inversionOf

Run fast and go to sleep has always been the primary power policy.

A sleeping core is obviously the most efficient core, however you have said nothing to discount what I said. Putting a core to sleep is a very costly activity, which is exactly why it happens at the millisecond scale.

Before that happens, the core will likely have been frequency scaled to more appropriately fit the window's loading. I mean, we know this is the case right now, and that "run fast and go to sleep" is not the primary policy. It's "run as fast as appropriate for the workload to fill a quantum, and sleep when there is no workload". There are many if not most workloads that are externally bound, or event triggered enough that sleep is completely out of the question and running faster does nothing.

Your words have been used (out of context and inappropriately) to bolster DannyBee when they represent, literally, all that is wrong with Hacker News.

You don't want A53's "handling the majority of the workload".

Yes. You do. If I'm casually browsing non-intensive web pages, e-reading, or watching a Netflix movie, or even encoding a video, the background is doing IO rate limited system updates and basic data logging, etc, the vast majority of the time the CPU demands are very low, but frequent enough that putting a CPU to sleep is completely out of the question.

An A53 has a much lower ceiling, but a much better middle tier power usage level, than the A57. Yes, if you want to run a benchmark the A53 is not a good bet (and is generally worse in a workload power usage), but it is a very good bet for most real world usage.

The 808 is also a big little architecture, with two A57 cores and four A53 cores. The A53 cores will likely carry the vast majority of every day use, and redouble the battery savings.

As a Nexus 5 user I'm pleased with most of the changes and non-changes. 2GB is fine for a smartphone, and an image sensor with more than double the light capture area per pixel is brilliant, and if it delivers the better photographs will be worth it right there. Losing OIS...I don't think that's a downgrade as OIS was always suspect to begin with (not least because OIS only helps for lateral movements. It does nothing for rotational movements, and of course make subjects stand still. It yielded a tonne of unusable photos).

The only thing I'm really displeased about is the removal of wireless charging. That was a really nice feature.

Between the Snapdragon 810 and 808, the only real items of concern is that the 808 does not have h265 hardware encoding (the 810 does), and its image processing DSP is 12-bit per pixel rather than the 14-bpp of the 810.

I pay $30 for 6GB of LTE data per month (Rogers, via a promotional plan that they've offered countless times). And I generally use about 200MB in an average month as I'm virtually always around WiFi of some sort. Which is exactly what Google envisions, with most of their cloud solutions defaulting to only operating over WiFi.

SD storage has always been a mess on Android because it was originally added just as an easy way to port music and movies over. It was essentially supposed to be read-only memory. Then of course apps and users started using it and the ugly, messy history is notorious.

Updates to Xcode added what Android's tools have had for years, which is the notion of generating multiple binaries for different devices/profiles. Xcode then signs those independent sections and packages them together in an archive, while Google has you send them up separately, each signed separately.

Apple sort of presented it like the App Store is picking and choosing, but it's the enhancements to Xcode that actually enable the functionality. Google could add some tooling improvements to make it slightly easier, but really they've already done all of the hard parts.

Expansion files were a hack, and remain a hack. They are necessary for large games obviously, but really 100MB encompasses the enormous bulk of apps with ease. It would be ideal if Google simply abolished expansion files and folded the sizing into normal APKs.

Google announced smart updates and then enabled it (they had already been using this for Nexus system updates). There is absolutely nothing any developer or user has to do, so there is no documentation on it because none is needed. If you actually monitor the connection during a smart/delta update, while the UI shows the full size of the APK it actually downloads 1/4 or less of that.

It is absolutely enabled. It is absolutely working. There is no conspiracy about this. It is one of the reasons most updates take hours to propagate.

You complained about managing thin binaries, so I don't see how the developer managing that would improve anything, not to mention that it adds difficulties to cryptographic signing and verification.

What does "too little, too late" mean? Is Android now doomed?

Android updates have been incremental updates for three years now (introduced at the 2012 I/O, and immediately enabled). Your point on that is confused in any case -- why can't it do delta updates (it does...), and why can't the developer do it, but also why does the developer have to do it? You're incredibly complaining about a situation you invented.

And larger APKs are a problem because now the ridiculously easy tools that Google already provides (generating thin binaries for varied targets is extraordinarily simple. A bug regarding expansion files...what is the point of even linking that?) will somehow be unused?

