AWS outbound data is as much as 75x the cost of eg Hetzner.
I view a large percentage of "cloud" usage like Teslas stock price: it's completely detached from reality by people who have drunk the kool aid and can't get out.
> As early as 2002, a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before.[4] Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February 2004, a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims.[5] The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.
> In July 2004, Microsoft offered to settle with Lindows.[6] As part of this licensing settlement, Microsoft paid an estimated US$20,000,000 (equivalent to $33,294,574 in 2024), and Lindows transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed their name to Linspire.
> completely contrived by some fans of Linux
I mean there are absolutely some fanboy fantasies of grandeur here but I don't think it's the "fans of Linux" who are delusional mate.
Are you sure about that? Everything I can find now and from when it was first covered suggests that it's an RPM based "distro" (let's not argue about whether it's technically a distro).
The TomsHardware article you linked to in turns links to ZDNet which in turn links to an InfoWorld article (isn't modern reposted rehashed "news" slop just fucking delightful) about the "release" of CBL-Mariner notes that it was created as a replacement to the then-recently-deprecated RedHat CoreOS, and references that (at the time) MS had a deal with a company that was supporting a CoreOS fork.
Given those two factors, it isn't impossible but it seems hard to believe that they would use a Debian base but then Frankenstein RPM package manage into it.
"fake" or "thing you will create" is not an accurate description when you consider that it can be a directory (thus creating a new link within that directory that exists) or even omitted to use the current directory.
The point, decades ago when I first started with unix, was a short, memorable way to remember the order of the arguments, not to memorize the man page. For that, "ln -s <real> <fake>" works fine.
I just threw in SIMD processing on a whim to an existing library.
It wasn't a regular structure that needed one operation or two again and again, it was this irregular object that needed each field each operation to be carefully picked. Assessing what instructions were going to help me do which fields how would have been hard hard hard. Hours of analysis, would have gotten stuff wrong. Would have been so frustrating.
I could just ask for, and I got it.
This is a very specific kind of example. But smart people who know what they want but don't have endless time to go chase every idea themselves will, I think, find great joy getting the AI to go out and land some amazing improvements.
And there's so many projects like zerobrew that just would never be attempted. We can make whole systems, see their performance, and if it's not good, change the stack and generate a new version of the app, a new attempt, with far less effort. We will try many more things.
Kinda all very very obvious to the actual excited doer folks.
There are infinitely better ways to protect your car from being stolen than putting a fucking AirTag in it, and as a bonus you can buy all of them without sounding self-centred and flippant about real threats to other people.
Increasing the friction and difficulty to stalk someone definitely results in less actual stalking. I'm sure some would-be stalker can figure out AirTags but can't figure out or afford the alternatives.
Also, wouldn't
this argument apply to the use of AirTags as anti-theft devices? Since AirTag alternatives exist, just use the alternatives devices for anti-theft that also work for stalking. But some people don't do this and just want to use AirTags for anti-theft purposes. Which sort of illustrates my point. Fewer people do a thing when it's harder. No would care that AirTags aren't good for anti-theft if there were alternatives equally as good.
If increasing friction to do something results in zero change in how many people do the thing, then why does anyone care that AirTags don't work for anti-theft purposes? Wouldn't there be no complaints if there were alternatives that were just as easy/cheap/functional?
Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement.
You know that a backup camera can be added to practically any car right? My ~2002 Toyota has a Pioneer deck from around 2007 (I guess?) that supports reversing camera input. My wifes 2012 Toyota hybrid has a reversing camera using some POS cheap Chinese deck that's so shit it doesn't even support Bluetooth audio.
No part of reversing cameras are dependent on any of the "modern" trends in cars that are being discussed here.
I feel like you're deliberately missing the point.
You don't need them to have a reversing camera. Literally millions of cars over the past 2 decades have perfectly fine reversing cameras using the screen of a regular double-DIN deck (or fold out single-DIN deck).
I, too, felt you were being intentionally dense in this thread. We've just been talking past each other.
I don't see a meaningful distinction between a screen on a DIN unit and an integrated screen.
With Android Auto or the ios equivalent -- a hard requirement for most car buyers today -- a touchscreen is basically required.
Other "smart" features aren't required but I'm not surprised car companies want to try and extract value from in-car tech. It's got nothing to do with providing value to consumers.
> I don't see a meaningful distinction between a screen on a DIN unit and an integrated screen.
Someone questioned why a car needs two 12" touch screens.
To which you replied
> Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement.
My entire point is, that there's zero relationship between having a backup camera, and needing a 12" touchscreen, or a touch screen of any kind.
If your backup camera needs a touch screen, you've already failed. The entire point is that it activates automatically and deactivates automatically.
They've been available for literally decades - Toyota had a production model with a reversing camera in the fucking 80s.
Nothing else you've said since is related to your claim "Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement" and that claim is completely unrelated to OP's question about why a car needs not one but two 12" touch screens.
A few years ago it came out that one of the manufacturers (my hunch is Samsung but I don't remember the specifics) had their "smart" tvs aggressively try connecting to any and all networks it can find in range, if you didn't connect it to one.
I reluctantly bought an LG with webOS (least bad option available) a couple of years ago. For some reason they weren't content to let the TV menu/remote work with up/down/left/right buttons.
That's too fucking predictable, and anyone who's used a tv in the last 2 decades could use it....
Let's give it a fucking nipple, just like those horrific fucking IBM/Lenovo laptops.
Then of course it also tries to "help" by detecting HDR content and change view mode... while something is playing.... which makes the screen go black for several seconds.
I view a large percentage of "cloud" usage like Teslas stock price: it's completely detached from reality by people who have drunk the kool aid and can't get out.
reply