HN user
This is just dancing around data ownership.
It's not about physical vs digital, it's about whether you have the freedom to do as you wish with the data you have, or if it or you are in someway beholden to a 3rd party for permission to use it (be it DRM, Licensing, Subscription, Always Online, whatever).
Even more specifically, what does it actually mean when we buy or own something digital?
They were different lines. The numbers aren't mean to be chronological; similar to how AMD released some 5000 series AM4 Ryzen chips long after they'd moved on to AM5 and 7000/9000 series.
TI83 (1996) was a successor to the TI82 (1993) which was a refresh/update of the TI81 (1990).
TI85 (1992) was the second model they made, originally intended as a higher end version of the TI81.
Similar reasoning for the rest of their line up. Different models had different features, and then those models would get incremental updates/refreshes over the years.
I wasn't part of the team or anything, so if anyone has any insight to why exactly they called it that in the first place, I'd be interested to know, but generally speaking the answer is: When they released the first one in 1990, they didn't name it under the presumption that this family of devices would be a staple educational/academic electronics device for the next 3 decades with dozen(s?) of different iterations/generations over the years.
They could also make agreements with ISP's where their TV's can be whitelisted for access to a public or potentially unlisted WiFi, enabling them to connect that way, without the vast majority of customers ever being aware.
Similarly, these TV's could connect to any open wifi hotspot it can find and phone home/download updates that way. Cox for example proudly boasts how more than 4M of it's residential customers modem+router+ap's can be used for "WiFi Hotspots" by anyone - not just the customer/resident - if they have a cox account. I don't see why Samsung or any other manufacturer may approach said ISP's to use this network to update devices under some guise of "convenience" or "seamless updates" ostensibly for their less tech savvy users.
I don't know if these business deals exists, but "smart devices" will often try to phone home/update anyway they can, even if you don't manually configure it on a private network.
EDIT: Forgot the source on the cox hotspots claim: https://www.cox.com/residential/internet/learn/cox-hotspots....
Fully agreed on all points, it's why I say it's a feature, not a bug.
Money is king in US capitalist society, and you start fucking with people's money, and people will start caring real quick.
Not if you want to run any of your banking apps or all sorts of things.
I must be getting old, cause I see everyone saying this in response as if it's a downside. As someone that's getting real tired of every company/product/service on earth trying to have you install their own app (even before we get to the privacy/data concerns, just on a pure convenience/hassle POV), the idea of "WeLl ThEn YoUr BaNk ApP DoEsN'T WoRk" is frankly a bonus.
I can touch to pay with a card , which is faster and more convenient than having to unlock/approve/dick with my phone, which by doing so also allows me to keep NFC off by default (personal preference).
Also, I don't need an app for that, already have one, it's called a browser.
TL;DR: Sounds like a feature not a bug to me.
Or they're charging people in at-best mysterious if not outright duplicitous/malicious ways because it makes them money without having to do anything (save for send a bill and have the right fine print in the right places. )
It's no accident, it's not just "bad UX", it's deliberate.
AWS doesn’t charge you in mysterious ways. It charges you in specific, predictable ways that nobody taught you to look for. That’s a knowledge gap.
Observe the mental gymnastics to explain away "mysterious ways" by making it the users fault and calling them - *checks notes* - stupid, for not knowing something AWS is very intentionally keen on you not knowing.
I sure hope OP was getting payed for this AWS ad, imagine shilling for a multi-billion dollar company for free.
If you think an institution that doesn't respect the sanctity of life is going to respect copyright of all things you've lost the plot entirely.
Mid to late 2025 was the peak of an 11 year solar cycle (25th one since we've started keeping track). We're on the trailing end of that peak activity now, which is why the past year/several months has seemed so active compared to recent years past, and should decrease significantly (in frequency and intensity) as 2026 progresses.
There was also a fairly significant geomagnetic storm back in November of 2025 as well.
