kumicota

Have you guys looked into Epomaker as a sponsor? they are not allowed on the MechanicalKeyboard subreddit, and reddit as a whole due to astroturfing, and they've been proven to do other nefarious things
they have their own section in this megathread:
https://old.reddit.com/r/MechanicalKeyboards/comments/196hreg/mykeyboard_thickthock_other_vendor_issues/

UBlock Origin doesn't profit from it or sell user data. They don't have any telemetry on their software and it's open-source
 
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Sorry folks, the thread is up now.
 

Linus did a video recently about laserdisc. I wanted to go to the thread of it but couldn't find anything, they even forgot to link it on the description, did Linus team forgot about it or didn't wanted to put because it can lead to a lot of LD fanbase fighting?

Linus did a video recently about laserdisc. I wanted to go to the thread of it but couldn't find anything, they even forgot to link it on the description, did Linus team forgot about it or didn't wanted to put because it can lead to a lot of LD fanbase fighting?

One of the problems is that people excuses childish and anti-consumer from him as Linus being Linus.
 
My grip with it is that it encourages him to act like that because it's him, like a "get out of jail card", whatever he do is just Linus being Linus, this is a thing that shouldn't be encouraged, he isn't a kid anymore, he has to learn that he isn't the center of the universe and his acts has consequences.

There won't be a big WAN Show segment about this or anything. Most of what I have to say, I've already said, and I've done so privately.

To Steve, I expressed my disappointment that he didn't go through proper journalistic practices in creating this piece. He has my email and number (along with numerous other members of our team) and could have asked me for context that may have proven to be valuable (like the fact that we didn't 'sell' the monoblock, but rather auctioned it for charity due to a miscommunication... AND the fact that while we haven't sent payment yet, we have already agreed to compensate Billet Labs for the cost of their prototype). There are other issues, but I've told him that I won't be drawn into a public sniping match over this and that I'll be continuing to move forward in good faith as part of 'Team Media'. When/if he's ready to do so again I'll be ready.

To my team (and my CEO's team, but realistically I was at the helm for all of these errors, so I need to own it), I stressed the importance of diligence in our work because there are so many eyes on us. We are going through some growing pains - we've been very public about them in the interest of transparency - and it's clear we have some work to do on internal processes and communication. We have already been doing a lot of work internally to clean up our processes, but these things take time. Rome wasn't built in a day, but that's no excuse for sloppiness.

Now, for my community, all I can say is the same things I always say. We know that we're not perfect. We wear our imperfection on our sleeves in the interest of ensuring that we stay accountable to you. But it's sad and unfortunate when this transparency gets warped into a bad thing. The Labs team is hard at work hard creating processes and tools to generate data that will benefit all consumers - a work in progress that is very much not done and that we've communicated needs to be treated as such. Do we have notes under some videos? Yes. Is it because we are striving for transparency/improvement? Yeah... What we're doing hasn't been in many years, if ever.. and we would make a much larger correction if the circumstances merited it. Listing the wrong amount of cache on a table for a CPU review is sloppy, but given that our conclusions are drawn based on our testing, not the spec sheet, it doesn't materially change the recommendation. That doesn't mean these things don't matter. We've set KPIs for our writing/labs team around accuracy, and we are continually installing new checks and balances to ensure that things continue to get better. If you haven't seen the improvement, frankly I wonder if you're really looking for it... The thoroughness that we managed on our last handful of GPU videos is getting really incredible given the limited time we have for these embargoes. I'm REALLY excited about what the future will hold.
 
With all of that said, I still disagree that the Billet Labs video (not the situation with the return, which I've already addressed above) is an 'accuracy' issue. It's more like I just read the room wrong. We COULD have re-tested it with perfect accuracy, but to do so PROPERLY - accounting for which cases it could be installed in (none) and which radiators it would be plumbed with (again... mystery) would have been impossible... and also didn't affect the conclusion of the video... OR SO I THOUGHT...
 
I wanted to evaluate it as a product, and as a product, IF it could manage to compete with the temperatures of the highest end blocks on the planet, it still wouldn't make sense to buy... so from my point of view, re-testing it and finding out that yes, it did in fact run cooler made no difference to the conclusion, so it didn't really make a difference.
 
