Linux is terrible on ARM, I don't agree that it runs perfectly fine at all. Try loading Ubuntu onto a Snapdragon laptop for example. It works but lots of issues eg sound, webcam quality, etc
I think you're referring to a specific SoC that's used on recent laptops which happens to have driver issues, something not specific to ARM at all. Other (usually embedded) ARM devices have been running just fine on Linux for over 20 years now.
GNU/Linux has trouble, but thanks to Android (and ChromeOS), we know Linux itself specifically on ARM does actually work. Freeing those drivers is another matter, unfortunately.
Those are specific firmwares for those devices that are either closed-source binary blobs, open-source hackjobs/reverse engineered attempts, or just plain missing firmwares. The fault is not on Linux but rather on Qualcomm not releasing things for that specific SoC. Some SoC's have better support than others. ARM cpu's themselves works perfectly fine on linux.
Intel has closed things down: some wifi and webcam firmwares are poop and a massive pain to get working on newer chips (if at all). Their wifi firmwares also don't respect certain kernel overrides (which is why I replaced my Intel Wifi 7 chip with a mediatek Wifi 6 one). Blame is 100% on intel and not linux. Broadcom is also pretty bad at being a team player in this regard.
I basically recommend everyone to stick with AMD chipset & GPU's where possible, because they have mainline kernel support nailed down 95% of the time.
Again, ARM works fine, their extra firmwares for extra devices on SoC's are to blame if you struggle.
> Those are specific firmwares for those devices that are either closed-source binary blobs, open-source hackjobs/reverse engineered attempts, or just plain missing firmwares
This isn't fully the reason, Linux is infamous for requiring a specific build for each SoC (and usually each board of said SoC) where as Windows on ARM uses ACPI which Linux doesn't support to the same level. Linux prefers the landfill promoting device tree for each device approach.
> Linux is infamous for requiring a specific build for each SoC
no, thats just androids problem. desktop linux like ubuntu ships all the device trees from their supported arm variants. its still more work than acpi for kernel maintainers but you dont need device specific builds.
> landfill promoting device tree for each device
whats landfill promoting about this? you dont need to keep the trees updated they only depend on the hardware and follow a stable spec. and even if the vendors dont want to support linux a community user can write their own device tree and send upstream.
Break free from Google by paying money to Google for a Pixel phone? Even with a used Pixel, you're helping prop up their used market value which helps Google
Companies in western democracies usually pay tax in addition to their workers and owners, but don't have representation in parliaments separate to that of their workers and owners. Questions about whether robots have the right to vote has more to do with their humanity and less to do with their tax liability in such societies.
Checkout the Dell XPS 13 9345, webcam is on top but with thinner bezels than a Macbook, it's got a Snapdragon ARM processor for good battery life, OLED screen, upto 64GB RAM, and is smaller and lighter than a Macbook Air
Snapdragon X Elite 2 processor will be out next year for the refreshed model
You're looking at the wrong laptop, the Dell XPS 13 9345 has a ~88.6% screen to body ratio, the Macbook Pro 14 M4 2024 has a ~84.6% screen to body ratio.
The weight is the big one for me - only 2.5 lbs vs 3.4 lbs
Remember the Dell has an 18 month old processor, X Elite 2 coming out next year.
It's the opposite of what you say. Proportional representation isn't accountable because you don't know what coalition you're voting for - coalitions are done in backrooms after the election. Winner takes all is more accountable because the coalitions are done before the election (aka political parties). Parties are made up of different factions and they're agreed before the election.
I guess you don't live in the UK, because winner takes all is far worse for backroom deals. The deals just end up being between factions within the same party!
Deals and bargaining all happen AFTER a party takes power and completely hidden until a government can't pass their own bills like the Labour attempt to reform welfare.
With proportional representation the deals are made in order to form a government, BEFORE it has power, and are between separate political parties.
Sure there may be agreements that are not all made public, but these are much harder to keep in the "backroom".
This time everyone voted for Starmer and got friend-of-Epstein Mandelson via McSweeney as a cut-out.
PMs don't drive the agenda. The UK is one of the most corrupt developed countries in the world. The people driving the agenda are billionaire and multi-millionaire donors.
