Zumps

Yeah, I put smartwatches in there as click bait. The thing is microprocessors are in everything and ARM is one of the leading developers. Have a listen to the first lines in this video. It's one of the two founding people of ARM Steve Furber, talking about how it all started. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jOJl8gRPyQ Which means the rest went into anything with processing needs you can think of, like routers. The smaller, the more efficient and the more advanced the better, both in terms of size and power draw, but also in terms of the possibilities it brings about.

The next generation ARM high efficiency processor to ship in late 2016. It brings a whole lot on the table in terms of power efficiency, scalability and better customizability for the individual vendor. It is supposed to be the successor to the A5 and A7 chips, but it is even hard to justify the A53 in the future due to the A35's performance. Technical description at Anandtech. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9769/arm-announces-cortex-a35 Human language short version article at engadget http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/10/arm-cortex-a35/ EDIT: Tags got messed up.

Yes I thought about that too, but to a certain kind of customer the signal strength is valuable information, so why not inform about it My father for instance, he lives in a place where you're lucky to have a conversation over det gsm band, if you stand on a large rock in the garden...

A danish TV program has published the first independent test of the quality of the antenna (so they claim, at least) on the GSM900-band. The guy who tested it is Gert Frølund, a professor at Aalborg Universitet who actually created the method by which the international standard of how to test the quality of mobile antennas are now devised. Translated link Original link TL;DR: The antenna is bad. It gets an F. Worse that its predecessor the iPhone 6 and worse than a lot of other phones.

Hi Linus Media group. I watched your "Ethernet RJ45 as fast as possible" and found it to be inadequate. I know it's "as fast as possible", but hear me out. According to the article below, which is an interview with Kurt Denke (who is the President of Blue Jeans Cable), 80% of ethernet cables failed to live up to industry standards when tested. Amongst a lot of other good info and industry insider knowledge, he says he could teach anyone in 15min how to put a Cat5e cable together with a near 100% success rate when tested. However a Cat6 and Cat7 will have failures, even though you do it "perfectly" every time. As they have testing equipment for $12.000, and the general consumer doesn't, people should stay away from putting together these cables themselves. There's not much you can do as a consumer to test Mhz, Ohm and other specs. This is a very informational read with information from an industry expert, not something you get on the general forum thread. http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/bjc-cat-network-cable-quality-interview A final remark I'd like to see in the episode is that running power over ethernet (like you suggest people can do if they buy the AP you got advised to get by Wendell from TekSyndicate) is a serious fire hazard if run over CCA cable (copper-clad aluminium wire). You should be sure to get CU cable (pure copper wire), which comes at a hefty minimum of 3 times the price of CCA. If you are unsure if you've gotten the pure thing you can do the burn test. Put the uninsulated wire under a lighter, if anything is burning or dripping from the wire, it's CCA. CU will only glow red. So, what I feel is inadequate in the AFAP video, is the consumer advice here given. Maybe (I'm sure of it) you will learn a thing or two from the interview, to incorporate in the video I'm proposing you make. Best regards - Zumps