Adam and I were talking about this today. He advocated for re-testing it regardless of how non-viable it was as a product at the time and I think he expressed really well today why it mattered. It was like making a video about a supercar. It doesn't mater if no one watching will buy it. They just wanna see it rip.  I missed that, but it wasn't because I didn't care about the consumer.. it was because I was so focused on how this product impacted a potential buyer. Either way, clearly my bad, but my intention was never to harm Billet Labs. I specifically called out their incredible machining skills because I wanted to see them create something with a viable market for it and was hoping others would appreciate the fineness of the craftsmanship even if the product was impractical. I still hope they move forward building something else because they obviously have talent and I've watched countless niche water cooling vendors come and go. It's an astonishingly unforgiving market.
 
Either way, I'm sorry I got the community's priorities mixed-up on this one, and that we didn't show the Billet in the best light. Our intention wasn't to hurt anyone. We wanted no one to buy it (because it's an egregious waste of money no matter what temps it runs at) and we wanted Billet to make something marketable (so they can, y'know, eat).
 
With all of this in mind, it saddens me how quickly the pitchforks were raised over this. It also comes across a touch hypocritical when some basic due diligence could have helped clarify much of it. I have a LONG history of meeting issues head on and I've never been afraid to answer questions, which lands me in hot water regularly, but helps keep me in tune with my peers and with the community. The only reason I can think of not to ask me is because my honest response might be inconvenient. 
 
We can test that... with this post. Will the "It was a mistake (a bad one, but a mistake) and they're taking care of it" reality manage to have the same reach? Let's see if anyone actually wants to know what happened. I hope so, but it's been disheartening seeing how many people were willing to jump on us here. Believe it or not, I'm a real person and so is the rest of my team. We are trying our best, and if what we were doing was easy, everyone would do it. Today sucks.
 
Thanks for reading this.

It's interesting that Linus while supporting green policies, being anti-miner and more, he's making his keyboard to lose about 50% of all the power that it goes to it

Every tool that serves to protect your privacy inherently has the potential for harm and abuse. It's pointless to pontificate about it or to ask if it should be banned. If you ban Telegram, you also have to ban all other avenues of private, anonymous communication. Then you're well on your way of legitimizing governments spying on their population. You can't effectively monitor all actions to root out undesirable behavior without inherently invading privacy. 
 
If your stance is that transparency is more important than privacy, you must be willing to give up all your privacy in the process. Anything less is both disingenuous and next to impossible to fairly determine where to draw the line about what should be public and what not, because you will always run in to edge cases.
 
If your stance is that privacy is more important than transparency, then you will have to come to terms with the fact that this will be true for both you and any sort of deviants our species can produce.
 
There is no middle ground here where you will find broad consensus, it is a black-and-white issue. And the unfortunate truth is that even if you mandate transparency, the people willing to hide in the shadows will probably still find ways to do so.

You can't blame a communication app for humans being absolute shit.
 
It's not telegram's fault that people are being horrible. 
 
As far as Telegram's response?  Well, that's just horrible, and they deserve any negative fallout they get.  But blocking the app isn't going to fix things.

As far as I am aware it's the same in the US. You can't mislead consumers in an advertisement and then say you technically didn't lie as misleading ads are still considered false advertising regardless. I wouldn't be surprised if they get in trouble in the US as well which makes sense as they are advertising something that would lead someone to believe there are no restrictions on where and when they can watch netflix when there clearly is based on the new password sharing rules. 

That's all true as well, but realistically Microsoft could force whoever makes the Arm hardware to follow their specifications. They could demand support for UEFI or BBR for example.
It is an issue, but I think it is solvable.
 
I am not sure how Microsoft handles it right now, but I am not aware of any issues with Windows on Arm devices not getting updated because of the way Arm devices handle booting. Not sure if they solved it through some standard, or if they talked to Qualcomm about it.

A few things before the info dump. First, I'm brazilian, second I don't have any strong opnion about the password sharing issue.
 
I think the main thing on this thread is the lack of understand of brazilians consumer protection laws. So here it goes a bit about the netflix case.
 
On Brazilian advertising laws the false advertising can fall under a lot of categories, one of them is bad faith advertising which is what Netflix is falling under. I don't know how to proper explain bad faith advertising but in the netflix case would be not outright lying in ads but ads that can lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation and brazilian laws are very clear about that.
 
While advertisers have some leeway regarding to that, the companies and ads needs to cover their asses, like for example in Toothpaste ads that says 9 in 10 dentists reccomends toothpaste X but then you look in the fine-print and you see that the research was very biased. This is the Netflix problem, by the law to cover their asses they have to cover it on the advertising itself by things like fineprint, * on the misleading text and other things. They can't put a misleading text on a ad, while saying otherwise in the EULA, because the consumer laws consider this to be a bad faith advertising, so that's why they're going after netflix, their "Watch anywhere, anytime" ads doesn't state anything about the password sharing rules, households or time-limit.

