Exactly, on the one hand this might pull some users away from Google, which deserves to be knocked on their ass for once. But if this is how it's going to be done, you might just be trading one abusive partner for the next.
I say we let Microsoft pound on Google for a while and then we regluate the both of them into the ground!
My goal is not really to turn this into a discussion, but I feel like your concerns might be based on common misconceptions about nuclear energy.
Chornobyl (Ukrainian spelling) was such a big disaster because it was the first major nuclear disaster. The reactor was built without hands-on experience with the consequences of a nuclear disaster driving the design of the facility itself. We have since learnt a lot about proper design of nuclear reactors and about how to respond to any incidents.
The Fukushima reactor was designed with that knowledge in mind, but the event was a perfect shitstorm consisting of both an earthquake and a tsunami hitting the facility at the same time. And even though the local population might disagree, the disaster was arguably less serious than Chornobyl was. Due in large part to a better design and proper disaster response.
We're more capable than ever of modeling and simulating natural disasters, so I'd argue we acutally CAN plan for most of those. Any disaster we can't plan for nowadays is likely to also fuck up an area even worse than the resulting nuclear disaster would.
But probably the most important thing to mention is that nuclear power is a lot more diverse in the modern world. Gone are the days that uranium fission reactors are the norm. They were only popular because they serve a secondary purpose of creating resources for nuclear weapons, in addition to their power generation. With molten salt reactors, thorium-based reactors and SMR (small modular reactors) there's really not a good reason to build any more "classic" nuclear reactors other than continuing the production of nuclear weapons, which I hope we can just stop doing.
The best way to prevent large scale incidents is to prevent large scale reactors, which is why there's so much interest in SMR lately.
All in all, we likely can't fully transition to renewables fast enough without the use of nuclear power as an intermediary. But the actual dangers with modern designs are far fewer than they used to be and we should take care not to give in to irrational fears too much.
To put things into perspective: We currently have no way of stopping a major solar storm that would thouroughly disrupt all modern life, nor can we stop large asteroids heading our way. Both are potentially planet-ending disasters, but the possibility that they might occur doesn't stop us from trying to build a better earth for the future, right?
That was awesome, thanks for sharing.
I fully get what you're saying and I think I know a thing or two about how lifestyle branding consumes people's lives to the point where they're fully absorbed.
Social media platforms seem to be by far the worst offenders of stimulating this kind of addiction (let's just name it for what it is).
Coming from a background of designing products, as opposed to selling them I tend to be focused on product representation, rather than selling an idea. Which is not actually the route to making stupid amounts of money.
You've convinced me that marketing is definitely part of the problem. Here in the Netherlands they've recently (about two years ago) relaxed some legislation on online gambling (gambling itself is legal, just the ads weren't) and since we've seen a surge of ads on television and social media featuring sports icons and influencers. The result has been a giant increase in profits, which directly corelates to figures of increased debt, prevalent mostly in young adults. I firmly believe this is toxic and needs to be fixed asap.
If you do decide to host a Q&A I'll be sure to have a look for more cool insights.
Interesting take, mind if I dig a little deeper?
The key part of Apple's success is that they make idiotproof devices for people who want something to "just work" (insert linux desktop memes here). The way I've come to understand it in the last couple years (having relatives who've drank the cool-aid and are starting to spot the cracks in the facade), is that they have been pulled in by values way up high in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. They are locked into the ecosystem, believing that their current solution is somehow ideal and they seem most of all afraid that anything else will completely turn their world upside down. The weird part is that Apple manages somehow to convince people they are the only ones capable of providing an experience that will cover those needs.
The thing is: Being convinced that there is no greener grass elsewhere puts up a barrier to entry into the unknown. I really do wonder if the solution there is cracking down on marketing, as it would require broad sweeping legislation that would likely defeat the purpose.
Sure, companies will put forth the occasional blatant lie, misrepresenting their product, but oftentimes the heavy lifting is done by the established brand image. I would not know where to begin preventing such an image from forming in the first place without community pushback.
And that is where my original point comes in: If we push back by ridiculing the userbase we'll have a culture war on our hands. The trick is to be smarter than that and actually show them that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Every time the consumer gets fucked over by corporate greed, it is because we've let it happen by accepting the slippery slope brought upon us. (Publicly traded) companies will only listen to financial consequences from their actions, which means we have the power to stop their bullshit by not buying into it. Doing so requires a large enough group of people to start spending money elsewhere.
