It's easier to drink more units of alcohol faster when it's more concentrated, and not full of bubbles.
I don't think its so much that it's absorbed faster than it's just physically possible to drink 200 ml of liquor faster than it is to drink 1600ml of beer.
I don't really push it. A couple of hours is all I really ask of it, and I get it.
I feel like it's not great given what I'm asking of it, and that it's an eink display. This is just vibes because I play on it like a few hours a week. I think I'd be very uncertain about getting a real work day out of it as an ssh client.
At this point if I'm dealing with that level of hassle I'm much happier running linux on a computer. The value add of these devices was plug and play, and if it's not that why bother.
horsawlarway is correct regarding the nvidia shield. I'm not sure how much is nvidia, and how much is google in the "they". I kinda blame nvidia more than google (if I bought a google device I would expect google ads as part of the purchase), but it's hard for me to say. "they" the people who actually own the streaming device (nvidia shield) I "purchased" updated the software and added a lot of ads.
They (ETA nvidia shield) added ads many years ago. Really left a bitter taste in my mouth after paying for an ad-free "premium" device to have them shoved out there.
I have a pine note. It lives up to that description. It's "fine", but I like to use it as an e ink laptop (well terminal with occasional other uses) with a bluetooth keyboard. I don't know that I would even want to start on using it as an ebook reader. It's bulky / heavy, and just doesn't match my kobo. I imagine asking it to do DRM ebooks would just be a non-starter.
I tried to turn a kobo into an eink terminal, and basically failed at getting it to the state I wanted it to be in, so the pine note is nice, but as a plug and play ereader it would be a hard sell for me.
Cool. Some data may have been transmitted over GPS. That's interesting and note worthy.
If only that was all that was posted.
Instead there's this stuff that makes me question Steven Murdoch's research practices. If you're willing to publish slop are his research practices slop? Can I trust any paper he creates in the future when I can tell this one has factual errors? Why should I bother reading it?
I actually think he's a good researcher from a little reading. I wish he hadn't done this.
This is an interesting article. It has a very strong AI accent.
I really wish I could tell how real it is. When some part of it I can tell is AI slop, how much of it is AI slop? Inside GNSS has always been a marketing rag with sometimes some interesting articles.
The author is a security researcher, so maybe poking at GPS bits makes sense, but talking about floating point bit depth? There's too much slop for me to figure out if there's anything of real interest or if this is just a hallucination.
Edit. After reading more carefully this is 100% AI slop. Inside GNSS published Steven Murdoch's chat gpt session. Maybe some data was transmitted? The only way you'll actually know is to redo the research your self. There are many fabrications / confabulations that clearly happen with AI in the text.
I have a few boxes that I switch between, but for some software it's nicer that my "main machine" be on DVI, and everything else HDMI. I may have to look at some scripting option where if the keyboard / mouse disappear (KVM switched away) change the display to use the HDMI input.
I do worry that would just add more trouble / race conditions / issues around this stuff. I feel like nvidia + linux + monitors doing anything other than staying on + attached all the time causes some headaches.
OFDMA just makes the channels smaller. Sure there are now 10 transmitters on channel 5, but there's one transmitter on channel 5.1, one on 5.2, ... and each 'channel' has 1/10th the capacity of "channel 5".
All my old software before AI was self documenting and didn't need comments -- it just was obvious. Today my prompts never make slop. I'm a really good driver.
I'm really glad Hacker News disallows AI generated comments. The response I got from asking that question really is quite enlightening. Short answer: "no", long answer: "no -- fuck off", longer answer: "no -- fuck off -- if you want I can dig into whether or not you should fuck off harder"
I've been building my own tooling doing similar sorts of things -- poorly with scripts and podman / buildkit as well as LD_PRELOAD related tools, and definitely clicked over to HN comments with out reading much of the content because I thought "AI slop tool", and the site raised all my hackles as I thought I'll never touch this thing. It'll be easier to write my own than review yet another AI slop tool written by someone who loves AI.
I'm glad I read the HN comments, now I'm excited to review the source.
You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.
You could even write a plugin for your favorite web browser to do that to every site you visit.
It seems hard to achieve the inverse that is (would you rather I use i.e.?) rewrite this paragraph as the original author did before they had an AI re--write it to make it clean, (--do you like oxford commas, and em/en dashes! Just prompt your AI) and easier to read
Yes. Specifically: The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning, and not some knifey spoony confusion.
I don't think its so much that it's absorbed faster than it's just physically possible to drink 200 ml of liquor faster than it is to drink 1600ml of beer.