Skip to content

Google Restricts Android Sideloading—What It Means for User Autonomy and the Future of Mobile Freedom – Purism

Technology
95 63 0
  • 73 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    X
    I don't think it's realistic, but what they mean is that the community can in theory get together and decide to fork the code, collectively deciding that BlackRock's Bitcoin addresses are no longer part of their Bitcoin network. The BlackRock Bitcoin would be incompatible with the forked code. The result of a fork like that is two coins: BlackRock Bitcoin and Everyone Else Bitcoin. Every holder of the original Bitcoin gets an equal amount of both. It's a popularity contest between the two resulting Bitcoins to determine the price of each. In 2017, Bitcoin was struggling to scale. It had absurd transaction fees due to demand (just like Ethereum a few years later), and the community couldn't come to a consensus on how to upgrade it. 10% of the community forked the code to upgrade it by increasing block size, while everyone else opted for an L2 scaling solution. The result for holders was that they ended up with both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash in their wallets. Weirdly, the combined market value ended up being higher than value of the Bitcoin before the fork. I sold my Bitcoin Cash immediately and pocketed the money, expecting the price to go to zero. It did not.
  • Looking elsewhere

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    7 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    J
    That's a valid point! I've been searching for places to hangout for a while, sometimes called "campfires". Found a cool Discord with generous front-end folks (that's a broad spectrum!), on frontend.horse.
  • Why doesn't Nvidia have more competition?

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    33 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    B
    It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.
  • 11 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Elon Musk's X temporarily down for tens of thousands of users

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • OpenAI plans massive UAE data center project

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    V
    TD Cowen (which is basically the US arm of one of the largest Canadian investment banks) did an extensive report on the state of AI investment. What they found was that despite all their big claims about the future of AI, Microsoft were quietly allowing letters of intent for billions of dollars worth of new compute capacity to expire. Basically, scrapping future plans for expansion, but in a way that's not showy and doesn't require any kind of big announcement. The equivalent of promising to be at the party and then just not showing up. Not long after this reporting came out, it got confirmed by Microsoft, and not long after it came out that Amazon was doing the same thing. Ed Zitron has a really good write up on it; https://www.wheresyoured.at/power-cut/ Amazon isn't the big surprise, they've always been the most cautious of the big players on the whole AI thing. Microsoft on the other hand are very much trying to play things both ways. They know AI is fucked, which is why they're scaling back, but they've also invested a lot of money into their OpenAI partnership so now they have to justify that expenditure which means convincing investors that consumers absolutely love their AI products and are desparate for more. As always, follow the money. Stuff like the three mile island thing is mostly just applying for permits and so on at this point. Relatively small investments. As soon as it comes to big money hitting the table, they're pulling back. That's how you know how they really feel.
  • 590 Stimmen
    77 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    F
    When a Lemmy instance owner gets a legal request from a foreign countries government to take down content, after they’re done shitting themselves they’ll take the content down or they’ll have to implement a country wide block on that country, along with not allowing any citizens of that country to use their instance no matter where they are located. Block me, I don’t care. You’re just proving that you can’t handle the truth and being challenged with it.
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    V
    Here's how you know it's not ready: AI hasn't replaced a single CEO.