RAM from 8GB to 16GB om the 1TB+ models. The GPU is the same though. It seems like it's just one performance core that is disabled.

It's a shame, although probably deliberate, that Apple didn't compare the M3 to the M2 during that announcement. If they had done that we would have been able to figure out how big of an improvement it would have been going from the M3 to the M4. I am surprised that they announced the M4 this early. N3 to N3E doesn't seem like a big improvement though. Maybe like 5% better power and performance? I think, as you said, that if there is a performance improvement then it will probably be from the extra efficiency cores, or perhaps the faster RAM (20% increase in bandwidth). They also said they improved some other things like the branch predictor was improved and that the CPU architecture is now wider, which might increase performance a bit. But consider they didn't compare it to the M3 I suspect that it will be somewhat minor architectural improvements.

VPNs are not meant to anonymize you. They never have, and never will. If you want anonymity, use Tor. If your selling point (anonymity) relies on a "trust me bro" policy about not logging then it is not a good service. VPNs have some other benefits though. So don't take my post as saying "VPNs are useless". This vulnerability isn't really about anonymity though. My guess is that Microsoft will patch it, if the VPN providers can set their route priority lower than what the dhcp option then Microsoft won't have to do anything. Please note that this attack requires a malicious DHCP server. It won't be an issue at home, but it might be an issue at for example a coffee shop. It is also detectable. So if you are worried, check your routing table.

Doesn't it seem way too early for an M4 announcement? M1 - 2020-11-10 M2 - 2022-06-24 (19 months later) M3 - 2023-10-30 (16 months later) M4 - 2024-05-07 ?? (6 months later) It's a shame that it seems like they won't upgrade the iPad (only the Air and Pro).

It's 9% faster at 1080p and 14% faster at 1440p. I rounded that to 10%. It only gets close to 20% difference when we start talking about 4K gameplay, but I am not that interested in that nor do I think people buying these cards should game at those resolutions anyway. ~60 FPS at 1440p is a way better experience than ~30 FPS at 4K. So I would say it is between 10-15% faster at the resolutions that matter. For a 20% higher price, that is a bad deal. I don't see anything wrong with it. Let me guess, too little VRAM? Maybe this is just me being ignorant of what games people on this forum plays, but I have never seen a lack of VRAM as an issue. It seems to me like you generally run into performance issues unrelated to VRAM before you start hitting VRAM limitations. For example in the Cyberpunk 2077 benchmark I posted earlier the 6800 with its 16GB of VRAM is essentially in the same ballpark of playability as the 4060 Ti with its 8GB of VRAM. The same applies to other games as well. The 4060 Ti with its 8GB of VRAM easily manages 100+ FPS in DOOM Eternals even at 4K. At 1440p Elden RIng runs just as fine on the 4060 Ti as it does on the 6800. Are there any good benchmarks and evidence that it is VRAM holding some cards back, and that you need X amount of GB to run some games? I am not talking about "I measured VRAM usage when I played a game and it said it used 9GB so 8GB wouldn't be enough" because that is a terrible way of measuring things. The reason why it is terrible is because the more RAM and VRAM you have, the more things gets cached or the longer it takes before unused assets gets expunged. I am currently sitting at 6.3GB of RAM usage. That's not because I actually need 6.3GB. If I removed 16 of my 32GB of RAM my RAM usage would drop without me noticing any difference in performance. My computer uses more RAM because it has more available. Same with VRAM. I also don't like the whole "you will need X in the future so you should buy it now", because it is rarely true. Buy what you need, when you need it. Don't buy a worse graphics card today because it has more VRAM, just because you might need it in the coming years. It's better to buy the superior product today, and then upgrade IF the performance isn't satisfactory in the future. Also, I tend to believe that a lot of games that people like to use as benchmarks are basically just benchmarks. They aren't games that people actually play. They look impressive and demand a lot from hardware, but the games people actually play are games that runs great on lower-end hardware. I don't see that changing in the future either. I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you please be more specific? Are you saying the HUB chart does include the 4060, 7700 XT and 7900 XTX? Are you saying nope to where I think they would be placed on the HUB chart? Which two cards are you saying onlu has a 2% difference in terms of price to performance? I mentioned 4 different cards and in your response to only say "it", which makes it very hard to follow what you are saying. Are you saying the 6700 XT is within 2% of the 4060 in terms of price to performance? TPU puts the 4060 above the 6700 XT in terms of price to performance.

What do you mean? I could understand your point that performance per dollar isn't everything if the performance is very low, like a 1030 might have great performance per dollar, but the overall performance is so low it can't be used for what people want. But in this case we are talking about cards that are all quite good in terms of performance, especially when talking about 1080p or 1440p gaming at reasonable frame rates (not 150+ FPS). What do you mean when you say the 4060 Ti 8GB is good value when "devoid of actual performance"? Look further down on the TPU chart. The HUB chart is missing the 4060 which would probably be somewhere above the 7700 XT in terms of price to performance. The HUB is also missing the 7900 XTX which would probably be near the bottom of the list (below the 4070 Ti Super). There are also some differences in how large the gaps are. On TPU for example, the difference between the 4060 Ti and the 6700 XT in terms of price to performance is Less than 1 percent. On HUB the difference is ~16%. It's quite a big difference when one site says two cards are within 1% of each other, and the other says one card is 16% better (in terms of price to performance). The cheapest 6800 I could find (not many stores in Sweden have it) costs ~535 USD. I would rather get the 4060 Ti for 442 USD. The 6800 might be ~10% faster, but it's 21% more expensive.

