greendave

Not jealous but that’s no worse than much of California (assuming those were USD you quoted, not AUD).

Something there doesn't add up. Mojave came out in late 2018. It's simply not the case there is any 2017 Apple hardware it doesn't support. Indeed, laptop support goes back to anything made in 2012 or newer.

Dual 66MHZ 603 CPUs at first, and later dual 133MHZ 603e CPUs. For the time interesting, but hardly head and shoulders above the 200MHZ Pentium Pros of the same era.

I live less than. a mile from a mid-sized town (15k peopl), 25 miles from the heart of Silicon Valley. The only reliable internet access available is 8mbit DSL using copper and satellite (HughesNet). No cable, no fiber, dodgy cell service, and at last try Starlink was not remotely reliable. Last big rainstorm we lost service for 5 days.

I’d love to be able to ditch copper, but if AT&T is allowed to pull the plug, it means expensive, high latency satellite will be the sole option.

A small fraction of Americans shop daily for food. For the majority, it's a weekly (or even less frequent) occurrence.

And no, fresh bread is not really a thing, outside of a few urbanish settings. A healthy proportion of bakeries don't even sell bread - only pastries, cakes, etc.

The M3 Pro has been restricted to prevent it from competing with the Max on CPU performance. Whereas the M2 Pro and M2 Max were essential identical on CPU performance (with the exception of the 10-core M2 Pro which was only standard on the low-end 14" model).

To me that feels like neutering.

Doesn't mean it's a bad chip/machine but clearly the product marketing people made the call here.

People are picking on that lede tweet somewhat unfairly. Numbers in the rest of the article say that the same benchmark run between the two "pro" variants improves only 6%. And that's actually quite disappointing for a chip that's supposed to be a on a new semiconductor node. Not a lot of people make a laptop purchase decision over 6%.

The M3 Pro has been neutered - the normal M2 Pro* was 8 Performance + 4 Efficiency cores (same as the Max) whereas the M3 Pro is just 6 P + 6 E cores.

If you want the full complement of CPU cores on the M3, you have to get the Max variant.

*There was a special 'low' end M2 pro that only had 6 + 4 cores.

People often have an unrealistic notion of what solar can do. A single 50kW charger would require 125 400w panels minimum - around 3000 square feet of area - and still only be able to provide max current for a few hours of the day. And 50kW is still slower than most people will tolerate if they’re not at home/work.

What are the implication for snowfall and skiing? We know the Utah state government and the people who elected them don't care about the environment or the health implications of poor quality air, but presumably they do care about jobs, and resorts employ a lot more people than farms do, no?

Already sold out for Q4 2023. Looks like there is a lot of demand for customizable full-sized laptop. Unlike the Framework 13, there's not Intel option (yet?) but an 8-core AMD 7940HS ought to be sufficient for most potential users...

Looking forward to hearing more about these soon.

I had forgotten this particular peculiarity of Oregon as the last 2 times I passed through, it was in an EV. Not that the EV transition is going to happen overnight, but one way or another, the future of gas station attendants is looking limited.

Red Hat pulls together hundreds or thousands of upstreams to create RHEL, participates in many of them, tests all that together, helps partners certify software against it, etc. etc. etc. It's true, Red Hat doesn't "own" the Linux kernel, but it's done a ton to help develop it over the years. But RHEL is not merely the kernel nor any single upstream. RHEL is a product that comprises thousands of packages all tested together and then released as a supported product. What Red Hat is trying to guard is not the source code to any single or even groups of projects. It's trying to preserve and capture the value it created from all those parts. Coincidentally, that value is what businesses, competitors, and the community are clamoring for and not the source code alone.

That's a point that (unfortunately) seems to have been lost along the way. A big part of the reason why people use(d) CentOS was because of the confidence they had that it'd be stable, functional, receive timely security updates, etc. And the main reason that was true is the work RedHat put into RHEL.

That said, it's not entirely a one-way street. The widespread use of CentOS meant much wider support for RHEL by open-source packages (and some closed source ones) than a locked down, limited availability RHEL would have had. I know of places that use RHEL because CentOS is widely available, and of places that would never bother to support RHEL if it weren't for the availability and (near) ubiquity of CentOS.

I _hope_ that by average they mean median - the article doesn't really say.

As to reliability, it's not clear to me that newer (post 2010s) vehicles really are better than older ones. Certainly there's a lot of increased complexity (DSGs, CVTs, ubiquitous turbos) and certain parts are increasingly hard to obtain due to reliance on electronics.

The big difference vs. 12 years ago is that general-purpose EVs are available new. With the caveat that they certainly don't cover all use-cases, for commuting/local driving and even longer distance casual driving, they are more than viable, and if you live in a place with sane electricity prices (or produce your own), the cost savings can be massive. This past year I saved $2500 in gas costs (vs. a 30 mpg ICEV at $4.50/gal prices).

It’s not a lottery, it’s all 100% reservable on October 1 for the next year. I’ve been 10 times in the past 15 years and every year the permits are harder to get because of the demand and the bots. The irony is that the permits are so popular and the fees so low that I’d estimate 30%+ of the permits that are bought actually don’t get used. On my most recent visit, we saw less than 10 people total on our first day a few weeks back.

