v1ne

Why eInk? The display updates often, that's a perfect choice for Sharp MIP displays. Also: Please use a fixed-width font for numbers. Seeing the values wobble around looks like a generic website, not like a serious product.

No, it can do whatever it wants. Just don't leak resources!

Don't worry. Once IT Security discovers that they miss their trusty endpoint security products on your Mac, they'll add it and you'll be in the same ballpark as the Windows machine. Been there, received that, and learnt that Microsoft Defender exists for macOS, too.

"USB data blocker" on AliExpress yields you very small adapters that enable you to run USB-PD, but block the data lines.

I tried to read this, and what the tool works, but this is so much text with little context. Looks like AI fluff. It sounds pretty straight-forward, so this should be a single page with a few paragraphs only.

Interfaces are persistent in Windows, that's why they get assigned such silly names as "LAN interface (42)".

If the mapping between the logical and physical interfaces changes, that probably means that your NICs lack proper IDs to differentiate them or the bus topology is somehow not stably sorted. I wouldn't blame the OS for this.

The trick about documentation is depth, not prose. You need context and understanding to write documentation "like in the old days". No amount of LLM trickery will free you from that. Once you have that source material, it's easy to re-shape it into an 80's/90's/00's doc format.

Negative example: I was looking into the German manual of my Canon EOS R5 II, and it is just fluff. Hundreds of pages, full of white space, telling me about features without actually explaining what they mean. Awful automatic translations. Their manuals used to be good (looking at my EOS 6D). But these days: oh boy.

It's sad to see Xtensa go. Their architecture was a clean design, a treat to read the assembly code. I get it, RISC-V comes without licensing costs, but that's one of the few positive things about it. For a fresh start, it is just already in this "we pile stuff on stuff on stuff" state that you expect of an architecture after 10-20 years of productive use.

Well, salt may be less volume than brine. But the demand for table salt is pretty limited. Thus: Why pay for its disposal when you can discharge brine for free?

Great! Brings a bit more dynamic into the market. So far, I'm happy with DxO, but I also don't need to manage a library.

I don't know, does Resolve have lens corrections for 100+ lenses built-in? That's the thing that DxO does really well: Lens corrections, matching your camera's color rendering, denoising. Unfortunately, they still struggle with HDR output.

I imagine the tools in Resolve save you much time, due to automation. Probably handy if you shoot a lot. Yet, the biggest difference is that in photography, you're not necessarily limited by throughput. You can and do actually put a lot of effort into single images.

I think it's more people being fascinated by this curious architectural detail. I imagine it's fascinating to people who are not exposed to the intricate details of computer architecture, which I assume is the vast majority here. It's a glimpse into a very odd world (which is your day-to-day work in the HFT field, but they rarely talk about this, and much less in such big words).

TBH, I didn't watch the video because the title is too click-baity for me and it's too long. Instead, I looked at the benchmark results on the Github page and sure, it's fascinating how you can significantly(!) thin the latency distribution, just by using 10× more CPU cores/RAM/etc. Classic case of a bad trade-off.

And nobody talked about what we use RAM for, usually: Not to only store static data, but also to update it when the need arises. This scheme is completely impractical for those cases. Additionally, if you really need low latency, as others pointed out, you can go for other means of computation, such as FPGAs.

So I love this idea, I'm sure it's a fun topic to talk about at a hacker conference! But I'm really put off by the click-baity title of the video and the hype around it.

Does anybody else's fingers also tingle like this is written by an AI?

The formatting is strangely inconsistent, highlighting only some numbers and some variables in fixed-width font. Also there's odd statements like that the reference resistor keeps its value "at all temperatures", which is just not true. Other phrases like "poly-silicon resistor" are highlighted, and then not explained. All in all, I find this article to be quite a mess and not a clear explanation.

All of this works much worse on macOS: Scaling sucks, as it's integer-upscaled rendering + fractional downscaling in a shader. Windows can't span screens either.

On Windows, the window will adapt as you move its center of gravity across the edge of the screens. Sure, could be better than at the moment where the window is the wrong size, but it would always be blurry.

Completely agreed. I sit in dismay, remembering the Microsoft I frowned upon back in the days as a Linux/FreeBSD user. But at least their software was accessible via keyboard and their translations were really good.

Fast forward to now, after being a dev on Windows for years and loving it, and now their UX is a joke. For example, to jump back and forth between chats, neither the back/forth mouse buttons nor any other key combo works on macOS. You have to click the navigation buttons in the symbol bar instead. Translations are AI-powered, and that shows. Also, Teams is dog slow, which I also count as a UX issue.