You can see the data here at NOAA's Space Weather site https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
I agree that interface would be a better name than protocol, but Model Context Integration/Integrator would be even better as that is it's core intent: To integrate context into the model. Alternatively, Universal Model Context Interface (or integrator) would be an even better name imo, as that actually explains what it intends to do/be used for, whereas MCP is rather ambiguous/nebulous/inaccurate on the face of it as previously established further up-thread.
That said, I think as the above user points out, part of the friction with the name is that MCP is two parts, a framework and a standard. So with that in mind, I'd assert that it should be redefined as Model Context Interface Standard, and Model Context Interface Framework (or Integration or whatever other word the community best feels suits it in place of Protocol).
Ultimately though, I think that ship has sailed thanks to momentum and mindshare, unless such a "rebranding" would coincide with a 2.0 update to MCP (or whatever we're calling it) or some such functional change in that vein to coincide with it. Rebranding it for "clarity's sake" when the industry is already quite familiar with what it is likely wouldn't gain much traction.
It's what corporate capture looks like. She's either peacocking for corporate donors or trying to court musks/MAGA's favor.
Also, there's a difference between 1 rep effectively shitposting on social media and the US government actually doing something.
Regardless I agree, it's not a good look
Therein lies the problem.
It's pretty upfront about being a novelty project done by a self-described non-crypto expert, and I don't see any assertions of it guaranteeing any degree of sufficiency/security or claiming any such NextBigThing(TM) hype.
Just because a paper is published doesn't mean it wasn't done for fun/the hell of it.
The headline wasn't written by Volvo
Why is why the first two words I wrote (sans the quote) in that comment was "It editorializes".
Shadcn is an open modular UI framework (toolkit? Whatever you want to call it), and this seems to search repo's (not sites themselves, but could be wrong) for various components.
It's kind of like pinterest or dribbble but specifically for Shadcn UI elements.
"Sometimes I feel like I'm wasting my twenties".
Is near universal to anyone in their twenties regardless of job type/sector. It's the start of most people's adult life, and without the lack of experience that age brings, it's natural to question if you're on the "right path" and/or be swayed by potential other opportunities you've not yet explored.
Hell, even with the experience of age, people still often ask themselves that very same question, and not just for their twenties either.
corporations knowing about my music taste is not cracking the top 1000
They don't care much about your music taste, that's not the valuable data they're collecting and reselling. They're tracking your location, habits, address, email, passwords, billing info, extensions/other apps, locations, etc etc and storing it insecurely to be easily acquired by people with arguably even less scruples than the corporation they're taking it from because the cost to store this shit securely is higher than the fines/consequences from a data breach, so why bother? All of that (meta)data is for more valuable to them and the numerous "bad actors" that data-harvest them on the regular.
as opposed to trying to find and rip audio files from the internet and put it on my server and deal with metadata and cover art manually.
This can be automated, which can also be a form of curated music discovery.
so even if the platform is missing stuff you can fill it in yourself.
With what? All that music you yourself assert you aren't acquiring "manually"? Sounds like self-hosting with a couple of extra steps to me.
I'm sure it works fine if you've basically settled on what music you like and never listen to anything new, but if you do like to discover new music, self-hosting just isn't an option.
I can't tell if this is ignorance or arrogance, but it's laughably out of touch either way, especially in this day and age. You can just say you're too lazy to fuck with it, don't know how to do it, or don't socialize with people that share your music tastes. It's fine.
There's numerous examples in this comment section of how to do music discovery without subsidizing a company that takes advantage of both the artists that users listen to, and the users themselves, and self-hosting is in no way a barrier to that.
If you don’t pay for a product, you are the product. With MC03, you pay to retain your data rather than paying with it.
Ah yes, more dystopian "You'll own nothing, and rent everything, including your own data" products. That's a hard no, do not pass go from me.
Technology has been enshittified enough, stop being part of the problem, and certainly don't try to pretend you're doing me a favor or protecting my privacy by holding my devices and/or data captive unless I pay an indefinite renters fee.
If they aren't selling the data, then why the hell do they want it? Want to protect my privacy? Sell me the damn device, let me do as I please with it, and let that be the end of the transaction. Keep your damn telemetry, backdoors, dark patterns, bloatware and subscription bullshit off it.