PM is a sales job, not a strategy job, and increasingly ridiculous PMs have been selected because the donors have had enough of liberal democracy as a concept. If it stops working - which it pretty much has - there's going to be less resistance to removing it altogether.
Which is why there's resistance to Digital ID. There's widespread distrust - with reason - of the political establishment right across the divide.
I think he's right, actually. It rings true with what we see here in the Netherlands. People don't feel like they're "throwing their vote away" if they vote for a minor party, so politicians can't have a laid back attitude.
There are efforts to make this happen in the us starting locally and working up. The states are left to decide how they implement elections on their own with a couple of exceptions. There is a tragedy of the commons aspect to it though, as if some states adopt proportional representation but not others the ones that do not adopt it gain advantage. Ranked choice voting is taking hold much faster than pr in the us, and it is pretty slow too. It can happen though. Both are viewed as being left leaning, which doesn't really make sense to me.
If their minor party doesn't end up as part of the governing coalition, there's no sense in which people feel like their vote wound up having no effect?
That's not really true. It just means there is a gradient of success rather than outright success or loss. Particular portions of what you voted for may be successful.
First past the post means you take it all or leave it all, policywise, small things are likely to fall through the cracks.
You don't need a spoofed email to steal someone's crypto. Criminals can just hold a gun to your head and demand your keys.
It's happened lots of times and it's why traditional banks are way more secure than crypto.
Well done to the author for talking about it, but I hope the real lesson is learned that crypto isn't a real store of wealth and can be stolen at any time....
I've been told that scammers aren't interested in making scams too good, the idea being that you want to select for people who are bad at recognizing a mediocre scam, because they'll be more likely to play along for the entire scam.
Not just scale either. On the phone you're dealing with people having less fear from local repercussions, from reprisal, less care for the community, etc.
You miss the point. You can't mug someone for their Vanguard account. Robbery risk is limited to cash on hand, or arguably whatever the ATM limit is on your bank account.
Not sure about the distribution, often it’s cash or jewelry that’s already home. Bank tellers and even taxi drivers get increasingly educated to stop such suspicious withdrawals/meetings.
you're suggesting that the poster is shoving his hate of crypto currencies into this conversation, and not making a sincere statement about security that withstands even the tiniest amount of scrutiny?
People do get taken hostage until they give up their crypto accounts sometimes. There was a prominent one in NYC recently that was on the news again due to--basically-- the alleged involvement by one of the stars of a popular reality tv show.
In cryptocurrency, you can use a multi-signature account to define your own security setup.
For example, even a 2-of-2 setup with a trusted authority like a bank is straight-forward improvement in security over the conventional bank system.
You can go further, for example consider a 3-of-5 setup with 2 keys in security deposit boxes, 1 key on a laptop, 1 key on a phone, and 1 key on a hardware token. You can set the hardware token to erase its keys when the wrong pin is entered, making it pretty rubber hose proof.
It doesn't need to be required of anyone. People are responsible for their own funds and have their own security/effort profiles. The "right way" of doing things will be discovered through natural selection.
If some idiot leaves all of their funds on an exchange like this, and it gets hacked, then good. That's how the market evolves and money moves out of the hands of the incompetent and into the competent.
Multisignature wallets are the answer to this. Also helps spendthrifts (to require group concensus for bitcoin redemption).
Of course, this doesn't help if you don't have trusted associates — and can be (even more) dangerous with multiple people responsible for crypto custody.
Also helps if you have offline ("cold wallet") storage, which would require hours to importPrivKey and redeem. Slow them down...
There's a non-zero chance someone can just roll a new key and it happens to be yours, and poof, your money is gone with no recourse.
It's a tiny, infinitesimal chance: but it's a heck of a lot greater of a chance than the same thing happening with a bank account, especially the "no recourse" part.
I'm a huge critic of the cult of crypto, but the odds of a key collision are smaller than the odds of <some highly improbable series of mistakes/coincidences/malice happening that result in you losing your money in the traditional banking system>.
The odds of a 'someone gets access to your account/wallet and instantly drains it with no recourse' are much higher in the crypto space, as the author of the post experienced.
The odds of the bank making an error related to your account and crediting you money is far greater than the odds of generating the same keypair as someone else.
