mort96

17 ms·

451.
by mort96 6mo ago
Then what's 3.2 gen 2x2?
452.
by mort96 6mo ago
And? The question stands, why is the USB 4 spec a downgrade?
453.
by mort96 6mo ago
Why do you ask?
454.
by mort96 6mo ago
UTF-8 does not require a byte order mark. The byte order mark is a technical necessity born from UTF-16 and a desire to store UTF-16 in a machine's native endianness. The byte order mark has has no relation to code pages. I don't
455.
by mort96 6mo ago
I don't think they've taken the criticism on board, USB 3 still has the completely nonsensical names
456.
by mort96 6mo ago
UTF-8 does not encode "European glyphs" in two bytes, no. Most European languages use variations of the latin alphabet, meaning most glyphs in European languages use the 1-byte ASCII subset of UTF-8. The occasional non-ASCII glyph
457.
by mort96 6mo ago
Well it means I have no idea what TFA is talking about when it mentions USB versions, for one.
458.
by mort96 6mo ago
Hm? UTF-8 encodes all of ASCII with one byte per character, and is pretty efficient for everything else. I think the only advantage UTF-16 has over UTF-8 is that some ranges (such as Han characters I believe?) are often 3 bytes of UTF-8 whi
459.
by mort96 6mo ago
All these USB version names. I used to know what they all meant, but then the USB IF went ahead and renamed them all and made a bunch of versions have the same name and renamed some versions to have the same name as the old name of other ve
460.
by mort96 6mo ago
Exactly.
461.
by mort96 6mo ago
Design decisions have predictable consequences. Large masses of people, who make up an ecosystem like the that of a programming language community, respond predictably to their environment. Each individual programmer has a choice, sure, but
462.
by mort96 6mo ago
Rust and Cargo are, if not inseparable, at least tightly connected. Rust and Rust's stdlib are inseparable. Cargo is modeled after NPM. It works more or less identically, and makes adding thousands of transient dependencies effortless,
463.
by mort96 6mo ago
Netflix should be very interested in a fact like "Netflix has show X, but Netflix subscribers who love show X choose to watch it someplace else due to issues with Netflix".
464.
by mort96 6mo ago
These kinds of issues cause a negative feeling towards the product in the user. They keep using the product even after having seen a badly auto translated review from a language they speak or all these other things, but they now have a litt
465.
by mort96 6mo ago
They might've just hit a ceiling with the quality they can get per token? Maybe the only real way left to scale quality is to increase token usage?
466.
by mort96 6mo ago
To be clear, my statement is that "No product worth using is bug free" (which is what dpark said) does not mean the same as "all bug free products are worth using" (which is what your response to dpark implied).
467.
by mort96 6mo ago
I might've missed it, but I feel this analysis is lacking a control? A category which there is no reason to assume would flinch. How about scoring how much it flinches when encountering, say, foods? If the words sausage, juice, caulifl
468.
by mort96 6mo ago
"No product worth using is bug free" is not the same statement as "all bug free products are worth using". Come on man, this is basic logic.
469.
by mort96 6mo ago
The model of "every Internet subscriber gets one IP address" only works thanks to NAT.
470.
by mort96 6mo ago
That's not enough. For one, businesses and other entities also need Internet access. Cloud companies in particular needs a ton of addresses. That's gonna eat up a fair chunk of the remaining 50%. Two, humanity is still growing, go
471.
by mort96 6mo ago
Hm? The ISP gives one IP address to a router in a house, that router uses NAT to let all the computers inside that house use the Internet through the one single shared public IP address. That's NAT, isn't it?
472.
by mort96 6mo ago
That's a fair point. In my mind, residential ISPs give out public IP addresses and CGNAT is just for cell phones. But I recognize that the philosophy of, "we don't need to solve IP address exhaustion, we just need to keep peo
473.
by mort96 6mo ago
The ARP part of the article makes the case that there is no need for a protocol to resolve IP addresses to MAC addresses, with the argument that if only the default gateway was a MAC address rather than an IP address, there would be no need
474.
by mort96 6mo ago
No, they're not. That's other weird policies specific to your ISP. With IPv4 + NAT, you have a public IP address. That public address goes to your router. Your router can forward any port to any machine on your LAN. I used to run
475.
by mort96 6mo ago
I don't like this post's negativity towards ARP. ARP is the reason we can have IP networking on a LAN without a router. The default gateway just becomes a special case of general IP networking on a LAN. Otherwise, the networking h
476.
by mort96 6mo ago
It's not complicated because you understand it? Okay then
477.
by mort96 6mo ago
It's not. It's nice that it supports UEFI and I hope more SBCs follow suit, but it categorically does not do anything to solve the vendor kernel problem. It just means you don't need a hardware-specific bootloader and a devic
478.
by mort96 6mo ago
Oh they finally got that up and running? That's good, but extremely late. It released in 2021 . That's half a decade. As long as running an upstream kernel means you have to use 5+ year old SoCs, running upstream Linux instead
479.
by mort96 6mo ago
You can hope but I don't think it'll happen any time soon. The lack of standardized boot and runtime discovery isn't such a big issue; u-boot deals with the former and devicetrees deal with the latter, we could already have a
480.
by mort96 6mo ago
This does not explain why the drivers for all the hardware is upstreamed almost immediately in the x86 world but remains locked away in vendor trees for years or forever in the ARM world. Vendor kernels don't exist due to the lack of s

More ›