I keep seeing this comment regarding congressional authorization for war all over social media this morning, and am wondering why everyone seems to be aware of that, but not aware of the 80+ years of eroding those checks and balances and abandoning that precedent time and time again.
It's the 2020's, not 1920's. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2, and that hasn't stopped us from engaging the dozens of wars and armed conflicts we've been directly involved in since then.
To be clear, I'm not happy/proud of that fact. I think it's a moral and systemic failing, and do not support America's actions in Venezuela this morning. I'm just perplexed why everyone seems to think a precedent we abandonded long before most of us were even born suddenly applies today, or why they know about that law but don't know that we've violated it more times than we've observed it (without consequences), or don't know about the War Powers Act, or think that Congress would do anything but further enable him.
In short, why does everyone suddenly think that's relevant while also ignoring all the other relevant history that establishes we do not and have not observed that precedent in the modern era. Again, we *Should*, but did anyone honestly expect it to happen, or that congress wouldn't go along with it, or that the current POTUS would respect such law/precedent?
TL;DR: I don't think we should be going to war or engaging in armed conflict without congressional approval either, but the law and well established precedent both say POTUS legally has that power, at least in the short term, and we're not even 24hours into the 60 day period the War Powers act (which is 50 years old and passed by congress btw) grants.
Which is why my comment also specifically went to pains to acknowledge that volvo shared/echo that sentiment, which it absolutely does.
And Indeed. It's not a dichotomy at all, because...
Does the font improve safety and is that the motivation, or not?
This is the actual false dichotomy.
If the issue with usability/safety/accessibility/ergonomics/etc regarding touch screens was "I can't read the font" then maybe this POV would be on to something. But that's not the issue, and no one is confused about that. This is like putting a bandaid on your arm when your leg is broken and then acting confused when the patient asks, justifiably, "Are you even listening to me? That's not the Problem!"
I'm confused, you say it doesn't matter, then point for point agree explicitly with what I was saying.
I dont know how much employee nationality matters
has predominantly chinese employees
then why does it matter here? I was saying the exact same thing.
It's more chinese now than it ever was American, but it's certainly not an absolute thing. Thanks to the global supply chain, it's a big complicated spectrum compounded by a bunch of "it depends". If you don't want to dwell in that pedantry, don't blame you (though I am easily nerd-sniped by discussions of logistics), but without that, that essentially leaves us with "Who owns it" and "Where is it Headquartered." There's also "what are the demographics of their employees" to see if there's a strong representation of a single country ID, but that information isn't always readily available.
The comments here sound like they're from people who don't work in tech or at large companies...
Or they're from people that read the headline/article.
It editorializes the motivation for this being "Safety" and thus, a lot of users are pointing out how hollow that rings or how misguided it seems when there's ways we'd much prefer they take to improve safety. For example, lack of physical buttons and the consolidation of everything into the touchscreen, which the article also acknowledges (and in turn, acknowledges that Volvo is aware people are growing more disgruntled with it).
This isn't a lack of understanding that big corporations are capable of having multiple people doing multiple things, this is us questioning if Volvo's reputation for actually caring about safety still holds true, or if their new owners with the final say in these matters (Geely) is just riding on that reputation by ignoring the much more pressing safety concerns yet knowingly cashing in on that reputation-capital by pandering to those same concerns with a font.
There's a variety of reasons, but many of us don't want any of the "smartness" and all of the stupidity that comes with "Smart TV's" these days, but don't really have comparable "dumb" options at similar or cheaper price points. The Telemetry (ACR), unremovable copilot app getting added to LG TV's, or all the Ad's Samsung are cramming into their "smart" garbage are three prime examples, but certainly not the only reasons I hate smart TV's (or really any device marketed as "smart") these days.
Most importantly though, can you even get non-smart TV's these days that aren't super budget items? To my knowledge that's pretty much not a thing anymore (yes there are presentation displays and large format monitors, but that gets into the weeds fast about feature/panel/spec differences, not to mention price differences)
There are a lot of reasons to not like Mozilla
Correct.
but it's crazy to be against them for AI.