That's a pretty big "IF", and other websites do not seem to align with those results. TechPowerUp's "performance per dollar" chart shows a far more varied list. Not just all AMD cards at the top and all Nvidia cards at the bottom. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-radeon-rx-7900-gre-tuf/32.html I don't know if TechPowerUp uses some raytracing games in their battery of ~25 games though. That might explain some of the varying results. What I do know however is that when I have done price-to-performance comparisons in Sweden, when I was interested in buying a new graphics card, Nvidia and AMD were within ~5% of each other at the price points I was looking at (300-400 USD equivalence). That was quite a while ago though. I just had a look at Swedish stores and the RTX 4060 and the RX 7600 are basically the same price (less than a 20 dollar difference). The 4060 is slightly more expensive but also performs slightly better. So price to performance-wise, they are essentially the same. That's for cards in the ~400 dollar range. Things might be different if I were to look at ~1000 dollar graphics cards, but those don't interest me, and I feel like people who spend that much on graphics cards don't exactly care about price-performance ratios either. RX 6700 RTX 4060

I *think* it is a combination of: 1) Nvidia working with far more system integrators and thus getting a much larger part of the prebuilt system buyers (which is the majority). 2) AMD only being competitive in certain aspects but being behind in others. I also think that people on this forum overestimate the value proposition of AMD. From what I have seen, although this varies a lot by price point and country, Nvidia and AMD have fairly similar price-to-performance ratios. I think the real myth is the whole "Nvidia is expensive and AMD are the price:performance kings".

Has Nvidia really marketed themselves that way? I think I would struggle to find any marketing from them that suggests that. I don't see many people in this thread acting that way either. I really get the impression from your post that you are projecting right now. If anything, this forum likes to praise AMD a lot and oftentimes come up with wild conspiracy theories to justify disliking Nvidia. I am not sure what the prices look like right now, but if both of them are comparable then I don't see any reason to pick an inferior product, even if it is just slightly inferior. I base this statement on your post, not some idea I have gotten through marketing material. I would say I interpret your post as a defense for AMD, and yet your second paragraph is about how AMD's competing features are slightly worse than what Nvidia offers. It is not a great look when even the people advocating for you starts their posts with "they aren't that far behind". I just looked up some random reviews from TechPowerUp and performance per dollar seems to be pretty even between AMD and Nvidia graphics cards. For example when I looked up the RTX 4060 on TechPowerup their "performance per dollar" chart shows the 4060 offering higher or very similar performance per dollar than the comparable AMD products. I looked up the 4070 Super and that too offered better or very similar price to performance according to TechPowerUp. When I bought my GTX 1060 I was comparing it to AMD and they were essentially the same price, but the Nvidia one offered slightly higher performance and far more features (far better encoding was the big one). It would have been a bad decision to buy the AMD graphics card in that situation because I would have gotten a worse product for basically the same price (like a 20-dollar difference). But I also think people on this forum are a bit too caught up in their own little world and get blinded by how "regular people" shop. The "build your own PC" crowd is rather small. I don't have any numbers, but considering how two of Nvidia's laptop chips are outselling even the most popular AMD GPUs it is pretty safe to say that the "prebuilt" market is a major factor. It might just be that AMD does not have the same connections and deals with system integrators as Nvidia. If I go to for example HP's website and look at their gaming computers, pretty much all of them have Nvidia graphics. There is a fairly large mix of AMD and Intel on the CPU side, but AMD is nonexistent on the GPU side.

Totally agree with you. Competition pretty much always results in better products. I am just stating facts that AMD's sales have been really poor, and seem to continue on a downward trajectory. I am not that surprised that MSI might be leaving that market.

In my opinion (and I am fairly sure it was Linus' opinion back when he made the investment that) I shouldn't have to watch the entire video in order to be informed about an important piece of information. I believe it is important for information like whether or not the review contains a huge conflict of interest to be very front and center. It should preferably be the first sentence of the video if you ask me. I have now watched up until the 4-minute mark and so far he has not mentioned the investment in the competing company. If he ever mentions it in the video, it is far too late in my opinion. Especially since he frontloaded the video with the complaints.

Is Linus still an investor in Framework, the laptop company? The reason why I ask is because when Linus invested in that company he made quite a lot of statements regarding how he would handle things from now on as to not have a conflict of interest. I think ideas like him potentially not hosting laptop videos at all were mentioned, but later they settled on him making it obvious with a statement that he had a conflict of interest whenever he talked about other laptops. I watched the first 2 minutes of this video and so far he hasn't mentioned this conflict of interest at all. Maybe he mentions it later in the video but I feel like such important information should be made very clear at the start of the video.