Skip to content

Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starship explodes on test stand

Technology
51 28 173
  • Honda Acty 1.0 to 4.0: The Full Generational Breakdown

    Technology technology
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Electric Bikes

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Firefox 140 Brings Tab Unload, Custom Search & New ESR

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    234 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    168 Aufrufe
    S
    Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".
  • 31 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Is Google about to destroy the web?

    Technology technology
    86
    1
    240 Stimmen
    86 Beiträge
    301 Aufrufe
    B
    I hate google enough to pay 5$/mo for Kagi - it puts a smile on my face everytime I go to search and know that I'm not supporting google
  • Atom-Thin Tech Replaces Silicon in the World’s First 2D Computer

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    125 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    72 Aufrufe
    L
    The 'laptop' is s conceptual illustration. The image shown on the laptop screen is an actual SEM image.
  • Whatever happened to cheap eReaders? – Terence Eden’s Blog

    Technology technology
    72
    1
    126 Stimmen
    72 Beiträge
    221 Aufrufe
    T
    This is a weirdly aggressive take without considering variables. Almost petulant seeming. 6” readers are relatively cheap no matter the brand, but cost goes up with size. $250 to $300 is what a 7.8” or 8” reader costs, but there’s not a single one I know of at 6” at that price. There’s 10” and 13” models. Are you saying they should cost the same as a Kindle? Not to mention, regarding Kindle, Amazon spent years building the brand but selling either at cost or possibly even taking a loss on the devices as they make money on the book sales. Companies who can’t do that tend to charge more. Lastly, it’s not “feature creep” to improve the devices over time, many changes are quality of life. Larger displays for those that want them. Frontlit displays, and later the addition of warm lighting. Displays essentially doubled their resolution allowing for crisper fonts and custom fonts to render well. Higher contrast displays with darker blacks for text. More recently color displays as an option. This is all progress, but it’s not free. Also, inflation is a thing and generally happens at a rate of 2% to 3% annually or thereabouts during “normal” times, and we’ve hardly been living in normal times over the last decade and a half.
  • 23 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    A
    World actually.