LAwLz

I don't see why it would be hard at all.
Did you write this post on your keyboard?
If you can type on your keyboard then you can program. 

I agree on the notion. However, since "free speech" and "human rights" or something is commonly used as reasoning on why we shouldn't have right to enforce set rules, thats the counter to that. Freedom of expression laws don't apply. But neither should or in cases even is legal for any company to enforce rules or conditions that would silence or discriminate certain groups. 

It's just to determine the concentration of oil in the product. The more there are, the longest lasting it will be. 
 
Eau fraiche is basically your aftershave. Last 30 minutes to an hour.
Cologne tends to last about 2 hrs or so. 5% or less.
Eau de toilette (EDT) usually last a bit longer but not by much, around 3-4 hrs. Typically around 5% to 10%, some go to 15%.
Eau de parfum (EDP) has a higher concentration and can last anywhere between 5 to 8 hours. Around 20% oil concentration.
Parfum, is by itself at the top if we exclude pure oil. Easily lasting a day. Can go to around 30% and even 40% in oil concentration.
 
Obviously the higher concentrations are more expensive. It also entirely depends on your use case and how long you want/need to smell.
I don't know if there are actual guidelines in the industry for these. This is just info I found online.
 
But please. Do everyone a favor... Don't empty the entire bottle on yourself. 2 sprays at the minimum. 5 MAX.
I swear some people are spraying this stuff all over themselves and you can still smell them 10 minutes after they passed through an area.

There is quite a lot of misinformation (or very vague terms) about this news piece floating around. Even the source article itself seems to get some things wrong or at the very least makes misleading remarks.
 
1) Android devices going quite far back already had support for AV1. What is changing is that the decoder is being changed from libgav1 (Google's own AV1 decoder) to dav1d (the AV1 decoder developed by VideoLAN). So nothing is changing in terms of what devices can and can't play. It's just that the new decoder is better than the old one.
 
2) When talking about which formats a device supports or doesn't support it is very important to specify "software support" and "hardware support". Pretty much all devices support AV1 decoding in software. Very few support it in hardware. 
 
3) Just because your device reports support for a certain video format does not mean an app will use it. On Android, when an app fetches the list of supported formats the OS specifies if decoding of the format is supported in software, hardware or both. In other words, just because your phone supports AV1 decoding in software doesn't mean an app will just decide to fetch that format for you. The app itself will have information about which formats are supported in hardware and which aren't, and makes a decision based on that.
 
4) Just because the Youtube app, or any other app for that matter, uses the new dav1d decoder doesn't mean it will automatically fetch an AV1 video. Which video it decides to fetch is a separate from which formats are supported. As I said earlier, nothing in this chance from libgav1 to dav1d changes what devices report as supported formats. If Youtube now decides to play AV1 videos on devices that doesn't support hardware accelerated AV1 decoding then it is because the Youtube app doesn't care, not because of some OS change that messes with what gets reported as supported video formats.
 
5) Something to keep in mind is that AV1 is very easy to decode in software. Last time I checked, the OnePlus 8 with its quad Cortex-A77 CPU (Snapdragon 865) was able to easily get 250+ FPS when decoding high bitrate 1080 footage on just its CPU.
Even a single Cortex-A53 is enough for playing 720p footage with.
Of course, it is more than hardware-accelerated H.264 or VP9 decoding, but we're still talking about what should be a fairly low impact, especially since this mostly applies to phones that usually get 480p video served to them.
Laptops, where the power efficiency matters the most, have had hardware-accelerated AV1 decoding support for quite a while now. It shouldn't be too big of a deal.
 
 
I am sure that Google have run some calculations to see if this is a good idea or not.
 
 
 
Edit:
Not sure why so many people are talking about uploading in this thread either. This has nothing to do with uploading.
The only thing this (potentially) changes has to do with watching/downloading/decoding. Not uploading.