Note that much of that trail is still closed from the 2020 CZU fire (basically all the sections in Big Basin - about 12 miles).

If anything the problem with San Francisco is that there is so much money that an entire ecosystem of nonprofits and contractors has evolved to feed off those funds.

Looks like the Amazon acquisition finally caught up. Sad, as DPR was a great resource and had an interesting community, at least until about 7 years ago when they started leaning in more to video content and less into deeply-technical reviews and discussions.

Just wait until you read about what happens to those cold-storage SSDs!

I think most people associate cost with volume (other things being ~equal). The notion of paying the same or more for something that is smaller is inherently a hard sell. In other places, there are significant advantages (either in taxes, fuel costs or convenience parking/going places) that counteract that to a lesser or greater degree, but those are largely missing in the US.

I'm curious to see which will vanish first from the US market - the compact hatchback/CUV (compact meaning < ~15 feet long) or the sub-$25k vehicle.

My _guess_ is that a few 'premium' hatchbacks may stick around, but the sub-$25k vehicle will be a thing of the past within the next couple of years...

Sadly this vehicle has both of those marks against it. A shame as it really does look quite nice. Just means I'll have to stick with my homely, slow-charging Chevy Bolt EV for a few more years...

Despite the provocative headline, it's not a bad rule of thumb.

But at least in the US, pretty much any new EV you can buy has a rated range of 200 miles or more. More than 100 miles of commuting per day is a lot! Also, workplace charging is becoming more of a thing, and would effectively double your range without any additional inconvenience.

Ironically, the inefficiency of ICEV engines is what makes them less variable in their range. First, you get heating for free because the engine produces an abundance of excess heat. Second, since the engines are at best 30% efficient, the effect of things like drag and grade are far less noticeable in terms of fuel consumption.

The basic issue is they use volumetric pricing to cover all costs, which includes everything from transmission to wildfire mitigation. It’s a dumb system and it means that people who use more already pay more of the fixed costs than those who use little.

Irony is that if you shut down your solar panels and go on vacation, PG&E gets essentially nothing. But if you’re at home and producing and paying in (there is a minimum monthly fee under NEM 2.0 today) you’re responsible for an unfair ‘cost shift’’.

Both had a quirky CEO that gathered a cult-like following. Both are headquartered in the SF Bay Area and have very loyal fans.

That’s a highly euphemistic way of phrasing things. They were were deeply narcissistic individuals. The difference is that while Jobs was able to mostly hide that side of himself from the public, Musk revels in making it his entire public persona. And while certainly some people are attracted by that, happily many are not. Apple’s fans mostly supported it despite Jobs’ unpleasantness. Musk’s support him because of it.

All I'm saying is that my experience makes it very clear that what problems remain with this technology are resolvable ones. Consumer cars are going to drive themselves. Period. And given existing evidence, it seems reasonably clear to me that Tesla is going to get there first (though I wouldn't be shocked if it's Waymo, Cruise seems less like a good bet).

Perhaps I'm unreasonably dense, but I do not see the link (direct or otherwise) between 'it works well for me under the following circumstances' and 'it will work well for (almost) everyone, under all (reasonable) circumstances'. The former can be true, without any guarantee of the latter. Given all the hyperbole and promises that have been made thusfar, it's hardly surprising that folks are inclined to be skeptical, particularly if their own experiences are as poor as many in this thread indicate.

What I do agree with is that cars are going to be allowed to drive themselves, irrespective of how well they can do it, because the politicians and the bureaucrats apparently are unable to resist the siren song of 'progress'. That much we've seen in SF with Cruise among many other plraces. Whether this is a good thing is a different question entirely...

Hydro _can_ be reliable. But out in the drought-prone west it has not been especially so. California generated 33GWh from large hydro in 2019 (14.6% of total production) vs. 15Gwh (7.5%) of total production in 2021. 2022 will likely be worse.

The real way to address this would be to not make users hate updates.

That's basically not possible in some cases. Not all of us are on super-fast broadband, even in places that are nominally 'first world'. The _best_ my parents can get is 8Mbps on DSL. Every time an update starts auto-downloading, you know immediately because all other connections grind to a halt.

(Now why a minor point update security fix for Monterey is 1.6GB I have no idea. But presumably that's not something Apple is capable of/interested in fixing)

There’s a gap between ‘did not achieve its stated aims’ and ‘did not win any actual rights’ that is big enough to drive a truck through…

Also, Andrew Jackson wasn’t a very nice guy, but he’d been dead for 28 years when the Civil War ended. Can’t really blame him for how things worked out at that point.

Nice machine, but for all the lip service to sustainability and environmental friendliness, the insistence of soldering everything in makes for a disposable device. In particular, once the SSD goes, it’s just a very expensive brick.

Or for that matter, switching to more efficient appliances or other types of conservation.

How exactly do they come up with a single price per zip-code given that rates are dependent on choice of electricity plan, on-peak vs. off-peak, % of baseline and so forth?