It's because naming products is done by the marketing dept. Sometimes they decide to increase a "major" version number for a product that is a rehash of a previous line just to confuse people and sell more units.
People believe "bigger number" = better, and marketing teams exploit that.
At least with CPUs, I believe the the retail product names are deliberately confusing by design so that you as a consumer get confused (and mislead) into buying older models, whose sales tend to stagnate when newer models are released. (Newer models are of course, obscenely priced to differentiate them). A somewhat aware tech consumer what like to buy the latest affordable model they can. But if you can't easily identify the latest model or the next best one after it, they will often end up purchasing some older model with similar name.
That kind of deliberate ambiguity also backfires, though.
"My computer is too slow. I know it's an i9 -- whatever that means. But all these new ones are also i9s. You'd think they'd have something newer than that in the past 5 years.
Oh well. I guess I can't get something better than what I have, so I'll just have to wait until something better comes along."
This results not in moving old products out of warehouses, but instead in moving zero products at all.
This is too forgiving of intel in this case. It has a name. They just don't use it. "Sockets Supported: FCLGA2011". It's not like this is poorly named. It's not even true.
Yes but the fact it's primarily a Chinese export makes the profit as the cause narrative much less convincing. The US FDA is ignoring evidence to protect a Chinese supplier?
> Yes but the fact it's primarily a Chinese export makes the profit as the cause narrative much less convincing. The US FDA is ignoring evidence to protect a Chinese supplier?
Who said it was done to protect the pesticide's manufacturer? It protects the industry as a whole: the agro-industry aims for low costs, and that means using cheap pesticides to increase crop yield, even it it ends up harming farmers in the process.
I tried it because another_linux_distro! Sadly, I found the COSMIC dock looks "dead" since they can not implement the genie effect as it is patented by Apple :///////////
I've found that COSMIC heavily rewards navigation via the keyboard rather than via the mouse. Typing super followed by the first few letters of whichever app you want takes a fraction of the time you'd need to pick out the relevant app from a dock.
Connectivity to databases was one of Delphi's main selling points.
I think one dude spread the myth of no DLLs in the Twitter thread, lots of people repeated it, and since Delphi 6/7 is not around anymore and it's hard to check, they got away with a slight historical innacuracy.
The cellphone that’s buried in my handbag? I think you missed the expressed use case (admittedly, a few paragraphs into TFA):
”Before, I would take my phone out of my pocket to jot these down, but I couldn’t always do that (eg, while bicycling). I also wanted to start using my phone less, especially in front of my kids.”
I just tried it, and it worked flawlessly. Now, obviously it's not great for privacy per se, but I'm not jotting down my plans for world domination or anything
It's still easier to turn around a ring than to fiddle with a a phone. And more legal as well, no laws against rotating a ring while rinding your bike. That's fully haptic, no is drawn from traffic for that.
I'm sure it won't be able to handle wind noise well (it doesn't look big enough to have multiple microphones) so you'd have to stop the bicycle to make a good recording. Might as well grab the phone then.
Yes I know but I doubt it will capture much at all when there's significant wind noise, even enough to understand by ear without STT.
A friend of mine has her phone on her handlebars in a gps mount and she sends me voice messages through her bluetooth headset and those are hardly intelligible. A hand on the handlebar would be even further from the mouth.
And those are pretty good ones with multiple microphones.
Start using your ring/watch/whatever_else more in front of your kids.
Honestly, it isn't about what you use (that is just hype). You can read the paper all day if you want. I grew up with a father who was listening to radio and watching TV all the time (to be fair: he was disabled, including legally blind). It isn't about using your phone less in front of your kids. It is about being there for your kids when they need you; showing genuine interest in your kids; interacting with them. Right now, as I am writing this to you, my kids are watching Peppa Pig before bedtime. Instead of writing this, I could sit next to them and watch an episode with them.
As for cycling, with a ring you'd have to move your hand towards you or not, but it isn't much different compared to a watch, except perhaps when you'd wear a sweater over your watch.
It is also very typical that in-ear buds are expensive, small, yet hard to repair because the battery isn't user replaceable. And guess what, exactly the same for this device.
Apart from the yet another device with microphone (24/7 on, I suppose) and Bluetooth (the wireless spaghetti protocol) and it not being user serviceable the device costs 100 USD. For such a price, I expect it to last longer than two years. I mean, I'm sick of devices lasting only a few years. I wouldn't need yet another one.
> Instead of writing this, I could sit next to them and watch an episode with them.
