Oh really? I didn’t know that once since I only referenced the article. The article had issues with the modular top side, not the port. So I guess we were talking differently from the beginning.
Oh really? I didn’t know that once since I only referenced the article. The article had issues with the modular top side, not the port. So I guess we were talking differently from the beginning.
Uhh, does the model 13 have a modular panel? IIRC, they don’t. Also, manufacturing modular panel and modular port are very different and the knowledge transfer cannot be that big. The port for example has a looser tolerance since they aren’t really that visible most of the time. So being snug but not flush is good enough. I can imagine the panel doesn’t have that luxury. Stability issue, that I can agree. But then again, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt since they must handle additional assumptions that cannot be made on other laptops. Namely, modular GPU. Writing a firmware with that new assumption could be a PITA.
You do realize the 13 doesn’t have the back part for replaceable dedicated GPU right? That means the chassis itself must be redesigned since the hole will make the previous experience in the 13 different enough.
Uhhh, no. I think it is better to implement something akin to federation than breaking up a company just because. If anyone wanted to sue valve, then they can enforce interoperability at the very least. But not dividing their business model. We don’t force apple to split their software and hardware did we? We force apple to have a choice of interoperability. From then, it is all fair since anyone can link their data from valve and any other store that opt to implement the interoperability protocol.
Why can’t anyone develop said features? Should the competitor worsen themselves just because no one is able to develop the same features? As far as I remember, valve doesn’t patent something ridiculous like regional pricing or family sharing, so anyone is welcome to develop it themselves. They even make proton open source but apparently Epic doesn’t like the idea of them on the linux market.
So let me get this straight. Any client that wanted to have steam features, like the forum, hosting, workshop, chat, and all the jazz, should be able to do so without paying steam any fee? Why didn’t they develop it themselves? Or should steam sell that as a service to those who wanted it? Say for example, epic wanted to have family sharing. Steam should sell their family sharing feature to epic as a service?
Emulation time it is!
Can’t have cache latency if there is no cache!
But the recommendation can make better inference if they have more data wouldn’t they? What should have happened is opt-in for a better recommendation.
That “real time” on out of earth scale always boggles my mind. Technically it is as fast as it possibly could, knowing that radio waves travels at the speed of light. But damn, that light has to travel for a long time before arriving so “real time” data that arrives is technically “quite old” data.
I can imagine it being used to test various older cards or other esoteric hardware
As opposed to any other companies? I don’t have the data, but I have a hunch that if you can find every OSHA violation that ended up in death, NASA would be pretty low on that list. Even if you factor in the hours worked.
I think I may know a few of those. But not through play store. They usually scam someone by saying they got a packet on their way and their tracking number must be opened on an app that they send via messaging apps.
Transferring ownership of the account also transfers the game license owned by the account. Still upset publisher
I doubt you pay a doctor for him to say something you want to hear
Why… why is it more secure? Does it mean AI training is actively abusing copyright law? And this is more secure because they can hide it better?
Stuxnet would like to have a word
Hoho man, that naming scheme made me shiver. Bonus points since old and new exist at the same time
Edit: Oh, it just redirects immediately
Yep. Can’t wait to overfit LLM to a lot of copyrighted work and share it to public domain. Let’s see if OpenAI will get push back from copyright owner down the road.
I cannot find the reference to the port being flimsy. I did however find the part where the top hotswap component (touchpad and the place where the plate is) is having problems. The only side port that they mention is the charging port. But the again, as I said, the firmware must be redone to account for said removeable dGPU. Now you may be wondering how big of an effect does it make when adding removeable dGPU. Off the top of my head, the motherboard must have the power supply circuitry remade to account for the additional power draw when needed. That alone will make the firmware for power control need to be redone. It can have wide range of effect for other components too because power firmware is really far reaching and may break assumption in other firmware. Not to mention a part of the cooling system is also removeable now. Framework has gone out of their way trying to invent a new standard for removeable dGPU on a laptop.
Btw, here is the quoted article that mentions the side port.