Disagreed.
A browser is literally a user agent.
In the same way that a car is literally just some wheels. It's overly-reductionist to the point of being adversarial.
What well-funded org should be entrusted with making an open source agent for the user instead?
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Maybe if you didn't try to strip the context (Mozilla, it's reputation, it's actions, it's incentives, and how this AI initiative conflicts with the userbase' expectations and references therein) all this would seem a lot less "crazy" even if you still disagree.
Mozilla's users aren't being unreasonable or irrational for voicing criticisms here.
Sure, there's plenty of blind-hate for AI. But even many of us that aren't don't like the way Mozilla is going about this for a number of very valid reasons/concerns well beyond "I don't like AI"
We shouldn't have to opt out in the first place.
It should be opt-in by default.
Why: Because AI is constantly and very frequently changing and evolving with lots of security concerns given how much scope/context/permissions it's typically granted. By having it enabled by default means that you have zero expectations that whatever settings/preferences/configs you changed in order to "opt-out" may no longer be respected/preserved/effective.
This is a major problem before we ever get to "what are the specific problems" regarding AI.
I sympathize, but also, the XKCD about Standards comes to mind: https://xkcd.com/927/
SATA just needs to be retired. It's already been replaced, we don't need Yet Another Storage Interface. Considering consumer IO-Chipsets are already implemented in such a way that they take 4 (or generally, a few) upstream lanes of $CurrentGenPCIe to the CPU, and bifurcating/multiplexing it out (providing USB, SATA, NVMe, etc I/O), we should just remove the SATA cost/manufacturing overhead entirely, and focusing on keeping the cost of keeping that PCIe switching/chipset down for consumers (and stop double-stacking chipsets AMD, motherboards are pricey enough). Or even just integrating better bifurcation support on the CPU's themselves as some already support it (typically via converting x16 on the "top"/"first" PCIe slot to x4/x4/x4/x4).
Going forward, SAS should just replace SATA where NVMe PCIe is for some reason a problem (eg price), even on the consumer side, as it would still support existing legacy SATA devices.
Storage related interfaces (I'm aware there's some overlap here, but point is, there's already plenty of options, and lots of nuances to deal with already, let's not add to it without good reason):
- NVMe PCIe
- M.2 and all of it's keys/lengths/clearances
- U.2 (SFF-8639) and U.3 (SFF-TA-1001)
- EDSFF (which is a very large family of things)
- FibreChannel
- SAS and all of it's permutations
- Oculink
- MCIO
- Let's not forget USB4/Thunderbolt supporting Tunnelling of PCIe
Obligatory: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards_2x.png
which shows some questionable judgment
Convenience is a hell of a drug.
In general I agree with you, the IO options exposed by Strix Halo are pretty limited, but if we're getting technical you can tunnel PCIe over USB4v2 by the spec in a way that's functionally similar to Thunderbolt 5. That gives you essentially 3 sets of native PCIe4x4 from the chipset and an additional 2 sets tunnelled over USB4v2. TB5 and USB4 controllers are not made equal, so in practice YMMV. Regardless of USB4v2 or TB5, you'll take a minor latency hit.
Strix Halo IO topology: https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/ryzen-ai-max-395.c3994
Frameworks mainboard implements 2 of those PCIe4x4 GPP interfaces as M.2 PHY's which you can use a passive adapter to connect a standard PCIe AIC (like a NIC or DPU) to, and also interestingly exposes that 3rd x4 GPP as a standard x4 length PCIe CEM slot, though the system/case isn't compatible with actually installing a standard PCIe add in card in there without getting hacky with it, especially as it's not an open-ended slot.
You absolutely could slap 1x SSD in there for local storage, and then attach up to 4x RDMA supporting NIC's to a RoCE enabled switch (or Infiniband if you're feeling special) to build out a Strix Halo cluster (and you could do similar with Mac Studio's to be fair). You could get really extra by using a DPU/SmartNIC that allows you to boot from a NVMeoF SAN to leverage all 5 sets of PCIe4x4 for connectivity without any local storage but we're hitting a complexity/cost threshold with that that I doubt most people want to cross. Or if they are willing to cross that threshold, they'd also be looking at other solutions better suited to that that don't require as many workarounds.
