rwz
rwz on Hacker News
Who is this for? Is just just an exercise in tokenmaxxing? Who in their right mind would even go like "Perfect, a free clone of this huge paid proprietary tool I've been using vibe-coded along other 100 unrelated huge paid proprietary tools. Just what I've been looking for!"
I don't think anybody above 10 years old is seriously expecting to be able to buy the flying version of the car or be able to do thrust-assisted 0-60 on a public road.
This whole video was just 9 minutes of "duh" for me.
I personally don't think we'll ever see this tech in action again. Maybe there will be a couple of billionaire collectors who receive their invite-only thruster cars only to put them in a garage and never touch it again. Maybe there'll be some "Jay Leno's garage" walk-around style youtube video. But I don't think anybody would ever actually seriously let this thing fly in the wild.
I feel like even if a next generation of chips dropped tomorrow, it'd be a while until they can scale up production and actually start selling products you or I could realistically purchase and by that time this new generation chip would already by a couple of years old with something much better and powerful in the final stages of design.
Why didn't they name it 4.2 Flash or something? I find the naming highly confusing.
One of my friends commutes exclusively on FSD in this Tesla. He even purchased a device on Alibaba that disables the attention checks. He spends most of his time doomscrolling on this phone or napping when the car drives itself.
The only time he takes over is in a very tight garage where you need to drive really close to walls and FSD freaks out a bit.
I'm not condoning his behavior, but it tells me that FSD if "mostly works" for normal applications.
As someone born and raised in Russia now living in the US as a naturalized citizen I still see a lot of difference, but not going to lie, it's shrinking quite a bit faster than I'm comfortable with.
They shipped a metric ton of new features in 1.4 and it seems relatively stable enough that it doesn't require too much hot bug fix releases.
If the device does anything with network, other devices can likely sniff a lot of information about it with high degree of accuracy based on how they react to certain network probes. But also lot of useful protocols rely on devices explicitly announcing themselves and their capabilities, like Bonjour or Chromecast.
Right, or laptops. Or TVs. Or other IOT devices like coffee makers, dishwashers, washers, garage openers, smart locks, vacuums etc.
I'm sure they could've collected the same data they're collecting with 0.1% of the traffic. This particular case seems to be greed AND incompetence.
It collects the data about your home appliances and personal devices. This data can tell a lot about your income level and spending habits. This is extremely useful for advertisers for obvious reasons.
Perfect. I want my power armor before the Great AI Uprising and the first Robot War begins!
When I give something a "Full Disk Access" permission, I expect it to have full access to what's on my disk, including "files, mail, messages, and even (gasp) browsing history"! Who are those mysterious people who expect their browsing history to be magically excluded from something called Full fucking Disk Access?
Answering my own question: no, they still don't have pinned tabs. Overall the new UI seems like a huge mess compared to Zen.
I disagree. When done right, tab management can make or break the browser. Extensions can't do all the things a native UI can. See Arc for example. Aside from amazing tab management story that made it hugely popular, it was a pretty uninspiring Chrome clone overall.
I'm currently using Zen since it's the closest thing to Arc with full MV2 support. If native Firefox with the new UI can do what Arc/Zen can do, I'll switch to it probably.
As a long time Zen user should I give this redesign a try?
I watch YT videos for entertaining presentation and packaging, not for original groundbreaking research.
I don't care if he reads a Forbes article verbatim, so long as I find it funny and can watch it on my TV while eating lunch sitting on my couch or doing house chores, I'm going to continue doing so.
I don't get it, the post makes a bunch of weird insinuations and then proceeds to just end without actually answering the question.
As you approach, the dashboard starts showing the mat position on the ground relative to your car and helps you align perfectly. There's a longer youtube video explaining a lot of the tech in there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeMQfA45LN8
I think the main point is that the existence of this box is a problem, not that someone forgot or deliberately chosen not to tick it.
This seems especially cruel in the wake of recent tech layoffs where you can find out that you're no longer employed while riding a corporate bus to work in the morning without any warnings or time to prepare.
Can you imagine living here for many years, having a rented house with all the furniture, a car, bank accounts, gym memberships, friend groups, kids enrolled in local schools, and then suddenly being thrown out of the country without even having a chance to liquidate any of it just because Meta or Amazon has just dropped another 10k people layoff and and you're unlucky to be a part of it?
I've never been interested in VR headsets and am not very educated about it.
Can someone explain why you'd want to actually run things on it instead of having a much lighter screens-and-headphones-only unit that plugs it into a more powerful machine that renders things for it? What's the benefit of having to strap all this extra hot hardware and batteries to your face.
Is it just about it being wireless? Surely there are wireless protocols that can stream high-bandwidth videostreams from your PC to VR goggles.
Not trying to be snarky or facetious, but genuinely curious.
I've just installed macOS 27 on my personal laptop and I'm losing my mind. My OrbStack app is now permanently stuck in Dock showing as "Running in Background"
There appears to be no way to keep it from the Dock without actually killing it or disallowing the "Running in Background" permission for it.
This is the stupidest forced opt-in feature I've ever seen.
I recently got their new gen Pebble Time 2 and this thing lasts about a month on a single charge!
I've owned multiple generations of Apple watches before and the battery life made me ditch it. After about a year, the watch wouldn't even last a full day with mostly passive usage.
I'm considering trying Ultra just so the battery can comfortably last full day without entering power saving mode by 8pm.
Disappointing to see Apple doesn't consider battery life to be a major problem. They keep balancing efficiency and battery gains with new features consuming more juice to keep battery life roughly the same as the previous generations.
Sooo, Rivian is a chip maker now. That's cool, I guess.
> So your claim is that it's actually impossible to implement "efficient" anticheat on Linux? That's interesting.
This is absolutely not my claim and it's a pretty absurd interpretation of what I wrote.
My claim is that there's ample evidence that anti-cheat on Linux happens to be a pretty hard technical blocker and multiple companies at this point have chosen to ban the platform outright and take a revenue loss over trying to overcome this blocker. This directly contradicts your claim of "obviously few or no hard technical blockers" existing.
This does not imply it's impossible to implement. It implies that at this point implementing it would not justify the cost. This pretty much 100% matches the any reasonable interpretation of the term "technical blocker"
I don't play For Honour, but I'm monitoring Apex Legends pro scene and I know that Respawn has banned Linux because none of the existing anti-cheat solutions were good enough and the cost of maintaining their own solution was not worth the revenue Linux support was bringing.
Before the ban the cheater population was disproportionally high on Linux.
> There are obviously few or no hard technical blockers preventing Valve and the Linux community from supporting any game that runs on Windows
The announcement is a proof that your statement here is incorrect. Ubisoft is not banning Linux because they hate you and your money, but because there's a hard technical blocker to implementing an efficient anti-cheat system on Linux and the cost of overcoming this technical blocker is presumed to be higher than the loss of revenue they're incurring from losing your business.