I would still call that fixed function. It's just that they are using the same function in a slightly more flexible way to reuse silicon.
The fact of the matter remains that those logics on the SoC is only used for decoding video, and the video formats they support are locked and can't be changed. The only difference it makes is that the same transistors that handle some parts of H.265 might also handle decoding H.264 for example.
It's very much semantics that doesn't really change anything I said earlier.
 
 
 
Are you saying some of the tasks for decoding the video stream is handled by the CPU or "general purpose" GPU cores on Intel processors?
Because I am fairly sure all of the actual decoding work is done inside the media engine, not on the Xe cores or other execution units/shaders/TMUs/ROPs/etc. I guess you could argue that the GPU is involved because the decoded video gets copied into the video frame buffer and gets sent to the display, but that's very very pedantic.
I guess things like rendering and upscaling could also be done on the CPU or GPU but that's very different from the actual decoding step. I am strictly talking about decoding here, since that's what is relevant to the news piece. 

There is quite a lot of misinformation (or very vague terms) about this news piece floating around. Even the source article itself seems to get some things wrong or at the very least makes misleading remarks.
 
1) Android devices going quite far back already had support for AV1. What is changing is that the decoder is being changed from libgav1 (Google's own AV1 decoder) to dav1d (the AV1 decoder developed by VideoLAN). So nothing is changing in terms of what devices can and can't play. It's just that the new decoder is better than the old one.
 
2) When talking about which formats a device supports or doesn't support it is very important to specify "software support" and "hardware support". Pretty much all devices support AV1 decoding in software. Very few support it in hardware. 
 
3) Just because your device reports support for a certain video format does not mean an app will use it. On Android, when an app fetches the list of supported formats the OS specifies if decoding of the format is supported in software, hardware or both. In other words, just because your phone supports AV1 decoding in software doesn't mean an app will just decide to fetch that format for you. The app itself will have information about which formats are supported in hardware and which aren't, and makes a decision based on that.
 
4) Just because the Youtube app, or any other app for that matter, uses the new dav1d decoder doesn't mean it will automatically fetch an AV1 video. Which video it decides to fetch is a separate from which formats are supported. As I said earlier, nothing in this chance from libgav1 to dav1d changes what devices report as supported formats. If Youtube now decides to play AV1 videos on devices that doesn't support hardware accelerated AV1 decoding then it is because the Youtube app doesn't care, not because of some OS change that messes with what gets reported as supported video formats.
 
5) Something to keep in mind is that AV1 is very easy to decode in software. Last time I checked, the OnePlus 8 with its quad Cortex-A77 CPU (Snapdragon 865) was able to easily get 250+ FPS when decoding high bitrate 1080 footage on just its CPU.
Even a single Cortex-A53 is enough for playing 720p footage with.
Of course, it is more than hardware-accelerated H.264 or VP9 decoding, but we're still talking about what should be a fairly low impact, especially since this mostly applies to phones that usually get 480p video served to them.
Laptops, where the power efficiency matters the most, have had hardware-accelerated AV1 decoding support for quite a while now. It shouldn't be too big of a deal.
 
 
I am sure that Google have run some calculations to see if this is a good idea or not.
 
 
 
Edit:
Not sure why so many people are talking about uploading in this thread either. This has nothing to do with uploading.
The only thing this (potentially) changes has to do with watching/downloading/decoding. Not uploading.

I am not really sure why people are surprised by this or what people are reading into this story.
What did people think happened with old phones? That they magically became new phones? It's not like the phones being sent there for destruction are the latest model with zero issues. The phones that are in good shape and a somewhat new model gets sold as refurbished by Apple.
 
Taking the phones and recycling the materials is very common in IT.
When the article says "destroyed", it means recycled.
 
 
I think the biggest story here is that an employee at GEEP apparently stole a bunch of phones and sold them.
And before someone asks, a private person selling old iPhones on for example eBay or Craigslist can get away with selling partially broken or very roughed-up phones. 

What's the market? It isn't Nvidia's core business. Google have their own chip. What does Twitch use? 
 