Apple's solution is better for a small cluster, both in pure connectivity terms and also with respect to it's memory advantages, but Strix Halo is doable. However, in both cases, scaling up beyond 3 or especially 4 nodes you rapidly enter complexity and cost territory that is better served by nodes that are less restrictive unless you have some very niche reason to use either Mac's (especially non-pro) or Strix Halo specifically.
Just for reference:
Thunderbolt5's stated "80Gbps" bandwidth comes with some caveats. That's the figure for either Display Port bandwidth itself or in practice more often realized by combining the data channel (PCIe4x4 ~=64Gbps) with the display channels (=<80Gbps if used in concert with data channels), and potentially it can also do unidirectional 120Gbps of data for some display output scenarios.
If Apple's silicon follows spec, then that means you're most likely limited to PCIe4x4 ~=64Gbps bandwidth per TB port, with a slight latency hit due to the controller. That Latency hit is ItDepends(TM), but if not using any other IO on that controller/cable (such as display port), it's likely to be less than 15% overhead vs Native on average, but depending on drivers, firmware, configuration, usecase, cable length, and how apple implemented TB5, etc, exact figures very. And just like how 60FPS Average doesn't mean every frame is exactly 1/60th of a second long, it's entirely possible that individual packets or niche scenarios could see significantly more latency/overhead.
As a point of reference Nvidia RTX Pro (formerly known as quadro) workstation cards of Ada generation and older along with most modern consumer grahics cards are PCIe4 (or less, depending on how old we're talking), and the new RTX Pro Blackwell cards are PCIe5. Though comparing a Mac Studio M4 Max for example to an Nvidia GPU is akin to comparing Apples to Green Oranges
However, I mention the GPU's not just to recognize the 800lb AI compute gorilla in the room, but also that while it's possible to pool a pair of 24GB VRAM GPU's to achieve a 48GB VRAM pool between them (be it through a shared PCIe bus or over NVlink), the performance does not scale linearly due to PCIe/NVLinks limitations, to say nothing of the software, and configuration and optimization side of things also being a challenge to realizing max throughput in practice.
This is also just as true as a pair of TB5 equipped macs with 128GB of memory each using TB5 to achieve a 256GB Pool will take a substantial performance hit compared to on otherwise equivalent mac with 256GB. (capacities chosen are arbitrary to illustrate the point). The exact penalty really depends on usecase and how sensitive it is to the latency overhead of using TB5 as well as the bandwidth limitation.
It's also worth noting that it's not just entirely possible with RDMA solutions (no matter the specifics) to see worse performance than using a singular machine if you haven't properly optimized and configured things. This is not hating on the technology, but a warning from experience for people who may have never dabbled to not expect things to just "2x" or even just better than 1x performance just by simply stringing a cable between two devices.
All that said, glad to see this from Apple. Long overdue in my opinion as I doubt we'll see them implement an optical network port with anywhere near that bandwidth or RoCEv2 support, much less a expose a native (not via TB) PCIe port on anything that's a non-pro model.
EDIT: Note, many mac skus have multiple TB5 ports, but it's unclear to me what the underlying architecture/topology is there and thus can't speculate on what kind of overhead or total capacity any given device supports by attempting to use multiple TB links for more bandwidth/parallelism. If anyone's got an SoC diagram or similar refernce data that actually tells us how the TB controller(s) are uplinked to the rest of the SoC, I could go in more depth there. I'm not an Apple silicon/MacOS expert. I do however have lots of experience with RDMA/RoCE/IB clusters, NVMeoF deployments, SXM/NVlink'd devices and generally engineering low latency/high performance network fabrics for distributed compute and storage (primarily on the infrastructure/hardware/ops side than on the software side) so this is my general wheelhouse, but Apple has been a relatively blindspot for me due to their ecosystem generally lacking features/support for things like this.