Your post is a very poorly informed rant. I have no idea how it sits on the top.

The other comment about electronics is completely off the mark as well -- people often see financial transactions that don't seem to make logical sense (whether pricing bots that recursively keep pricing off of each other, as in the linked story, or prices that seem too good to be true, which more likely are gray market or arbitrage) and immediately explain it as money laundering. But consider the electronics sales, where the premise is that people are selling electronics that they apparently bought from Amazon using gift cards under the market just to launder cash.

There is an enormous financial black hole that is just as vulnerable to inspection as simply depositing $1,000,000 in cash in your account. The whole point of money laundering is not only to legitimize the output, it's to make the sources untraceable and arguably viable as well.

The components of a transaction, particularly for the sales of goods, cannot simply appear out of nowhere, or they've done absolutely nothing in the way of money laundering. The people who will ever care about this (the ones who money laundering is constructed to fool) aren't so naive, and if you're selling 100,000 hard drives to justify your income, they're going to ask where you got the hard drives, and demand a financial trail.

Cash businesses that have little variable costs outside of manpower (such as carwashes, laundrymats, even some small restaurants, or selling small crafts on Etsy) are absolutely lucrative tools for money laundering, and can only really get caught if put under heavy scrutiny (e.g. car wash with 10 cars over the week claims revenue of $100,000). As are casinos, and Vegas was built on money laundering -- there are few checks on how much you spend, so whether you spent $1,000,000 in unexplained cash to leave with $950,000 in legitimate winnings, or $10 in legitimate cash to leave with $950,000 in legitimate winnings, it's almost impossible to prove.

There are many, many financial vehicles that are used for money laundering, including life insurance. Selling hard drives on Amazon is not one of them.

I worked for years on AML systems for banks. This isn't money laundering. Indeed, I don't believe I've ever seen a "this is money laundering!" comment on a social news site that wasn't entirely and completely off the mark of real money laundering, but just seems to be a go-to for things that people don't understand.

And the vehicles in question -- the ones that are causing VW these issues -- do not have any urea injection system. That's the whole point.

http://ask.cars.com/2012/11/why-do-some-volkswagen-diesels-u...

VW claimed to have a trick that removed the need for it on their smaller, lighter cars. But that trick was a trick that only allowed them to pass EPA tests.

Both of those platforms use Urea systems, as do larger and more expensive VW/Audio vehicles. The issue is purely in the small, inexpensive vehicles.

The NOx problems were mostly resolved through the injection of urea into exhaust gases (e.g. AdBlue), dramatically reducing NOx emissions while leaving the efficiency and power unaffected. Urea systems add an extra cost and complexity to the vehicle though (not to mention that you need to top up your urea additive occasionally), and VW seemed to find a loophole that allowed them to make small, inexpensive cars without urea injection. They did this by injecting fuel into the exhaust in the absence of Urea, but to achieve the same effect. But this can gunk up the NOx trap if used endlessly (it is far less precise than urea, obviously), reduces fuel economy, etc, so they built this One Little Trick that only actually does that during identified tests.

i.e. incompetence and not malice

The primary revenue source of many of these sites are ad clicks (impressions often don't matter). If the function paying the bills are ad clicks, and site stickiness really isn't a thing anymore (nowadays we're all directed by social news, Facebook, etc. Few of us visit specific sites), why not abuse the users that do come by.

A principal web design facet in the past was the notion that you pre-size all of the elements, such that the content layout is static. This basic facet has largely disappeared -- despite being monumentally simple -- and the only rational explanation is that moving content is profitable.

And for sure it is a terrible long term strategy. But the problem is that it's a tragedy of the commons -- your ad payout on most networks is based upon the group norms, not on your own site norms. So if everyone else is click tricking users, your own per click payment drops, so the only viable solution is to join the race to the bottom.

Aside from bot traffic, a significant percentage of "legitimate" traffic seems, anecdotally, to be engineered accidental clicks -- the mobile site that is constantly pushing content around in the hopes that one of your screen interactions accidentally yields an ad click. As one of an endless number of examples, a well respected, major recipe site has a mechanism to change the servings, and first you have to click on a "servings" button, and then on the actual serving count. After clicking on the servings, several hundred milliseconds later an ad appears exactly where the count input is, and clearly considerable engineering effort went into designing this, and many other, accidental interactions.