Also I wouldn't use the illustration to estimate sizes, even if they're somewhat indicative. Annotated die shots like that found half way through link below is better, but it doesn't split it down to a fine enough detail.
https://locuza.substack.com/p/nvidias-ada-lineup-configurations
 
I was using their recommended upload bitrates earlier as a proxy to estimate the potential storage impact of multiple formats.

There is quite a lot of misinformation (or very vague terms) about this news piece floating around. Even the source article itself seems to get some things wrong or at the very least makes misleading remarks.
 
1) Android devices going quite far back already had support for AV1. What is changing is that the decoder is being changed from libgav1 (Google's own AV1 decoder) to dav1d (the AV1 decoder developed by VideoLAN). So nothing is changing in terms of what devices can and can't play. It's just that the new decoder is better than the old one.
 
2) When talking about which formats a device supports or doesn't support it is very important to specify "software support" and "hardware support". Pretty much all devices support AV1 decoding in software. Very few support it in hardware. 
 
3) Just because your device reports support for a certain video format does not mean an app will use it. On Android, when an app fetches the list of supported formats the OS specifies if decoding of the format is supported in software, hardware or both. In other words, just because your phone supports AV1 decoding in software doesn't mean an app will just decide to fetch that format for you. The app itself will have information about which formats are supported in hardware and which aren't, and makes a decision based on that.
 
4) Just because the Youtube app, or any other app for that matter, uses the new dav1d decoder doesn't mean it will automatically fetch an AV1 video. Which video it decides to fetch is a separate from which formats are supported. As I said earlier, nothing in this chance from libgav1 to dav1d changes what devices report as supported formats. If Youtube now decides to play AV1 videos on devices that doesn't support hardware accelerated AV1 decoding then it is because the Youtube app doesn't care, not because of some OS change that messes with what gets reported as supported video formats.
 
5) Something to keep in mind is that AV1 is very easy to decode in software. Last time I checked, the OnePlus 8 with its quad Cortex-A77 CPU (Snapdragon 865) was able to easily get 250+ FPS when decoding high bitrate 1080 footage on just its CPU.
Even a single Cortex-A53 is enough for playing 720p footage with.
Of course, it is more than hardware-accelerated H.264 or VP9 decoding, but we're still talking about what should be a fairly low impact, especially since this mostly applies to phones that usually get 480p video served to them.
Laptops, where the power efficiency matters the most, have had hardware-accelerated AV1 decoding support for quite a while now. It shouldn't be too big of a deal.
 
 
I am sure that Google have run some calculations to see if this is a good idea or not.
 
 
 
Edit:
Not sure why so many people are talking about uploading in this thread either. This has nothing to do with uploading.
The only thing this (potentially) changes has to do with watching/downloading/decoding. Not uploading.

Please note that if you do this, there is a risk that if one druve fails you will lose all or most data stored on BOTH drives.
In other words, you're basically doubling the risk of losing data as well as doubling the data you lose.
 
Even though drive failures are fairly rare it's something worth keeping in mind.

Which could very well be the ISP is being sneaky and has a higher limit for speed tests to make your connection look better than it is.  Or they do it specifically so the boost speed can be tested.
 
If the ISP package is 48Mbit then its rather irrelevant, as you're getting what is being paid for.

This highlights that you should find out from the person who pays.
 
ISPs are known to allow for higher-than-normal "burst" speeds when their network isn't congested. Furthermore, if your ISP has speed test servers that are part of speedtest.net, speeds can seem higher than what you're paying for. You might just be on a 48-50Mbps internet connection, that occasionally bursts to 100Mbps.
 
What are your speeds at fast.com, openspeedtest.com and waveform?
 
I'd have to disagree.
 
Different generations of WiFi are able to achieve different speeds. Most of us who used 802.11b/g hardware will know. Furthermore, most people's WiFi setups are sub-optimally set up.
 
I'm not arguing with that.
 
It was a simple question. You'd be surprised at how many people reveal their setups until the 10th reply in and that's where we discover something problematic.
 
Unfortunately, we're not mind readers here. A fast and easy solution doesn't fit everyone. If you're patient enough and can constructively participate in the conversation, someone will help you find a solution.