Problem is: The current market is affected by Apple's shenanigans (though examples of the same pattern are also found in other industries). Which means other manufacturers are copying all the anti-consumer design decisions and you're not left with much of a choice.
This is where legislation comes in. By providing basic consumer protections like in the proposed right to repair bills, we can at least be sure to have the option of choosing our own repair provider.
Though I'm curious if there is an additional angle we need to explore as consumers. Having said all the above, would you still disagree that educating our peers in a respectful manner will lead to people changing their behaviour, and if so, why?
Agreed, they're usually influenced by their emotional attachment to the Apple brand (or [insert fashionable electronics manufacturer here]). And my hunch is they respond to valid criticism with a defense along the lines of "they obviously know what they're doing" or "tech is hard/dangerous/intellectual property, we can't have just anybody working on it".
The reality is, they often fail to see the bigger picture because they're blinded by what they've convinced themselves is the truth. This unfortunately also means that clowning on them is counterproductive, as they won't see the light without being eased into it.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't judge people for believing soldering an SSD to the motherboard is somehow innovative and progress, but it is hard to accompany our laughter with the patience to actually explain to them in a respectful manner that this is not the way.
It takes a hard reality check in the form of their data being gone when their SSD inevitably dies someday, and recovery not being an option "because you should have paid for an iCloud subscription". Or it takes a way for "them" not to see "us" as the enemy when we're advocating for Apple and competitors not to pull us further into a dystopian technological hellscape where devices are single use. Try convincing a cultists that they're in a cult and they'll see you as a threat. We have to make sure this doesn't escalate into polarizing tech culture war any further than it already has.
We need repairability and sustainability to be the basis for consumer electronics going forward. Corporate profits don't justify wasting resources on single-use electronics.
Seconded, depending on what your goals are with transcoding, you might want to reconsider your strategy.
Hardware encoding (with a GPU) is mostly useful for realtime transcoding applications like streaming video. There are definitely some caviats that come with the realtime performance, and you'll find that NVENC encoded video is almost always inferior to the slower equivalent software encoded variants.
So let's talk codecs: While h.265 might seem like the holy grail, it is way more computationally intensive than h.264 is. In some cases the difference in encoding time will even be as high as 3-5x. Not really worth it if all you're gaining is a slightly lower filesize.
Your results will vary by the media you're encoding, by your encoder quality settings, tuning and encoding speed. As a rule of thumb: slower encoding speeds equal more efficiently compressed video (a.k.a. relatively higher quality for lower file size).
Handbrake is my choice of software for encoding video. It includes pretty much everything you could ever want if you're not looking for niche codecs and exotic video formats.
I find myself mostly using x264 because it is relatively fast and still provides awesome results. My encoding speed is always set to "slow" or "superslow" (not much difference for my setup). I usually set the quality by making use of the preview function in handbrake, which transcodes just a short section of the video which I use for pixel peeping and checking for any major artifacts that would ruin the content. The resulting file also provides an estimate for how large the final transcoded file will be. If you're happy with the quality setting, you can opt to mess with the encoder tuning. There are different presets for film, animated content and such. I usually do use film tuning if transcoding live-action media.
All this generally leaves me with pretty compact file sizes for 1080p media. And transcoding usually happens at a rate of 60-75 fps depending on the resolution. Going up from "slow" to "medium" improves fps by about 25% and increases file size by about 10%. The ideal balance is up to you.
Advanced tips: try using VMAF (objective video quality analysis algorithm developed by Netflix) to score and compare your different encoding settings. VMAF is neatly integrated into FFMetrics, which is a GUI for FFMpeg and a couple of video analysis algorithms. I also use MPV (open source media player) with FFMpeg command line arguments for playing videos synchronized in a 2x1 or 2x2 matrix. This helps compare the results for quality.
Absolutely agree with this approach. I've been playing for years and having a lot of fun fumbling my way to success. The key is practise until your motor skills will allow you to play anything, a lot of technique is transferable from song to song.
