n2a newt

In the end, for the sake of supposedly sticking it to Wall St fat cats, a whole bunch of dumb redditors lost their money, while other fat cats and a few smarter redditors profited off the stupidity. Meanwhile a shit company that should just die already has been kept on life support. 

I really hope the people that post these get hunted down and prosecuted accordingly.

Please only post topics that have a strong relation to technology.
 
Tech News means news regarding technology or gaming. Please don't post topics in this forum that don't have a strong relation to technology/games.

This is the shittiest take I've seen in tech news in years

Uh… what’s the issue with this? I’m legitimately confused because it looks like this is entirely a good thing….

I don't know about that... this seems like Koduri is saying what was obvious to anyone paying attention, meaning that Intel was going to have to compete in something other than raw performance for the first few generations. The idea they could come out of nowhere and compete with nvidia or amd at the top end would be wishful thinking. It's a sound business strategy to establish a foothold in the midrange market, where performance per watt still sort of matters and most people reside anyway, then maybe move on to the high end.
 
I'd agree with him that trying to get something that competes with a 3090 out may have been possible for them but would have required insane power limits that would not be justified considering Intel's weak position of new kid on the block; why would you buy an ARC over a 3090 if the price were similar and the performance per watt worse?

Summary
Apple just released a newsroom article to announce three new security features meant to protect user privacy in the cloud. Apple announced:
 
Quotes
iMessage Contact Key Verification:
Security Keys:
Advanced Data Protection for iCloud:
 
My thoughts
I have always believed that Apple is a leader in consumer data protections. With these new features, even more people will be able to feel safe with their data on Apples Servers. I encourage everyone to opt-in to these features, especially encrypting your photos and backups. I hope Apple continues to push forward with consumer data protection enchantments to further distinguish itself from the "You are the product" buisness models of companies like Google and Microsoft. 
 
To further demonstrate how serious this is, the FBI is worried that Apple is implementing these features. The FBI provided multiple statements on the subject: 
https://www.macrumors.com/2022/12/08/fbi-privacy-groups-icloud-encryption/
 
Sources
 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/12/apple-advances-user-security-with-powerful-new-data-protections/
https://www.macrumors.com/2022/12/08/fbi-privacy-groups-icloud-encryption/

Some people have really been going crazy since the announcement, but seems perfectly reasonable to me. More choice is never a bad thing. If something starts to encroach on the more premium tiers, I might have a stronger opinion, but this seems like a great option for people who complain they feel Netflix is too expensive, they've already seen "everything" on it, or just want to use it occasionally.
 
 

I'd like to see the 4090 be capped to the power limit of the 3090 and 2080 and see how much the performance get's nerfed. Because I suspect the 30% increase in power plays a larger part here than we are willing to admit.

If only they didnt make it 1200$ then it would actually be worth it at 700-900. But Nope.

Pilots are historically also a major failure point and/or contributer to aircraft incidents. Even just here you are saying that pilots need to have lots of physical examinations just to make sure they are able to work. There is also general training, as well as airframe training, Psychological evaluations, etc. Those are all massive failure points that are introduced into the system. By relying on a pilot you introduce a host of uncontrollable variables, by relying on TWO pilots you introduce even more uncontrolled variables. A large portion of aircraft accidents are atleast partially because of poor crew resource management. Pilots argue, or, typically worse, pilots will give up control of a situation because they believe the other pilot has the situation completely over control.

The a320 has joysticks for primary flight controls, since they operate independently airbus had to implement overrides on the stick itself so that one pilot can forcefully take control over the aircraft. The 737-max crashes happened in part due to poor training (there was a host of other problems as well). It is increasingly rare that purely mechanical or electronic failures are the cause of accidents and often, when there is a mechanical failure the pilot will make the wrong decision because of it (like the old 737 hardovers where the rudder actuator became reversed, the pilots basically commanded the airplane to yaw left, but it yawed right. Instead of trying the other direction, the pilots became confused and continued yawing in the wrong direction (actually pressing the pedals even harder)).
 
Yes, every once in a while a pilot will land a plane in the hudson, but for every one of those events, you have a pilot crashing into the side of a mountain after locking their copilot out of the flight deck.
 
More and more airplanes are becoming fly by wire, reducing the input and control that pilots have available to them.
 
Considering the airbus a320 again, which is entirely fly by wire except for the rudder control cable. even in Direct law, things like flight stick sensitivity are still limited based on airspeed.
 
Commercial aircraft do auto landings, auto takeoff, auto go around, auto this, auto that. I have flown jump seat a number of times and the pilots mostly fly the aircraft with dials and switches, not yokes.

Also pilots go through very rigorous physical examinations to make sure they are in good health to get the go ahead to fly and a co pilot is mandatory so the chances that you are without a pilot is extremely unlikely. 

It's points of failures. One of the reasons why planes are so safe is they need to have multiple points of failure to fail before it results in a crash or one huge point of failure that is difficult to happen and usually is inspected regularly to ensure the parts are in good condition. With automated systems with no pilot you are going from needing two points of failure to fail to only needing one which is a big deal. Why do you think they have copilots? Why do you think they haven't switched to fully automated for normal flights already seeing as it's largely automated already?

