People have attached pens to 3d printers and used them to write letters, effectively print. Most consumer 3D printers are useing or based on open source software.

I think the issue is, printers are relatively cheap to buy and replace. So building your own and programming it hasn’t been necessary. Where as 3d printing was completely in accessible before the reprap movement. 3D printing software is open source as it is motivated by people wanting to build their own machines that could build machines. Something you couldn’t easily buy.

It was very likely a designers decision. It forces the use the use case they wanted; wireless mice should be used wirelessly. I would bet they fought marketing and management to get this on the final product.

Marketing would want the mouse they can advertise as being useable with and wireless. Female ports are easier to mount and manufacture with they have depth to set the socket. So a plug on the front is much cheaper and easier to manufacture.

The fact the charging cable doesn’t get used in motion means it will last longer and you wouldn’t have people useing fraying cables on the front of their mouse.

People with exploits available that are unpatched are waiting for that end of support. It increases the value of their unreleased exploit.

No it doesn’t, or at least it didn’t for years if that has changed recently.

No one that knew about this was talking about it or doing anything about it.

The reality of the situation is only three organisations are capable of producing fully fledged browsers. Google, Apple and Firefox. Every variant, spin and de-whatever is nothing compared to developing a browser. All the chrome derivatives had this in them, arbitrarily execution of code from google. Code that wasn’t included in the binary when you downloaded or updated it. The sort of thing a virus would do. The sort of tool you would use to compromise the security of a system.

If you want a de-googled chrome the only option is safari, it’s chrome before google got its hands on it. If you want properly open and accessible browsers you need to use something else entirely like Firefox.

De-googled chrome is a myth.

Chrome excites arbitrary code from google.com (this wasn’t something widely known until recently and appears to effect all the chromium downstream browsers). This sort of back door and the design approach that made google do this means you can never really trust Chrome. The same issue with Firefox would be a bug, in chrome it’s a feature.

It was 12 years ago he said he would put a man on mars in 10 years.

Google uses WiFi and Bluetooth info for location tracking. So they can track you when you don’t have GPS switched on. WiFi names, MAC address are correlated to locations by google.

So google infers any app that has WiFi or Bluetooth access can track you like they do.

I read it as just better than chrome, if you use chrome switching to any other popular browser is better. Not that edge is a particularly good browser.

Firefox, Brave, Edge, and Safari offer stronger privacy protections by default than you get from Chrome, which is the world’s most popular browser.

In the rest of the article they seem to suggest Firefox, safari and brave are the better options and point to evidence. And that Microsoft claim edge is a better option. Overall its suggest Firefox it better at evading tracking and safari at evading fingerprinting (largely because all the safari devices are so similar, and apple try to make them look more similar).

You know it’s a thunderbolt connection on a MacBook. They stopped using the USB symbol when they used the usb for thunderbolt and stopped using the mini display port.

This is going to be tracking customers location in supermarkets.

An undeterministic system is dangerous. A deterministic with flaws can be better, the flaws can be identified understood and corrected. The flaws are more likely to be present in testing.

Machine learning is nearly always going to be undeterministic. If they then use continuous training, the situation only gets worse.

If you use machine learning because you can’t understand how to solve the problem, then you’ll never understand how the system works. You’ll never be able to pass a basic inspection test.

They aren’t getting google money anymore.

When you automate these processes you lose the experience. I wouldn’t be surprised if you couldn’t parse information as well as you can now, if you had access to chat GPT.

It’s had to get better at solving your problems if something else does it for you.

Also the reliability of these systems is poor, and they’re specifically trained to produce output that appears correct. Not actually is correct.

You need software support to use them. But, it’s already common to support this. But it does take time to develop test and deploy this software.

The software will exist in kernels, drivers and libraries. Intel already supports things like this.

You may need to wait or use a bleeding edge version of your os to support these extra features.

Yeah. I think they will struggle to match apple. By the time they do apple will have progressed further.

Another big issue, is these features need deep and well implemented software. This is really easy for apple, they control all the hardware and software. They write all the drivers and can modify their kernel to their hearts content. A better processor is still unlikely to match apples overall performance. Intel have to support more operating systems and interface with more hardware of which they have little control over. It won’t be until years after release that these processors even realistically reach their potential. By which time intel and apple with both have newer releasesed chips with more features, that intel users won’t be able to use for a while.

This strategy has intel on the back foot and they will remain their indefinitely. They really need a bolder strategy if they want to reclaim best desktop processors. It’s pretty embarrassing apple laptop and integrated GPU completely wipe the floor of intel desktop cpus with dedicated gpus in certain workflows, it can often be the cheaper option to buy the apple device if your in a creative profession.

Qualcomm will have similar issues, but they won’t be limited to inferior x86 architecture. x86 only serves backwards compatibility and intel/amd. Arm is used on phones because with the same fab and power restrictions it makes better processors. This has been know for a long time, but consumers would accept this till apple proved it.

I wouldn’t be surprised if these intel chips flop initially, intel cuts their losses and stops developing new ones. Then we will see lots of articles saying intel should never have stopped developing these, there really competitive relativel to their contemporaries, not realising the software took that much time to effectively utilise them.

Extra components mean more specific hardware to complete each task. This more specific hardware can process the same data often faster and with less power consumption. The drawback is cost, complexity and these compose are only good for that one task.

CPUs are great because they are multipurpose and can do anything, given infinite time and storage. This flexibility means it isn’t as optimised.

People are not creating custom code to solve their own problems. They are running very common applications, using very common libraries for similar functions. So for the general user specific hardware for encryption, video codecs, networking etc will reduce power consumption and increase processing speed in a practical way.

I don’t think he’s suggesting it isn’t open source, just we need more open source engines.

Long term servo is unlike to be another web engine. It’ll just replace Firefox. Firefox’s old engine won’t get as much development. Then we’ll be left with Safari, Firefox (servo) and googles web manipulation vehicle Chrome safari with more tracking and higher battery/ram consumption.

It will be driven my minimal viable product and running to a release at the end of every x sprints.

They don’t have the time or structure to build long term plans and well considered features.

The contract only works if Microsoft complies with it.

Why wouldn’t they, they don’t care and are unlikely to get caught stealing the data the agreed not to steal. How are you going to find out, how are you then going to sue them and how are you going to replace the services. The reality is most businesses won’t find out, they won’t sue if they do and they’ll continue using Microsoft services.