Another suggestion I might add is to try learning to play by ear. This is not for everyone, as musical notation does allow you to get going more quickly, but again with practise you can play most songs near-instantly.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with fumbling around hitting random keys until you've got the melody down and adding chords from there. There is also no "right" way to play a song, and lots of people compose their own arrangements, swapping chords or even full note sequences for ones they feel sound better. Playing piano this way is mostly about feeling and using the instrument as a creative outlet.
If you do happen to have access to an electric piano, most of them allow you to record your work, which I also highly recommend doing. Listening to the results during the act of playing the piano is radically different from listening passively. You'll spot mistakes and form strategies to deal with them in the next iteration.
Last but not least: Try to compile a list of songs you would like to learn, the longer, the better. The worst thing that can happen for your progress is to get burnt out playing the same song over and over again. Either when you encounter something you're not quite ready for, or when you're out of ideas. Mixing it up will not only help keep things fresh, but will also allow you to grow and overcome hurdles with other songs that just won't disappear if you keep trying the same song over and over.
Find your way to play and have fun with it.
While this is very much welcome news, I am a little skeptical because this might still be a PR stunt.
Apple has shown they have the engineering capacity to design their devices to be virtually unfixable, all while still technically being compliant with this proposed piece of legislation.
Nonetheless, this show of support might finally be a means for us to end the ongoing culture war on repairability. It has been too much of a polarized debate lately, where opponents seem to be under the impression that a lack of repairability is a good thing for everyone, when it is really just having a choice that matters most.
Now that Apple has officially put in writing it's support for repairability of consumer electronics, we can finally stop debating wether or not repairability is a good thing, and instead how we're going to ensure the new situation works for everyone involved. Hopefully.
Anything other than whitelist-type parental controls will likely be insufficient to block absolutely everything you don't want them to have access to (or want to have access to them, for that matter).
Honestly, the best way to do so would be no internet access without supervision, which is usually not really a viable option in any reasonable real-world scenario.
The second best way I can think of, albeit a slightly technical solution, is to setup a VPN server at home using a raspberry pi or a similar hosting solution and have the phone connect through that. That way you can control internet access in any way you'd like and even block nasty tracking attempts from apps if you so wish. Most android phones have the option to prevent internet access entirely if not connected to the VPN (this will prevent internet access from any WiFi and mobile data networks). In which case they can still just call or text in emergency situations. The only thing left to do is locking down the phone's settings, and the rest can be dynamically managed from your network.
All of this does require some basic networking knowledge, but it's actually surprisingly easy to setup.
You might want to consider setting up a VPN tunnel to your own network. Main benefit is that you can access your home network as if you were connected to it locally. Which makes switching between mobile data and WiFi a non-issue.
This requires some sort of VPN server and usually a single port-forwarding rule for the protocol which your VPN software of choice uses. For the simplest default configuration of OpenVPN this means setting UDP port 1194 to point to your OpenVPN server.
Generally, keeping things simple, there's two types of VPN you can set up:
It is a little more complicated than that, and there's more nuance to it, such as wether to user your own DNS server or not, but all that is best left to some further reading.
I've setup an OpenVPN server myself, wich is open source and completely free to mess around with. (Save for maybe some costs for registring your own domain or DDNS serviced. Those are all optional though, and mainly provide convienience and continuity benefits. You can definitely just setup a VPN server and connect with your external IP adress)
Though they haven't released any information to the public regarding their sales figures, chances are the numbers are higher than you might expect.
The best source I have is the factory tour video from LTT, where it's stated that the production line shown in the video targets 35-50 devices an hour. Which comes down to 30k devices a month if we're being conservative. Batches are shipped every quarter, so that would mean the world supply comes down to around 90k devices per batch.
But we can't say for sure if that is the full extent of their production capacity.
While the brand is currently mostly popular with tech enthousiasts, it does show that there is a market for devices which are servicable. It is only a matter of time before less tech-savy consumers are convinced that being able to repair your device is a financial advantage. Anything save for a fried SoC or a broken display will not set you back much more than $100, and if any standard components happen to break you're just paying market rates for replacing them.
An open supply chain (both in spare parts and being able to use your own choice of components that are to spec) is what allows any kind of repair to be a viable business model. Wether it is the manufacturer or a third party providing the servives should not matter.
Which would still be accurate as Java is widely used in Geospatial software. That in itself can also be considered "playing with fire".