A few things before the info dump. First, I'm brazilian, second I don't have any strong opnion about the password sharing issue.
 
I think the main thing on this thread is the lack of understand of brazilians consumer protection laws. So here it goes a bit about the netflix case.
 
On Brazilian advertising laws the false advertising can fall under a lot of categories, one of them is bad faith advertising which is what Netflix is falling under. I don't know how to proper explain bad faith advertising but in the netflix case would be not outright lying in ads but ads that can lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation and brazilian laws are very clear about that.
 
While advertisers have some leeway regarding to that, the companies and ads needs to cover their asses, like for example in Toothpaste ads that says 9 in 10 dentists reccomends toothpaste X but then you look in the fine-print and you see that the research was very biased. This is the Netflix problem, by the law to cover their asses they have to cover it on the advertising itself by things like fineprint, * on the misleading text and other things. They can't put a misleading text on a ad, while saying otherwise in the EULA, because the consumer laws consider this to be a bad faith advertising, so that's why they're going after netflix, their "Watch anywhere, anytime" ads doesn't state anything about the password sharing rules, households or time-limit.

A few things before the info dump. First, I'm brazilian, second I don't have any strong opnion about the password sharing issue.
 
I think the main thing on this thread is the lack of understand of brazilians consumer protection laws. So here it goes a bit about the netflix case.
 
On Brazilian advertising laws the false advertising can fall under a lot of categories, one of them is bad faith advertising which is what Netflix is falling under. I don't know how to proper explain bad faith advertising but in the netflix case would be not outright lying in ads but ads that can lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation and brazilian laws are very clear about that.
 
While advertisers have some leeway regarding to that, the companies and ads needs to cover their asses, like for example in Toothpaste ads that says 9 in 10 dentists reccomends toothpaste X but then you look in the fine-print and you see that the research was very biased. This is the Netflix problem, by the law to cover their asses they have to cover it on the advertising itself by things like fineprint, * on the misleading text and other things. They can't put a misleading text on a ad, while saying otherwise in the EULA, because the consumer laws consider this to be a bad faith advertising, so that's why they're going after netflix, their "Watch anywhere, anytime" ads doesn't state anything about the password sharing rules, households or time-limit.

A few things before the info dump. First, I'm brazilian, second I don't have any strong opnion about the password sharing issue.
 
I think the main thing on this thread is the lack of understand of brazilians consumer protection laws. So here it goes a bit about the netflix case.
 
On Brazilian advertising laws the false advertising can fall under a lot of categories, one of them is bad faith advertising which is what Netflix is falling under. I don't know how to proper explain bad faith advertising but in the netflix case would be not outright lying in ads but ads that can lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation and brazilian laws are very clear about that.
 
While advertisers have some leeway regarding to that, the companies and ads needs to cover their asses, like for example in Toothpaste ads that says 9 in 10 dentists reccomends toothpaste X but then you look in the fine-print and you see that the research was very biased. This is the Netflix problem, by the law to cover their asses they have to cover it on the advertising itself by things like fineprint, * on the misleading text and other things. They can't put a misleading text on a ad, while saying otherwise in the EULA, because the consumer laws consider this to be a bad faith advertising, so that's why they're going after netflix, their "Watch anywhere, anytime" ads doesn't state anything about the password sharing rules, households or time-limit.

I would object to DMCA abuse anytime and anywhere it happens, regardless of my 'support' or 'non-support' of the work in question.
 
As for the views and whatnot, it sounds like something for YouTube to figure out. I just work here 😛
 
 

A hot take. People when defending apple agains the EU rule against type C, often says things like, that a country shouldn't mess with a company or that my company, my rules, if you don't like, go to Android.
 
Without taking in consideration that every country messes with companies, that's why you have a dozen of safety rules printed on your charger and on the device. Why does the argument "My company, my rule" applies but "My country, my rules" doesn't?
 
If one of the arguments of Apple defenders is that "People have a choice, they can go to Android", then Apple has a choice, leave EU

Here's what I think is going to happen. 
 
Youtube clamps down on adblock
yt-dl -like program usage surges as unofficial players for youtube, thus not only losing the ad revenue, but all the other features of youtube. All those unofficial accesses result in no analytic data. Blocking the ads, also results in loss of some/all of that analytic data.
 