I don't see why it would be hard at all.
Did you write this post on your keyboard?
If you can type on your keyboard then you can program. 

I think those people are joking with you.
What makes you think you couldn't program on that keyboard? Programming is just typing. The only difference between typing this forum post and programming is that you will need to use some special characters like ( ) more than in typical typing, but that's it.

I don't see why it would be hard at all.
Did you write this post on your keyboard?
If you can type on your keyboard then you can program. 

The idea that this is to comply with the DMA doesn't make much sense. The DMA, if anything, would require them to make it easier to change the browser. Not harder. 
 
This is just Microsoft trying to block programs from making it easy for users to change their default browser. They want it to require as many clicks as possible. 
Firefox and Brave found a way to set themselves as the default without having to go through the defaults app settings page (where Microsoft asks you multiple time if you are reeeally sure you don't want Edge as the default). Instead in Firefox and Brave you just had to click, inside the programs, "set this as my default browser", similar to how it worked before Windows 10.
Microsoft doesn't want to make it easy for users to change. They will say that they do it for security reasons, but that is bullshit. They time and time again try and make it hard to change. Even if there was some legitimacy to their security argument (which I personally don't think there is), it's pretty clear that security isn't their driving motivator. It's control and making people use Edge (and Bing) that is. 

No matter what you say, taking away platforms where people can express ideas is a form of censorship.
Just because it isn't an absolute silencing of people doesn't make it any less censorship.
 
My argument was simply that the whole "it isn't censorship because you still have some options left" is simply false. The same logic taken to the extreme would mean that nothing in China is censored. The definition that "censorship is the complete and utter removal of any possibility to express a certain idea" renders the word useless. Luckily for us, the word "censorship" has a fairly good definition and banning TikTok would absolutely be a form of censorship. Whether or not you agree with that censorship is a different discussion though.
 
 
 
I like your "this time it is different, and if someone said the same thing back then then they were wrong but I am totally right this time". 
 
I won't pretend like TikTok is all good. I am sure there are legitimate concerns and issues with it. But whether or not those issues are big enough to warrant removing the platform is less clear cut than I think some people believe. I feel like it has become cool to hate on the platform, and people generally are okay with censorship if they dislike the thing being censored. I feel like that is what's happening here.
 
Also, since site like YouTube also pushes the same content, maybe we need to consider if a ban on YouTube is a necessary step to deal with the negative aspects of social media. I mean, if we agree that TikTok contributes to mental health issues to such a degree that the government needs to ban it, what's to say the same shouldn't be done to YouTube?

Yes, and putting someone in jail is not restricting freedom because they can still walk around in their little jail cell...
 
For those wondering, censorship is defined as:
or:
 
Just because you have other ways of communicating something doesn't mean the act of taking options away isn't censorship. By that logic, China isn't censoring anything at all. Them banning certain words on websites? That's not censorship because people can still say those words in their own homes. It's a silly argument to make that shows a lack of understanding of the word.
 
 
 
People said the same thing about books, movies, music, and so on.

Yes, and putting someone in jail is not restricting freedom because they can still walk around in their little jail cell...
 
For those wondering, censorship is defined as:
or:
 
Just because you have other ways of communicating something doesn't mean the act of taking options away isn't censorship. By that logic, China isn't censoring anything at all. Them banning certain words on websites? That's not censorship because people can still say those words in their own homes. It's a silly argument to make that shows a lack of understanding of the word.
 
 
 
People said the same thing about books, movies, music, and so on.

Yes, and putting someone in jail is not restricting freedom because they can still walk around in their little jail cell...
 
For those wondering, censorship is defined as:
or:
 
Just because you have other ways of communicating something doesn't mean the act of taking options away isn't censorship. By that logic, China isn't censoring anything at all. Them banning certain words on websites? That's not censorship because people can still say those words in their own homes. It's a silly argument to make that shows a lack of understanding of the word.
 
 
 
People said the same thing about books, movies, music, and so on.

Yes, but Linus uses a lot of words incorrectly.
 