And as any study into the effects of parental attention and shared experience will show that kind of behavior would be beneficial to their overall long-term mental health. Requiring them to make themselves heard and to actively “disturb you“ is a very high barrier for children to break through (even if you don’t consider it a disturbance). Children need active mirroring and external guidance when it comes to their needs in order to develop a healthy sense for them. They are “left alone“ as soon as you leave the shared emotional space.
The remarks in this comment can only come from a gross misunderstanding of what many people mean when they talk about avoiding use of their phones around their kids. Almost every sentence reveals a very me-focused outlook.
> It isn't about using your phone less in front of your kids. It is about being there for your kids when they need you
That's a very narrow conception if the problem—it isn't solely about being "there" for them or trying to get control over (and maintain control over) one's own addictions. The main thing that people have an issue with when they talk about kids and phone use (and TV for that matter) is addiction observed in the kids themselves. It's absolutely about using one's own phone less while they're around as a means of quashing overexposure.
You can show as much genuine interest in them as you want, and it doesn't change anything, because whether the kids feel like the parent is "there for them" not the problem that a parent is is already genuinely interested in them is concerned about and trying to address.
> As for cycling, with a ring you'd have to move your hand towards you or not, but it isn't much different compared to a watch, except perhaps when you'd wear a sweater over your watch.
"Not much" except that the fingers that are attached to the hand that's attached to the wrist where you're wearing your watch certainly aren't capable of reaching back to press a button on said watch.
> Apart from the yet another device with microphone (24/7 on, I suppose)
The folks in this thread are really committed to just plucking things out of thin air and acting on foregone conclusions, huh?
You supposedly speak for masses and claim I am having some exceptional, unique look but you don't cite anything to support your claim.
> That's a very narrow conception if the problem—it isn't solely about being "there" for them or trying to get control over (and maintain control over) one's own addictions. The main thing that people have an issue with when they talk about kids and phone use (and TV for that matter) is addiction observed in the kids themselves. It's absolutely about using one's own phone less while they're around as a means of quashing overexposure.
> You can show as much genuine interest in them as you want, and it doesn't change anything, because whether the kids feel like the parent is "there for them" not the problem that a parent is is already genuinely interested in them is concerned about and trying to address.
I grew up with my father who was really hip. He didn't use his smartphone much. Sometimes, he did this weird thing. Out of nowhere, he'd comment about something seemingly unrelated to the discussion. I didn't understand what he was yapping at. At first, I thought he was talking to mom. One time, I noticed he did it when mom was upstairs. At one point, I thought dad was having imaginary friends. Turns out, dad had this smart ring he'd use to record notes. One day, the ring was gone. Gone from his finger. I guess it broke, or something.
IOW, replacing one tool with another, you can't fool people. If social media distracts you, remove it from your smartphone, or limit the exposure to it. My wife when she is done with cooking, regularly uses her smartphone after that when we are eating. Usually to fill in about groceries. We're not overly strict on that, and we don't expect our kids to be strict on it when they got a smartphone later on. But it is about proportion. Using it for a short amount of time is perfectly possible. If you want to have a 'no tech' rule during dinner, fine, but then also smart rings. If you want to allow certain specific tasks, a technical barrier like a smart ring versus a smartphone can work, yes. But you can also decide to limit yourself whilst using your smartphone. IMO that starts with uninstalling all kind of BS apps you don't need, and removing notifications you don't require. Either way, the bottom line is this: the ring doesn't solve the issue of distractions on smartphones. It tries to mitigate the issue. So whenever you do use your smartphone, you are still suffering from the issue.
> "Not much" except that the fingers that are attached to the hand that's attached to the wrist where you're wearing your watch certainly aren't capable of reaching back to press a button on said watch.
This is true, it isn't hands-free, hands-free is superior. Although a device on the bike also works well. You can buy such a tool right now to attach your smartphone to your bike, and it'll last for more than two years. It is a matter of moving your hand once to the other one to enable the mic. A Pebble, too, you can replace the battery yourself and I absolutely despise all these smartwatches where you cannot.
If I could press one button (and not unlock the phone) I would; my samsung even has an extra wasted button (the "bixby" button) but it isn't reconfigurable. (Still fails for the "while driving" case but I'd be using it the rest of the time)
Why stop there? Why use your phone at all? Just go visit your mum instead of calling...
Sorry the sarcasm, but not everything should need you to take your phone, unlock, get distracted, open social media on a reflex and forget what you were doing in the first place.
Get distracted? I mean, are you American? Have you ever looked around you in traffic? Look at all these billboards and bullshit and tell me about distraction. If you are on a mission you do not open your social media. People do so due to boredom, I guess. The sensible thing to do is... stop using social media.
