riobard

I'm sure temperature ceiling will just work like debt ceiling.

I don't think the glasses by itself will have much computing power, at least in the near term the primary computing will be offloaded to phones. The glasses should mostly work as a display and position sensors.

It's still the same old concept of "magic surfaces", using screens, glasses, or projectors (all implementation details) to realize it is irrelevant.

Speaking of implementation details, projecting light on real-world surfaces absolutely sucks for this concept to gain adoption: issues like angular distortion, color accuracy, brightness, and energy efficiency are unsolvable. Don't waste time beating this dead horse (again).

Economy of scale currently favors the screen approach, but it's awkward to integrate multiple screens from different vendors to provide a seamless experience.

Both screens and projectors require multiple units to achieve the demo scenes. Screens would have to be mounted on much more surfaces of the home, while at least one projector is needed for each room. The cost adds up quickly.

That leaves us the only hope with smart glasses. Actually, smart glasses are also a type of projector——casting light not onto real-world surfaces, but directly into our eyes. It has the benefit of requiring just one unit for each viewer, and it could adapt to any kind of space, not limited to just surfaces. It has no inherent shortcomings of angular distortion/color accuracy/brightness. Its energy efficiency is the best and will keep improving. It just needs many more iterations to miniaturize so it can be just the size/weight of normal eye glasses to be unnoticed.

> There is one aspect in which the Mac is the perfect agent host: Apple has, for decades, invested in a combination of scriptability, automation, and accessibility APIs (these are very often the same thing) that makes it remarkably well-suited to computer use.

It's the software that matters here, not the hardware.

Maybe they could start a Archive@Home project for volunteers to donate unused disk space for the greater good.

This is the way to go.

China cracked the pollution issues of burning trash, and built a lot of high-temperature incinerator to burn trash and generate electricity.

The overcapacity leads to a shortage(!) of new trash to burn, and it has started to dig out landfills accumulated from the past decades.

The video from Asianometry is very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuIEBSb2xiE

If you haven't yet got any portable drives in the drawer, chances are high that you rarely need to copy large amount of files around anyway. In which case free tier of cloud sync services would be preferred for the majority of users.

At this particular point in time, yes SSD is expensive. But 5~10Gbps USB 3.0 SSD had been very affordable for a long time before 2025.

what's the latency when someone pressed the button and you hear the bell?

For the time spent finding the ethernet adapter, plugging the cable, configuring IP addresses, and testing with pings, any decent portable SSD drives should have finished copying tens of GB of data.

Unified memory is about address space. The bandwidth is still determined by bottlenecks to the processor. CPU/RAM links are still fairly narrow.

> because all those cheap smart home things like roku sticks and pet feeders and so on are built for cost and a decent 5Ghz chip is just too much to ask.

Cost certainly is the primary factor in the decision, but you definitely want those low-bandwidth but long-range devices OFF your precious 5GHz band.

Unless you want the same crappy experience of 2.4GHz band in 5GHz.

It's slightly better than the aggregate number :p

When talking about network bandwidth, it is custom to measure in bit-per-second therefore the "bps" notation. If you convert to bytes, it is highly recommended to use "b/s" notation instead, i.e 150MB/s, to avoid confusion.

> with Wi-Fi 7 reaching a maximum theoretical throughput of 23Gbit per band

Note to tech reports: do not EVER quote this metric as it is the most useless piece of information.

> inherited from 10 levels of parent classes

This is not (yet) a thing in Go. Go does not have classes and inheritance. Interface is more like duck-typing.

There's a asymmetry here that "-R" works both for reverse static and dynamic (using SOCKS protocol) forwarding, but "-D" is required for dynamic forwarding which "-L" cannot do.

Why is that?

Are you sure? I thought it's just AES without any authentication.

That's exactly the issue. I'm just pointing out that it's a fantasy to hope for simple numbering of max supported speeds will simplify the current USB mess.

It will not.

Consumers would expect plugging a 20Gbps device into a 40Gbps port should result in 20Gbps negotiated speed. In reality it will mostly likely end up at 10Gbps (or less) because of the mess.

> mark the speed on the USB ports, removing ambiguities

Unfortunately it's not true.

Quiz: what happens when a device capable of 20Gbps is plugged into a port marked as 40Gbps?

> by the time batteries wear out, most people are going to want a new a phone.

Not true. In recent years smartphones do not advance much, and would be perfectly fine to keep working if not for the dying battery.

> At the very least we'd need to see some data that shows that most people replace batteries when it is possible to do so.

The degree of "possible" varies greatly depending on the available expertise and spare parts. Right now in EU it's cost prohibitive for both coz the special labor required is expensive and almost no official spare parts for consumers. So of coz this will be no data to support your claim.

How do you achieve that on macOS then? With PF?

why is jack retasking a thing…

>> The macOS version uses deep packet inspection to do this more reliably. That's not an option here.

I thought it would be easier to do DPI on Linux than macOS. No???

It just proved the author knows nothing about either technology.

Seamless WiFi roaming is mostly a client decision. The best you can do on AP is to:

a) optimize signal strength for coverage (stronger signals aren't always better in multi-AP deployment);

b) provide hints via 802.11k/v/r to help clients make, hopefully, better decisions;

c) forcefully drop and disassociate clients when signal is weak enough.

But if the client has bad WiFi implementation, there's nothing much you could do.

OpenWRT currently supports 802.11k/v/r, but optimizing coverage by adjusting signal strength and channels is left for experienced users to deal with manually. There is the are where some commercial offerings will do, but the result greatly varies. AFAIK there's no ideal system anyway coz physics is hard.

I used to think that the scenes of the TV series “Person of Interest” were exaggerated for storytelling purposes. Maybe not and it was accurate prescience.

China has several teams working on FEL and several experimenting light sources, the latest being built in Shenzhen https://www.iasf.ac.cn/

"(sftp) packetizes the data and waits for responses, effectively re-implementing the TCP window inside a TCP stream."

why is it designed this way? what problems it's supposed to solve?