Sure, anything with a computer can be hacked right? I think that really boils down to is what is done locally on the aircraft vs, trying to get the information elsewhere. I would assume that the most likely attack vector would be a 3rd party reporting false ADS-B information that would cause the autonomous vehicle to correct itself erroneously. Maybe something like reporting to the aircraft that it is on a vector leading to a collision which would cause it to compensate, allowing you to 'guide' the aircraft. I do think that ADS-B stands to be improved in this regard, because as it stands now, it is open radio broadcasts. You can't necessarily hijack someone someone else's broadcast, but you could spoof as many of your own as you like. I am sure there are more attack vectors but that is just one that comes to mind.
 
FYI all of these things are also concerns with traditional aircraft as well.

While that is nice and all but automated systems on airplanes have failed or needed human intervention often enough that fully automated airplanes is going to be alot riskier than having a automated systems and a pilot in case of emergency or need for human intervention. 

airplanes have a lot more discrete information than cars do. Airplanes also exist in a network where all of the airplanes explicitly communicate with each other thanks to ADS-B.
 
I distrust pilots more than the systems that exist in modern commercial aircraft. (not to say that pilots are bad)
There is a significant difference between a TC'd aircraft and a drone.
 
To Add: When you fly on a commercial aircraft it is 99% automated already. So much has been automated that the job of flight engineer has been completely deprecated. A lot of plane crashes are caused by pilot error and pilot distrust of the system.
 
Think about the systems in place for IFR in zero visibility. Localizers and glideslopes guide the aircraft to be exactly lined up with the runway, and ATC is already ensuring that the runway is clear. The pilots literally cannot see anything at all and thus must be forced to operate based on the information collected by the aircraft completely.
 
I think a lot of people don't understand just how much more information is given to an aircraft than to something like a car. Every aspect of the flight is known by the avionics on board. and this information is communicated to the surrounding aircraft. This is how you get stuff like RVSM (reduced vertical separation minimums).

Im not sure that I would call it a big win for the American people. Nor am I sure how I would discuss this topic without getting political in a way that breaks the forums rules.
This bill's entire existence was politically motivated based off an incorrect perception of bias.
Perception is reality, even if that perception does not match up to reality.

As far as I can see it, this bill, and now this ruling only empowers and institutionalizes the ability for groups or parties to Astroturf an idea.
Social media companies already dont do enough to put the brakes on the proliferation of disinformation campaigns, and to handicap them by law is a weird decision to me.

 

i'd hardly call the GN thing "beef". if anything it's Steve doing news coverage on what's brewing in tech (and if you're a big youtube channel about tech.. you're happening in tech..) and reflecting on his own way of how he should cover youtube channel drama compared to corporate manufacturer drama.
 
Steve is the ultimate uncensored objective view on anything that happens around him. He makes a lot of good points in the two segments he made on the topic so far, but in my opinion the lesson to be learned here is simply this:
 
When shit hits the fan, more people should take a moment to think "Is my opinion on this matter correct?"

Hard disagree.

If they are priced well, I'll eat my left arm.

Damn. These rumours make the 4000 series sound rather attractive. Let's hope for some reasonable pricing.

The new espionage strategy: make a realistic war simulator, but give all of the foreign weapons deliberately wrong stats

we'll see if they're found guilty

Now, I don't know how this is synthesized, but I can tell you right now that academic papers are published with zero consideration as to how processes would work at scale or how much they would cost. Polymers are typically synthesized using precious metal catalyst reactions (think palladium, platinum, rhodium), though cheaper metal catalysts are in the works.
 
Precious metal catalysis is worth the upfront investment for large companies who sell massive quantities of cheap product (conversion of methanol to acetic acid by rhodium, for instance). However, for an emergent technology, the appeal is a lot smaller.
 
It wouldn't just be metal, the parylene C they mention is a polymeric material, likely a kind of thermally-robust plastic. But yes, they would have to coat it with copper, so point taken.
 
I'm gonna go digging around the article for the original paper and see what research they cite and their methods. This has me interested.
 
EDIT:
 
So, this is more of a gripe I have with elitism in academia in general, especially with how the media reports it, but the first author, and many co-authors of the paper are actually from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). It's not a particularly famous school outside particular academic circles but as a chemist, I can tell you that it has one of the top chemistry programs in the country and has an excellent mechanical engineering program. Berkeley is a more recognizable name, but the erasure of the collaboration partners from UIUC discounts the contributions they made towards this product. Again, both the first author on the paper (which by some conventions is the author that contributed most to the work of the paper) and the corresponding author (which is usually the main manager of the project, which would in this case be the professor that runs the lab with the various graduate students/postdoctoral fellows/research fellows running the show) are both from UIUC. I think just calling this a project by "researchers at UC Berkeley" is misleading at best and harmful at worst.