As it is, it's often much less obnoxious to watch a video with vlc/mpc-hc than it is with a website, and some backend script that fetches the "video fragment playlist" (which yt-dl can act as) so when you want to watch a 2 hour video un-interrupted by distractions, it's better to use the app in the first place.
 
 

Ugh, lots of nitpicks in this video.

First of, none of the modern 4-way SLI setups from nVidia were mentioned.  Granted, you can only get them in from nVidia directly in their DGX workstations which use Quadro class graphics but they are similar to that 8-way Voodoo card by incorporating a chip on the bridge connector.  The nvLink chip on the bridge is what permits standard desktop Quadros which are normally limited to 2-way SLI scale higher via this fanout switch chip.   Some who could get their hands on this DGX bridge board could build their own 4-way Quadro setup but Conceptually 8-way SLI is still possible due to the number of nvLink buses supported on the nvLink chip, however, nVidia has kept 8 GPU and higher systems isolated to the data center and their mezzanine style carrier cards.  Since nvLink is being leveraged, it also permits memory sharing and aggregation, which is another nitpick that I'll get to later on.
 
The second nitpick is that the video doesn't dive too deep into the challenges of leveraging multiple GPUs which is simply load balancing. Splitting frames up evenly in terms of output pixel count doesn't inherently mean that each GPU does the same amount of work needs to be performed in those regions.  With an uneven load across the GPUs, performance is inherently limited to how long it takes the GPU with the most work to finish, a classic bottleneck scenario.  
 
Third nitpick is that SLI is never actually displayed on screen using its interleaving nature.  3dfx figured out early on that having each GPU work on a different scan line is a simply and relatively efficient for how 3D APIs were working back then.  As more complex rendering techniques are being developed, it was no longer to simply scale this technique:  shaders would reference data from the pixels found on the previous scan line.  

Fourth nitpick is that spit frame rendering was demonstrated as a splitting the screen into quads which isn't how it normally worked.  Rather the splits would be in horizontal lines the heights varying to load balance across the GPUs.  The reason being is that each GPU would be responsible for a full display scan line.  Splitting mid scan line was often glitchy from a visual perspective without having an additional aggregation buffer.  The additional buffer was not optimal due to the small memory sizes of GPUs at the time and the lag it would introduce.  Not impossible for a quad split to be used but it was not the norm.
 
Fifth nitpick is that different multi-GPU techniques can be used in tandem when there are 4 or GPUs in a system.  AFR of SFR was used in some games.  Not really a nitpick but more of a piece of trivia, AFR of SFR came to be as DirectX had a maximum 8 frame buffers currently in flight.  This figure is a bit deceptive as one buffer is being output to the screen while the next is being rendered which is done on a per GPU basis with that API.  This limited AFR under DirectX effectively to 4-way maximum GPU setup.  Hence why AFR of SFR was necessary to go beyond 4-way GPU setups or if triple buffering was being leveraged.  DirectX 10 did effectively off SFR support which capped GPU support on the consumer side to 4-way.   I haven't kept up but Vulkan and DX12 should be able to bring these techniques back but support rests on the game/application developer, not the hardware manufacturer/API developer.
 
Checkerboard render is interesting in several aspects.  First off, even single GPUs have leveraged this technique as a means to vary image quality in minor ways across a frame that makes it difficult to discern.  Think of a frame split up to 64 x 64 tiles but for some complex tiles and to keep the frame rate up, the GPU will instead render a 16 x 16 or 8 x 8 pixel version of that tile and brute force scale it up to save on computational time.  When multiple GPUs were involved, the tile size was important to evenly distribute the work.  There is a further technique to load balance by further breaking down larger tiles into even smaller ones and then distributing that work load across multiple GPUs.  So instead of a complex 64 x 64 tile getting a 16 x 16 rendered tile that is scaled upward, in a multiple GPU scenario four 16 x 16 tiles are split across multiple GPUs to maintain speed and quality.  Further subdividing tiles and assigning them to specific GPU is indeed a very computationally complex task but the modern GPUs already have accelerators in place to tackle this workload.  This is how various hardware video encoders function to produce high quality, compress images by subdiving portions of the screen.  While never explicitly said, I suspect that this is one of the reasons why modern GPUs have started to include multiple hardware video encoders.
 
One technique not mentioned is when multiple monitors are used as each display can be driven/rendered by a different GPU.  While not load balanced, it is pretty straight forward to implement.  Both AMD and nVidia provide additional hardware to synchronize refresh rates and output across multiple monitors as well as the GPUs.
 