For what? I can only speak for myself but my immediate reaction is to click back and feel annoyed, and consider ad blocker options. It has never led to engagement or a purchase. Ever. The end result is that the performance of ads simply collapses, and sites have to get even trickier to entice accidental clicks. Rinse and repeat.

If you work in the "trick click" space, you are just dooming yourself. It is a race to the bottom.

The GM issue was enormous for literally years. Further the GM issue -- where key assembly had less torsion than expected, leading to the possibility of heavy keychains or unintended hits turning off the vehicle -- was never shown to be anything more than an isolated engineering mistake by a few engineers, who then actively covered up their own mistake. GM wasn't profiteering by having less tension than expected -- it didn't sell them cars, and it didn't save them money. The malice was not profiteering or circumventing. And for that they paid a $900 million dollar fine, and will pay out billions in lawsuits in virtually any case where the key turned off, even if it was actually operator error.

GM is in no universe blameless, but considerations that hold it like murder are irrational.

VW actively and intentionally misled consumers and regulators to sell cars promising mileage and power levels they don't actually achieve without actually cheating the system. They sold hundreds of thousands of cars -- at the cost of significant air pollution (some 200,000 Americans, and millions worldwide, are estimated to die from air pollution yearly) -- based upon these essentially lies. They actively promoted their eco-friendliness, and their great fuel economy, neither of which are actually true in concert.

The same comment appeared regarding Stagefright as well. It has no place on a site like HN, and is just people repeating cheap comments.

http://www.androidcentral.com/list-devices-stagefright-patch...

The vendors and carriers are getting pretty good about this, and the bulk of popular devices get patches surprisingly quickly.

After my post has been moderated down to the abyss, Marco has announced that he has given the app code to Ghostery, who'll certainly release an app in short order. And for which all logic states Arment will receive financial considerations.

My post above is completely accurate. The moral grandstanding is an embarrassment, and it's worse how well this noise works on HN.

Hats off to Marco for putting his ethics first, not the money.

I find this sentiment, and the moderation supporting it, incredible and almost a demonstration of the Stockholm Syndrome.

especially if you expected this app to be not very popular in the first place

The anticipation about adblockers on iOS has been fervent and growing for a while now. Marco went and setup an agreement with one of the larger purveyors of block lists, then utilizing that to all advantages to corner the market. I find it highly dubious that he didn't think it would be lucrative.

The ramifications and gray area of adblocking are not new. They are not unknown. This has been a discussion for literally years. As with others, it seems obvious that there is something else that motivated this sudden change of perception, and personally I would wager that very shortly we'll see Ghostery skip the middle man and release their own blocker, probably with some financial considerations.

Makes sense, really, even if some posters can't seem to fathom giving up money to sleep soundly at night.

This is like kicking kittens and then announcing to the world that you're going to stop kicking kittens. Then why kick kittens in the first place?

No one made Marco create an ad blocking app. No one demanded his coordination with Ghostery. No one demanded that he announce it with great fanfare on his site. Moralizing about him stopping it ignores that it was just a few short days ago that he started it.

And now he deserves accolades for stopping it? This is an incredible discussion. Countless other people with the ability and the means, who actually had convictions about this topic, didn't create ad blockers (much less for personal reward). Others still, who have convictions that favor ad blockers, did and stand by their moral compass. Either groups are in a far better position than Arment's "have it both ways" perspective.

and doesn't enjoy controversy

So he went all in on something that was already hugely controversial (for weeks regarding iOS, and for years on other platforms). That adblockers would be controversial was blatantly obvious to any of this Earth, and should not be a surprise to anyone.

The world didn't need Marco to get in the ad blocking business. Yet he did in a big way, with a big partnership, and put a big amount of his namespace and reputation behind it.

People infer motives because the notion that this all came as some big surprise rings hollow.

I think people irrationally get offended by swearing

As you said, there is nothing particularly offensive about what the person said (it certainly doesn't seem to be homophobia. It doesn't discount it at all, but by itself is essentially nothing). If it was made into some tense, awkward situation, well that's on everyone involved.

Having said that, everyone should avoid those sorts of statements, however benign, because under the lens of reconsideration, where people are looking for a narrative, it's easy to make them look much worse than intended.

it doesn't guarantee that the data in the DB itself has stayed constant

By definition, snapshot isolation is supposed to guarantee that all reads are the consistent, committed data as of the begin transaction, and the commit will fail and rollback if any data altered within a snapshot isolation transaction was already changed. The response by Percona, unless I am reading it wrong, actually agrees that they are not truly implementing snapshot isolation. They then argue that the tester should have tested something totally different, but that doesn't address the snapshot isolation not actually being snapshot isolation.

