This article seems a bit dramatic in it's title? People have purchased "blank" RAM for years for the aesthetic of it. I do not personally see the point, but I also don't have motherboards with unpopulated RAM slots. If a company wants to sell a kit that is 50/50, I am not sure that is actually a problem.
I remember being annoyed that it was hard to get the CDROM burner to match the case if you weren’t standard beige, and when black/clear came out it looked so bad for awhile!
To be fair, it can affect the non-modders as well. I remember being very annoyed when I found out, after I had already bought it, that my current GPU comes with RGB lights that automatically turn on.
I think that says more about you than the ecosystem at large, people been modding computers for decades at this point, hardly new that some people seem to care more about looks than actually features/functionality/specifications :)
Personally I'm with you (but black), my entire desktop is just one color, and if a component is available in RGB and non-RGB and the difference isn't too big, I pay extra for that non-RGB version (which doesn't make sense it's even the case, but here we are).
I guess you could argue that we're all obsessed with the looks, some that all RAM slots are occupied, some that RGB is everywhere, some that the PC case should be off-white and slowly morph into beige, others that everything should be minimally black.
Yeah, when I specced my last desktop purchase a few years ago, I just chose the cheapest 4x16GB sticks from a decent brand. Didn't even occur to me that they'd be RGB monstrosities shining their stupid lights out through the case window. The AIO radiator was also similarly annoying, but at least the RGB can be disconnected on that! I hadn't even considered having a case window to be a problem as the previous PC build had a window, but fortunately nothing glowing apart from a couple of small status LEDs on the motherboard.
I don't particularly want to install the bloatware required just to turn off the LEDs, so I've resorted to hiding the PC under a desk at the other side of the room and have long DP and USB cables to the desk where I actually sit. This also has the nice side effect of not being able to hear the fans either!
Isn't this Fixed odds betting terminal how most slots work in North America as well? I'm aware of a few places where it isn't required. But the reality is if your RTP is something like 10%, not many people are coming by that often
A fixed-odds betting terminal is a type of slot machine. But unlike other categories of slot machine, it was (at one time) allowed a maximum bet of £100 and a maximum payout of £500. The RTP was around 95%, but allowing such a large maximum bet meant you could easily lose a lot of money, very quickly.
In 2019, the regulations changed to make the maximum bet £2 (50 times lower), in line with most other slot machines.
This kind of reminds me how I saw some teams deal with a vulnerability scanner flagging an OSS dependency as having a reported vulnerability. The dependency was always OSS anyways. Copy & paste the entire thing into your project. Voila, dependency scanner doesn't find any problems any longer.
QWACs exist to provide a more stringent and user-accessible way to assert a website's identity, mostly to foil phishing and other exploits that regular certificate systems don't address well. Where does this cross into censorship at all?
Oh, stop. Tinfoil-hatting like this is how privacy and internet freedom activism gets a bad rap.
QWAC certs are only for "high value" sites: banks, government services, etc. They can only be issued by "Qualified Trust Service Providers" (e.g. digisign, D-TRUST, etc -- not governments), and cost many hundreds of euros. Your blog and mastodon instance and 98% of businesses just aren't affected.
People operating in "high risk" sectors that need access to payment infra (porn, drugs, etc) are, as always, going to have a hard time. That's a worthy conversation, but nothing about QWAC or eIDAS is about "the government not issuing certs to people they don't like".
This is how total control of a platform always starts. Google starts with Android and just does digital signing for applications through their store. Until they achieve control of the platform, then suddenly you can't load your own applications without them signing it either.
Secure Boot is just a technology for those that need it, until Microsoft decides it's mandatory for everyone.
It's not really tinfoil hatting, EU countries already deny privileges based on political affiliation and so on. Germany shut down a Muslim cultural center for refusing to censor a speech by someone who came from Gaza, merely because of the fact they came from Gaza. Limiting government power is still something the EU needs - they're not all good.
For anyone wanting more context this comes from a deposition of Nathan Cavanaugh as part of discovery of a lawsuit by the ACLS. They recently filed for a summary judgement
First, x86-64 also has “extensions” such as avx, avx2, and avx512. Not all “x86-64” CPUs support the same ones. And you get things like svm on AMD and avx on Intel. Remember 3DNow?
X86-64 also has “profiles” which tell you what extensions should be available. There is x86-64v1 and x86-64v4 with v2 and v3 in the middle.
RVA23 offers a very similar feature-set to x86-64v4.
You do not end up with a mess of extensions. You get RVA23. Yes, RVA23 represents a set of mandatory extensions. The important thing is that two RVA23 compliant chips will implement the same ones.
But the most important point is that you cannot “just use x86-64”. Only Intel and AMD can do that. Anybody can build a RISC-V chip. You do not need permission.
>Anybody can build a RISC-V chip. You do not need permission.
No, anybody can’t build a RISC-V chip. That’s the same mistake OSS proponents make. Just because something is open source doesn’t mean bugs will be found. And just because bugs are found doesn’t mean they will be fixed. The vast majority of people can’t do either.