The original CrossFire with dongle was mostly AFR as the there was a video output switch on the master card.  The master card decided which GPU was sending output to the monitor.  This was mostly done via detecting V-blank signals.  The chip could conceptually switch mid-frame at the end of a scanline but ATI never got this to work reliably so they to focused on AFR.  (Note: later implementations of Crossfire that used internal ribbon cables could switch on a per scanline basis making this an issue only for ATI early implementations.)  
 
In the early days of multiple GPUs, video memory was simply mirrored across GPUs.  This wasn't emphasized in the video but was implied in the scenarios leveraging AFR due to each GPU doing the same work at a different slices in time.  Modern GPUs that leverage nvLink from nVidia and Infinity Fabric links from AMD can actually aggregate memory spaces.  They also permit dedicated regions to each GPU while having a portion mirrored across the GPUs to limit.  For example two modern Quadros with 24 GB of memory on board could provide 24 GB (full mirroring), 36 GB (12 GB dedicated on each card with 12 GB mirrored), or 48 GB of memory (full dedicated) to an application to use.  That flexibility is great to have.

A hot take. People when defending apple agains the EU rule against type C, often says things like, that a country shouldn't mess with a company or that my company, my rules, if you don't like, go to Android.
 
Without taking in consideration that every country messes with companies, that's why you have a dozen of safety rules printed on your charger and on the device. Why does the argument "My company, my rule" applies but "My country, my rules" doesn't?
 
If one of the arguments of Apple defenders is that "People have a choice, they can go to Android", then Apple has a choice, leave EU

A hot take. People when defending apple agains the EU rule against type C, often says things like, that a country shouldn't mess with a company or that my company, my rules, if you don't like, go to Android.
 
Without taking in consideration that every country messes with companies, that's why you have a dozen of safety rules printed on your charger and on the device. Why does the argument "My company, my rule" applies but "My country, my rules" doesn't?
 
If one of the arguments of Apple defenders is that "People have a choice, they can go to Android", then Apple has a choice, leave EU

This is one of the first time I'm glad that I'm Brazilian, home ISP's can't put an arbitrary data-cap and they are really unlimited, there's no fine print BS. If they called me asking my wi-fi password because they detected an unusual activity because I used a lot of data and said that they would cancel my service, this can be escalated to the regulatory orgs giving them a lot of trouble because it's against the law.
 
Also before anyone saying that the internet is shit because it's a third-world-country. I live in a 25k+ people city, I have 500mbps FTTH symmetric internet and I pay around 30USD for that.

This threads reminds me of when Linus was called out for including possibly illegal and unenforceable anti-competition clauses in his employee contracts.
His responds to that was that:
1) Having that attitude would make someone "un-hireable" (basically threatening to not hire someone for standing up for their employee rights).
2) If you come after Linus and point out that he is breaking Canadian employee rights laws, he will no longer consider you a friend and will do the bare minimum the law requires him to do. Basically, he will treat you worse than his other employees that are okay with forfeiting their rights.
 
 
 
 
I am not at all surprised that the LMG employee contracts contains a bunch of very restrictive things that only serve to benefit Linus. I haven't read the thread but I am sure a lot of people have already jumped in to defend Linus by saying he might not be breaking any law so therefore there is nothing we can do, because the concept of holding someone to a higher standard is foreign to them.
It's like with the "their platform their rules" argument. Except in this case it's "his company, his rules". If that is being said in this thread (I am sure it has been) then it is probably from people who don't want to deflect and change the subject. They know what Linus is doing is bad, but rather than discuss that they try and shift the discussing to something that will keep the status quo and distract from Linus being a bad person.
 
 
It's okay to hold companies and people to a standard higher than the bare minimum dictated by law. It is also okay to admit that your idol might not be perfect and have areas where they can improve. 

The 100 TB is just a place holder in the meter. As for the 10TB limit, it's not cut and dry. Most people fail to understand that Docsis cable is Fiber to the node, that node can have 20 People on them in a Node + 0 area (Comcast specific) or hundreds in other areas. If the node is congested and you're the guy eating all the data, Comcast will consider you the problem. Thats what the AUP is suppose to be used for, to ensure everyone has the ability to use the service and one person isnt screwing over everyone else on the node. Now if there is no congestion, Comcast may not even bat an eye at over 10TB of usage. 
 
Business accounts where you pay a lot more money tend to no care how much data you use. 
 
Well you also have Fiber. I dont know of any major Fiber provider in the US that has caps. Most the capped connections are Docsis cable (all major cable providers cap) or DSL. LTE and 5G have usage limits or data deprioritization due to the limits of the technology.