As to locks, snapshot isolation/MVCC are there to avoid a sea of locks. The solution to a broken snapshot isolation level isn't simply to manually and programmatically demand locks. While that may work, it completely undermines the whole reason for SI.

It's going to redouble the obnoxious tendency of sites to push users to their own apps where they can do essentially whatever they want. I doubt this was an unintended consequence.

Those that remain will eventually move to a model where ads come from the site itself, intermixed with content in such a way that makes blocking virtually impossible. This obviously presents trust issues for ad networks, but it really is the only workable solution.

without even spending a dime

Ads wouldn't work if people never spent a dime. This has been going on for quite some time, so the notion that it's built on nothing -- just a bunch of foolish advertisers giving money for nothing -- has always been folly.

By completely ignoring existing rules and regulations that restrict everyone else from providing a "better product at a better price". In virtually every market you can conceive scenarioes where a startup can provide a "better product at a better price" simply by ignoring all of the extra costs and limitations that constrain the existing players, usually at the behest of the government. As much as everyone holds Uber and AirBnB as disrupting cab and hotel businesses, they're really disrupting the cab regulation and hotel regulation businesses, without much consideration to the real impact.

People like eating at the park. There are no current food options there. I can "disrupt" the park food business by wheeling my bbq down there and selling burgers (ignore the countless food safety, tax and regulatory issues, or the zoning/garbage/park use policies that led to the park not having food options). Disruption!

EDIT: Actually, why bother having the capital costs of BBQs, fuel logistics and safety liability, etc. Instead I'll just make an app ("Ubbq") and allow providers to register as park hamburger sellers, taking my skim off the top. Disruption!

Yes, both have large legal and political staff now. They entered markets and gained a foothold by completely ignoring established law and regulations. There is nothing, whatsoever, false about what I claimed, and your comment is extraordinarily silly.

allowing consumers to use better alternatives and challenging local authorities on their backwards ways

This is a profoundly naive way of viewing what they're doing.

Yup you're correct: named pressure rather than force (the specific function you linked was not in 1, but pressure was in the legacy methods since version 1. Search the page for pressure).

It is live on most devices, and reflects pressure quite accurately, and is doing it by measuring the touch area per contact on the screen, which with a human finger varies based upon the force of the press. Presumably on the Huawei they would just use the actual pressure sensor instead of the proxied size.

Theoretically it means that the screen senses pressure in addition to location(s) (note that all capacitive screens do this already, where pressure is proxied by size of touch, which is useful with big meaty fingers but is arguably less precise. Android publishes this, since version 1.0, as "force"). The demos are a little odd, though, as all seem to be primarily about the difference between taps and long presses, being entirely defined by touch time rather than pressure.

He was talking about the iPad at the time. Further his statement was the existence of a stylus, not the necessity of it.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/jobs-if-you-see-a-stylus-...

He specifically refers to the iPad in the actual quote. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply wrong or a revisionist, though such sorts seep out of the woodwork whenever Apple cedes prior claims, rephrasing and adding unspoken criteria to somehow make it prescient and relevant, seen throughout this discussion.

This is an aspect of several of these startups that amazes me: So many times I've had discussions with peers about possible business ideas, and we get mired in the realities of legislation and compliance (it's very easy to get caught up in the nuances of every customer agreement, disclosure form, etc, to ensure the most edge of conditions don't end up in a business-destroying lawsuit), the vision abandoned because of those risks and legal complexities.

Companies like Uber and AirBnB (and countless others) simply pretend that those complexities don't exist -- the market to be disrupted only because they're willing to completely circumvent laws and standards -- and money starts falling on their heads.

Given the overhead of context switches, is it possible to take a general purpose application like nginx and use a user-mode TCP stack? For instance if I had a network adapter that is solely dedicated to nginx, and don't need any of the kernel TCP services. Is this even a viable consideration?

I've done high performance nginx, in the million request per second range (there are situations that benefit from these, though unfortunately such discussions always get waylaid by people insisting that performance doesn't matter), but there is enormous system overhead at this rate that I'd like to get around.