Amen to that, my keyboard on my m1 air recently failed. I was horrified to find out it is literally riveted to the frame. I got this close to buying a new one. Something annoyed me about this perfectly good laptop being rendered compltely useless and I ended up buying a replacement keyboard, ripping out the old one and shimming this one with paper. Its not perfect but here I am typing from it.
But you are 100% right, there is just nothing better on the market. The gap is so big.
The riveting sounds, as you say, horrifying. Congrats on making it your own again.
It’s still remarkable to me that it’s even possible to do it at all. The amount of tech and miniaturization crammed into that thing — it would be easier for them to rivet, weld, and glue every part, and cheaper. And if the build quality weren’t so high to begin with, it wouldn’t have withstood the repair at all.
A good friend has a Framework, and it’s cool as hell, but incredibly primitive compared with your M1.
Primitive in what sense though? As I have had one for longer than my Macbook lasted in the same situation, plus it is upgradeable as and when I choose. I loved apple of old, and the classic apple that was the framework of it's time regarding upgradeability, has long gone.
Framework owner here:
The fw just does not feel as sturdy as a Macbook, it does the job and it's ok but not macbook grade.
The framework feels like it's been built with just enough whereas the macbook feels strong and self-contained.
It doesn't feel as sturdy, but I have actually had less issues with it in the same amount of time, and each one I have been able to fix myself cheapily and easily. The Macbook does feel sturdy, but it is deceptive as one issue means the whole laptop is almost needing to be replaced which is not strong in reality.
Nuclear is incredibly energy dense, can be stockpiled for a long time and is extremely safe.
Yes its expensive but its one those industries any serious nation needs to subsidise for the energy security it offers and the countless high skill jobs it fosters.
Well, no it's never been extremely safe by any stretch of the imagination.
That's just an extreme interpretation of the way it's not as extremely unsafe as it could be.
Plus at the rate it's being addressed by a few enthusiasts, it could be getting remarkably safer, maybe even in one person's lifetime someday.
Developments may be positive but it makes the most sense to be realistic and avoid the completely unfounded hype involved.
Plus when nuclear works best the high-skill jobs resulting have to be as non-countless as possible, that's one of the big factors which might someday allow the economics to be less unfavorable.
Prices of solar and battery are plummeting. If anything they are dropping faster than they were 5—10 years ago.
10 years from now I suspect the grid will largely be transitioning remaining fossil fuel base load to solar and wind backed with batteries, because the economics will be there to overbuild the solar and battery to the extent needed to provide reliable base load through the winter.
The land available for solar and wind is immense, especially because wind can be put in the ocean. The land required for batteries is tiny, especially compared to a nuclear power plant.
The challenges are going to be political, not spatial or geographic. China could put enough solar panels in its western deserts to power the whole country. The US could do the same in its southwest. It would take about 15% of the land area of Arizona to power the entire US.
That's physically achievable but politically difficult.
The numbers say that nothing is extremely safe, and experience has shown that having more maturity may not be necessary to recognize that, but it helps.
It just hurts the case for positive progress to mindlessly exaggerate. Especially to the absolute max.
Plus I'm not one of the ones who follow any boomer lunatic trends when I can come up with my own which people of many ages have adopted quite a bit.
Remember wacky lunatic science turns into regular science more often than you think once the dust settles.
But the advantage of that doesn't really depend on elderliness, mainly dedication to science.
Any age can do it if you try.
Well, maybe not if you're completely non-gifted in some way or another.
Can't speak for others, but this one is a fairly obvious vulnerability for someone who's in this field - similar bugs have existed back in the day in web browsers, and even somewhat recently on other platforms like Android (messages app) etc. Basically anything that displays clickable links, or renders web content etc - there's a high probably of there being a vulnerability, you just need to test a few well-known scenarios (and there are automated test suits for these things too).
The moment Microsoft started adding crap to Notepad, we knew that it was only a matter of time before such a vulnerability cropped up.
My knowledge on this is the tower should be able to optimise beams without location information. Channel information can be relayed back to the tower for beam optimisation. The tower needs to know the signal path characteristics but not explicitly the location.
Not disputing that location data is used for beam optimisation just that I dont believe it is required.
Exactly, the channel information is all that’s required but you can quite easily get the location information from that, which makes it easier to add additional features from a system point of view.
If I recall correctly, the tower will report channel information to the higher up controller system which will then decide which next tower should be notified of a phone that’s entering its range.
So while explicit positioning isn’t required when dealing with one tower, the system overall does need to determine a users position and velocity to handle tower to tower transfers.
In other words my opinion is that the difference between a towers channel information and a users position is almost one and the same. It’s a handful of math equations away.
Apple found out the hard way with the iPhone 4. Their secrecy didn't help. People doing real world testing had a case that made it look like an iPhone 3s and that also happened to mitigate the death grip problem. We know this because one was stolen and given to gizmodo.
And that was even only antenna design, they still used a standard RF stack then.
My guess is that this data is actually used for network analytics by the carriers and to determine if the device connecting to the tower should switch to another one.
This data is vital for a mobile carrier to make sure to have a good signal coverage under all the possible conditions.
It's just a guess since I've seen similar data being analyzed in a previous telco I worked at, but I don't know their exact source. The goal there was to improve the network quality. I guess you can do the same w/o GPS, but triangulation with cell towers is very coarse.
I’d imagine that the carrier will agree not to use any data they do receive for anything but a handful of purposes, but I suppose that depends on the extent of the technical solution.
Meshtastic has terrible defaults (every node rebroadcasts everything, every node sends telemetry), which makes sense in the backwoods but not anywhere close to civilisation.
This, combined with the 10% duty cycle limitation on the used frequencies is the main issue, I believe. Once the 10% are used up, a node basically has to go dead until it falls below 10% again. And with lots of messages about battery levels and other telemetry being sent and relayed, those 10% get used up fast.
reply