The number of people who can design a chip implementation of the RISC-V ISA is much, much smaller, and the number who can get or own a FAB to manufacture the chips smaller still. You don’t need permission to use the ISA, but that is not the only gate.
Yes, they can. My point is that nobody needs to give you permission. You can pretend that does not matter but China is about to educate us about what this means rather dramatically in the next few years.
And India is building RISC-V chips. And Europe is building RISC-V chips. Tenstorrent started in Canada (building RISC-V chips).
> the number who can get or own a FAB to manufacture the chips
Really? Almost nobody owns fabs and yet there are a multitude of chip makers. Getting access to a fab requires only money. It has nothing to do with the ISA or your skills. TSMC can make RISC-V chips just fine and already do. In some places, like China, RISC-V chips may be at the front of the line.
> The number of people who can design a chip implementation of the RISC-V ISA
Every electrical engineer is going to know how to design a RISC-V chip. But you could also be an intelligent garbage man and design a RISC-V chip in your spare time using only open source materials. You can even tape it out.
"But that is only a 32 bit microcontroller!", you might say. Sure. But the skills to build RISC-V are going to propogate. Of course, that does not mean that everybody in the world is going to figure out how to build chips. That is clearly not my point. They will still be built primarily by a select few. But that is not unique to RISC-V by any stretch. In fact, less so.
The hard part about building a chip from scratch is not the ISA. You think that a world-class engineer working with ARM64 or amd64 today cannot design a RISC-V chip? That is like saying a carpenter building oak cabinets lacks the skills to make them with maple.
And since it is the same amount of work to start fresh regardless of ISA, why not start with RISC-V?
Except you do not have to start fresh with RISC-V because there are many, and will be many, many more, open designs to study and start with. Here is a 64 bit chip that implements the very latest RISC-V vector extensions:
Which, by the way, means that although most won't, anybody can build a RISC-V chip.
The RISC-V world will look like ARM. Most chip makers will license the core design off somebody else. But there will be more of those "somebody elses" to choose from. And there will be more people who choose to design their own silicon. Meta just bought Rivos. What for do you think? And they did not have to talk to ARM about it.
> lots of commercial software is now compiled for newer x86 64 extensions.
Almost all software I encountered - including Windows 10 and precompiled Debian 13 - needs only SSE4.2, essentially mid-2000s ISA. Intel produced until very recently (early 2020s) Celeron CPUs which did not even support AVX.
Yet I still have regular conversations explaining "there is no way our customers are running on hardware that doesn't support this, where would they even be getting the hardware from, 2008?". I have a set of requirements in front of me requiring software to run on not only all Intel 64-bit chips, but also all Intel 32-bit chips.
No, you really can’t. For some OSS, on hardware that has an OS supported by that software, with a compiler that supports that target and the options you want, and in some cases where the OSS has been written to support those options, you can compile it. Otherwise you are just out of luck.
I don't really understand your position here. Compiler availability isn't really that big of a deal, even on obscure or proprietary platforms. Why would there be "some cases where the OSS has been written to support those options"?
Because the ISA is not encumbered the way other ISAs are legally, and there are use cases where the minimal profile is fine for the sake of embedded whatever vs the cost to implement the extensions
I'm not a lawyer but I would assume its copyright. Kind of like API in software. In software somehow this does not apply most of the time. But it seems in hardware this is very real. But I would appreciate a lawyer jumping in.
I know for example that Berkley when thinking pre-RISC-V that they had a deal with Intel about using x86-64 for research. But they were not able to share the designs.
I don't know why there aren't independent X86-64 manufacturers. Patents on the extensions maybe? But as I understand copyright, APIs can't be copyrighted so it's not that.
I doubt there is any legal barrier, because there are a few existing projects with x86 cores on an FPGA, as well as some SoCs. Here's a 486: https://opencores.org/projects/ao486
I went and read the section about Feiock. It's page 11 in the PDF for those interested. Section IV.B
It states "while these offense are labelled civil they remain fundamentally quasi-criminal in nature: punitive, adjudicative". Later it states "the State may not employ presumptions or burden-shifting devices that relieve it of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
The judge stops just an inch short of saying "this is a kangaroo court where guilt is stated rather than proven"
That's largely in line with unplanned or off-hours work for many professionals in the area of a city. If you want for example, plumbing done after normal business hours $300 per hour is a typical rate. In at least one case I paid $50 just to get a supply shop to open their doors after hours to get the needed parts to repair my own home.
I do not know how F-18 controls work but from what I understand lots of jet controls include the equivalent of a "safety" that can be used to prevent the weapon from being launched. Maybe the pilot thought he had it engaged?
The secondary thing here I've realized is that the missiles in question must not have been using active homing. If they were then the pilots of the US aircraft would have taken evasive action as soon as their radar warning receiver lit up.
The IFF system will trigger warning symbology on various cockpit displays but it won't prevent the pilot from employing weapons. At this point we don't know for certain whether IFF was enabled and working correctly on any of the aircraft involved.
reply