Yes, looks like the actual advantage (or disadvantage , depending on who you are) is ensuring that you don’t send a false location to a third party.

You mean the hexagon? What prevents you from mapping your GPS output to a hexagon?

How is this better than just mapping GPS data to a hexagon and sending that to the third-party?

If you buy from scalpers you are part of the problem

Hopefully they become more extremist this time and completely drop support for HDMI.

Don’t see the point of this standard which runs over an inferior type of networking

Inferior how? Matter is not comparable to Z-Wave. Z-Wave is a mesh network, Matter is just a standard which would allow Alexa, Siri, Google, etc. to control the same devices. To allow Z-Wave like functionality, Matter is able to work on top of Thread, which is in fact superior to Z-Wave.

is brought to us by the companies that created the interoperability problem in the first place

Of course. You don’t want to be the company known for refusing to participate in an open standard, even if you secretly don’t want it to succeed. Anyways, there’s no reason for companies to not want an open standard for controlling smart devices, since it literally helps everyone support more devices for basically no effort once you add support for Matter.

Intel ARC GPUs are actually very good. They just tried being a little too based by saying fuck you to HDMI and DirectX, both market leaders. They only support DP (HDMI is actually converted to DP in ARC GPUs), and only cared to properly implement Vulkan drivers.

https://github.com/schollz/croc

This has probably been in the works for years, and RISC-V’s profile (RVA23) for proper user application support was only released a few days ago.

Politicians when they realize the commercialized espionage they’ve allowed also applies to them:

And it does not concern you that this RVA profile is version 23

Not sure where you got that information. There are only 5 RISC-V profiles.

And they are incompatible, with version 23 because they lack instructions?

Like all the x86 CPUs from a few years ago that don’t have all the new extensions? Not supporting new extensions doesn’t mean the CPU is useless, only that it’s worse than new ones, as things should be when there’s progress. Or I guess you throw out your x86 CPU every time Intel/AMD create a new instruction?

So a compiler would have to support at least a certain number of those profiles

Do you think compilers only target one x86 version with one set of instructions? For example in x86, there’s SIMD versions SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, compilers support all of them, and that’s literally just for the SIMD instructions. What’s new?

That’s a good thing, meaning you can design RISC-V CPUs without functionality you don’t need (like microcontrollers that only need basic operations). However, for those who want a complete CPU, there are RVA profiles (latest being RVA23), which are a list of extensions required to be an application-ready CPU. So there’s really just 1 “standard” for general purpose computing, everything else is for specialized products.

What do you mean by standards?

Government comprises many departments and organizations, which do many things. It’s not a single blob of all good or all bad.

I don’t remember saying the contrary. When one part of the government does something, it was still the government.

not all back doors and CPU bugs are government-imposed

Don’t remember saying every single backdoor is government-imposed. Fact is there’s at least one backdoor that is for the government, whether there’s 1 or 5 doesn’t really matter.

you don’t know his actual usage

Why would I need to know his usage? Whatever it might be, a newer CPU can do the same amount of work as an old CPU for a fraction of the energy.

meaningless anyway unless you subtract from it the energy use from manufacturing and distributing a new system, as well as that from disposing of the old one.

You mean the CPU that was already manufactured years ago and won’t magically disappear due to you refusing to upgrade to it? Whether you use it or not the energy to create it was already spent.

you haven’t addressed the other problems mentioned at all

And I didn’t mean to. I simply corrected you when you congratulated him for using less energy, which is not true.

They don’t allow 3rd party clients, as per their ToS:

You must not (or assist others to) access, use, modify, distribute, transfer, or exploit our Services in unauthorized manners, or in ways that harm Signal, our Services, or systems. For example you must not (a) gain or try to gain unauthorized access to our Services or systems; (b) disrupt the integrity or performance of our Services; © create accounts for our Services through unauthorized or automated means; (d) collect information about our users in any unauthorized manner; or (e) sell, rent, or charge for our Services.

You need authorization to access Signal servers, which they don’t give:

we really don’t want forked versions of the app maintained by other parties connecting to our servers. Not only could the users using the forked version have a subpar experience, but the people they’re talking to (using official clients) could also have a subpar experience (for example, an official client could try to send a new kind of message that the fork, having fallen out of date, doesn’t support). I know you say you’d advocate for a build expiry, but you know how things go. Of course you have our full support if you’d like to fork Signal, name it something else, and use your own servers.

In my opinion, this is a horrible decision from Signal.

it may take legislation to give us back control of the computers we supposedly own

The government is the reason why you have backdoors built into your computers and routers.

He is adding to the world’s energy given that an FX 8350 is slower than something like a Ryzen 5600 at twice the TDP.

I love how you quoted all the parts expect the one that mentions where for this to even apply the person have to misuse corporate assets in the first place.

Didn’t bother responding to it because it’s irrelevant. Elon Musk is not being accused of misusing corporate assets, he is being accused of not complying with the DSA.

there is extensive legal precedent in the EU that covers this

Of course, extensive means many. Point to at least 2 cases in which other assets of a company’s owner were threatened by the EU government due to DSA violations. I know there are none, so I’ll make it easier. Name 2 cases for which the EU went after the owner’s other assets because the fine to the company wasn’t enough, whatever the fine might originate from.

It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought.

Is DSA the only way for your company to get fined? If the answer is no, then yes, it’s irrelevant. Because while your company may not be eligible for a DSA fine, there are countless different situations which could leave you in the same spot.

Personal liability applies to many actions under the law

Yes, but none of those actions involve what is happening here. The DSA clearly states that the company may be fined up to 6% of its yearly revenue.

your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.

What scaremongering? This is a valid concern. If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?