 
I can agree with that, but that doesn't make adblocking equal to piracy.
 
 
 
  
But the word "piracy" has a specific meaning.
Piracy, when talking about computers and software, means copyright infringement, which is regulated by several laws and international trade agreements.
 
There have been some court cases which have debated this such as the lawsuit against Eyeo (the company behind Adblock Plus) and in that case the court found that adblocking was not copyright infringement.
 
 
If we Google "software piracy" pretty much every single link you can find will talk about copyright laws. Because that is what software piracy is. Breaking copyright law.
 
 
You can talk about how you think adblocking isn't "morally good" if you want, but that is a very different argument from claiming it is piracy. When you make a claim that something is piracy, you are making a claim that it breaks a certain type of law.

Yes, but Linus uses a lot of words incorrectly.
 
 
I can agree with that, but that doesn't make adblocking equal to piracy.
 
 
 
  
But the word "piracy" has a specific meaning.
Piracy, when talking about computers and software, means copyright infringement, which is regulated by several laws and international trade agreements.
 
There have been some court cases which have debated this such as the lawsuit against Eyeo (the company behind Adblock Plus) and in that case the court found that adblocking was not copyright infringement.
 
 
If we Google "software piracy" pretty much every single link you can find will talk about copyright laws. Because that is what software piracy is. Breaking copyright law.
 
 
You can talk about how you think adblocking isn't "morally good" if you want, but that is a very different argument from claiming it is piracy. When you make a claim that something is piracy, you are making a claim that it breaks a certain type of law.

No, it isn't.
Is bocking ads breaking copyright law? If no, then it is incorrect to call it piracy.
 
You can call it a dick move, immoral, or whatever, but don't call it piracy because that has a specific meaning and the meaning does not fit here.
Downloading a game without paying for it is piracy because it goes against the DMCA (or similar laws depending on where you live). Blocking ads have been tested in court and found to not be against copyright law.
 
You are using words incorrectly.

I don't think you understand the point me and others have made.
Piracy, the word piracy, means that it breaks the law. You are free to call it a thing you shouldn't do, but you shouldn't call it "piracy" because the definition of "piracy" do not fit what adblocking is.
 
I am not objecting to you saying that adblocking is bad, immoral or whatever else you feel about it. I am objecting to you using the specific word "piracy" because adblocking does not fit the definition of piracy.
 
And no, at its core it is not like pirating a game. There are very big differences both legally and morally. Legally they are very different things, and morally I don't have any issues with adblocking.
 
Everyone is free to draw their own moral lines wherever they feel comfortable. For example, I might say you are doing a bad thing by clicking "skip" on ads and that it is a thing you shouldn't do.
I am not sure how Youtube does it these days, but once upon a time creators didn't get paid anything if you clicked on the skip button. In those cases, someone clicking skip did the exact same amount of "damage" to the creator as someone who blocked ads.
If we assume that creators still get paid even if ads are skipped then someone could argue that it is immoral to do so because you are basically taking money from the company who paid for the ad. 
 
If we extend the analogy to TVs or radios then some could argue that it is immoral to change channels when the ads come on. A company paid to have those ads shown/heard, right? So if you switch to a different channel you are harming them. They paid to have you see/hear a commercial, and by switching to a different channel you are causing the ad to not be transmitted to you. Is that also a bad thing you shouldn't do in your eyes?

There is no technical reason for it. 
 
I also speculated about things like VBS, MBEC and HVCI support for a while but then things fell flat when I started looking into which processors had or didn't have those features, and how they matched up with the Windows 11 requirements.
 
 
Then the vice president of OS security and enterprise at Microsoft flat out said that there were no specific features that caused the cutoff. Microsoft just felt like it was a good place to cut support at for a wide range of reasons like "quality, support and reliability".
 

 
 
So if you are asking why Zen isn't supported but Zen+ is then the answer is "because Microsoft said so".
There is no technical reason for it. They just felt like it was old enough that they could exclude it when drawing their line in the sand. They wanted to draw the line and had to draw it somewhere.