Aside from that, let us assume you won't stop with that (after all, it is free!). Smartphones have a driving mode which you can set, setting them on DnD. I take my smartphone out of my pocket when I wait before a traffic light, and that works, but I only do so when I need to and what I certainly do not need to do at that point is have a look at Facebook or Twitter. I also don't have Bluetooth on 24/7 on my smartphone (one reason being tracking concerns). On a Pebble watch, I can put this off. Sadly a software killswitch, but better than nothing.
Well, you could just turn off unnecessary notifications like I do, same with emails. I get like 3 notifications a day on average now, and most of those are just dms from friends.
If you want to go that route, each manufacturer is responsible for their own drivers for windows, linux, and possibly Mac (though if it’s novel enough, they will do it). Then think about the components that make up a PC. Motherboard, CPU, Memory Control, IO, OS, Audio, Video. Each of those needs to release patches. So its orders of magnitude more than any Android OS. It’s just pure laziness on the hardware manufacturers that don’t want to invest in software/support. They want Google to do that.
The big difference with PC hardware is that the OS will get most driver updates for the individual components directly from the OEM. A driver update for, say, a sound card will directly be available to every machine with that sound card installed. The PC vendor doesn't have to be involved in any way.
It's the other way around with Android. Google does a new core release, and each individual manufacturer is responsible for modifying it for their devices. If you don't bother to upstream your drivers to mainline Linux and use a skin which heavily modifies core Android, backporting those fixes can quickly become a nightmare.
Again, no sympathy as that’s the route they chose. Rely on Google for everything OS and make a phone whereas Apple made a phone and supplied an OS.
Apple made a product. Google made a software revenue stream. Entirely different things and now the Android makers are crying foul that they too have to do product engineering support. Nah. This is what you get when you rely on out of house innovation. I hope they all close shop. Not because I like Apple, but because they aren’t in the business of making products, only selling you hardware with bolt on software that it vaguely supports. Like buying a raspberry pi that can make phone calls. Google has them all by the balls.
Yeah, and I also hope that all the PC makers close up shop as well. They rely on Microsoft for everything OS. Listen, you can just enjoy your iPhone in peace. Let other people make things, even if you feel they don't meet your standards.
No, I use Android and the security nightmare on Android is absolutely unacceptable. There is zero reason phones should rely on as many proprietary bullshit blobs as they do, and that's the root cause of this.
Even just looking past the bugs that almost certainly exist in the firmware, it makes these devices extremely difficult to update. Whereas on desktop, I get kernel patches expeditiously. Many Android devices are still running kernel 5, and of the ones running recent kernels, we're still waiting months for system patches.
If everyone just upstreamed their shit, then we would live in a Utopia.
They don’t rely on Microsoft, quite the contrary. The OEM/ISV vendor relationship at Microsoft is the backbone of the company. Linux, servers, phones, infotainment, TV’s, robotics, all run a flavor of Unix (Linux being the primary, but BSD is in there).
For the consumer PC market, Microsoft cornered the market early on with IBM and HP with DOS. They then tried to pull the ladder and raise the gates when they went against OS/2 and Amiga. To win the Windows for Networks wars.
The only reason why majority of consumers use windows is because that’s how they want it. You can easily build a PC, no Microsoft Windows anywhere in a 1 km radius, and install Linux or BSD flavor of choice and be 90% there. Companies don’t want you to do that (i.e. Microsoft and Apple) so they preinstall the OS and it updates over the Internet whenever it wants to. Installing whatever it wants to. User choice be damned.
No, Pc’s don’t need Microsoft anymore than Rap needs p.diddy
Weird how LineageOS supports ~300 devices while still managing to release patches.
I bet this CVE's patched quicker on a samsung device running LineageOS than the stock OS.
The real difference is that Google has a more competent software development process and release process than other android OEMs, regardless of how many different devices they have.
LineageOS doesn't customize the hell out of their OSes per device.
That's core of the issue. Samsung takes Android, customizes per device and then tosses them into the world. So now they don't have 1 OS to update, they have 100s of OSes to update.
That's still one OS. Customization is mostly userspace "system" apps that they swap out and maintain, but reused across all their phones with some small variation. Hardware enablement will differ between models, but that's just the cost of doing business.
Can be a pain to move the whole suite to a new major (porting all their inhouse apps, getting all the hardware enablement from vendors updated to match, ...), but we're not dealing with a major upgrade here.
A security patch is "just" a matter of taking the last release, applying the diff, build, qa, release. No customization.
And 5000+ laptop models per year, yet linux runs on (pretty much) all of them. This is an entirely self-inflicted problem. They don't deserve an ounce of mercy.
reply