From what the article says, it’s actually a pretty cool way of improving desalination plants. They use the left over brine, from desalination, that has a very high concentration of salt, and use it as the high salt concentration side, with regular seawater being used on the other side. This both gives them free energy and reduces the side effects of pumping that extremely salty water into the sea by diluting it.
Yeah but my understanding was that an important part of the EU is the negotiation of trade deals that regulate tariffs, and that the countries more or less gave their sovereignty in that area to the EU. Maybe I was mistaken?
Wait, how does this work? I am for the EU to retaliate with tariffs against the US, but how is Poland able to do it by itself? Isn’t the EU supposed to have a common trade policy?
Except that AMD doesn’t support HDMI 2.1 on Linux (not their fault to be fair, but still)
That’s a bit of a flawed approach, at least if we’re talking about the average user. The average user doesn’t want nor shouldn’t need to have a deep understanding of the OS. If you’re a dev or interested in it, sure, it’s good to know, but asking the average person to have to constantly tinker with their OS is like asking people to diagnose their own illnesses. Sure, it would be nice if you knew medicine and why you were sick and how to cure it, but it doesn’t make sense to expect everyone to do it. Most people don’t care, and have better things to do in their life.
They aren’t saying every person of those generations is the same. Your family is very techy and it makes sense that they’d be knowledgeable, but the point of the meme is that there was a generation that grew up with tech that kinda worked most of the time, forcing them to learn how to use it to be effective, leading to a higher proportion of people knowing how computers work. Nowadays, except if your job is fixing computers, the chance you know them in-depth and how to tinker with them is much lower, because there is no need, they just work most of the time.
Hosting costs heavily depend on the type of service, YouTube’s costs are very much not negligible, but it is true that for most sites it is very cheap. But hosting costs aren’t the only cost, many sites provide useful reviews, news, or testing that costs them money to produce, which they pay for with ads. Yes, some sites survive using alternative payment methods, but I’m skeptical that this can scale to the rest of the internet. My fear is that we’ll end up in a situation where 90% of the internet is just YouTube, Facebook, Reddit and other giants and people get all of their news, reviews and other information from those sites, which I think is worse than having ads.
I’m not advocating for you being forced physically to watch ads, I’m saying that as it stands, ads are the payment method and you actively blocking them means you’re not paying for what you’re using. I’m not criticising people for that, I’m simply stating a fact. If everyone on the internet was to use adblockers, most of the web would die out, and first to die would be actually useful sites that provide helpful information that they invested time and money into making, such as news, review sites, etc. Perhaps the threat of adblockers itself is benefitial for the internet as it might force websites to find alternate, better payment methods, but I don’t see what you could replace ads with since people won’t be willing to pay a monthly subscription for every site they visit, and most people won’t pay for donations if you try a donations based model.
I know I’m gonna get a lot of hate for this because everyone here despises ads, but I can see an argument for it. I don’t know if it is legaly sound, but morally, it boils down to the fact that you are literally using a service without paying for it. The website is offering you a product and the payment is ads. If you don’t want to pay for it, don’t use it, otherwise you really are just stealing it (even if that “stealing” costs very little to the site). I personally use an adblocker and agree that ads on most sites are obnoxious, but I also feel like people make adblockers out to be completely black and white, which they are not.
I’m thinking of trying them, but hard for me to find a usecase. I have two monitors and it’s often useful for me to have different combos of apps open at the sane time, so not sure how to properly use it.
I mean the whole point of tariffs is to bring manufacturing to your country, so if they actually did that that would be a major win, but I’m highly doubtful, they’ll probably just wait it out since the US can’t survive by blocking literally every high end chip from being imported.
Did they really classify Twitter as an “organised crime group”? Because that does seem a bit farfetched.
I’ve been thinking of possible ways that you could prove you’re of legal age to access a site through a government service without the government being able to know who the user is, and I can’t really come up with a clean solution.
The best idea that came to my mind was that you could e.g. have a challenge system where the government service challenges the user to return an encrypted randomly generated value. Each user has e.g. an AES key assigned to them that corresponds to the year they were born in, e.g. everyone born in the year 2000 has the same encryption key in ther ID card, and they just use that to return an answer to the challenge. The government website can know all of the secret keys and just check if it can unencrypt the result with the correct one. This means that the government service won’t know anything about the user other than their year of birth, but can confirm their age.
Now two main problems are that, as everyone with the same year of birth has the same key, it could be possible to somehow leak one key and make it so that anyone can pretend to be born at that age, but considering this is for kids, exploiting that sort of problem is probably enough of a barrier to use. Another problem is that this would require you to scan your ID card with every use. Maybe you could accomplish this with a mobile app but idk if that’s possible to do in the same way.
I am very suspicious of the -26% Apple marketshare. It makes me feel like there’s more to this than it seems at first. There’s no way 26% of Apple users stopped using Apple devices within a year.
Edit: maybe it could be caused by a large user base increase that shifted the demographics, but this fast? And the PornHub bans across US states started only this year for the most part if I’m not mistaken, so it shouldn’t affect this data?
I typically keep my boxes just to be safe. When it becomes too cluttered/have too many boxes, I just throw out the oldest ones
Regarding resolution, I’ve been using my S21 Ultra at FHD quality (2400x1080) since I got it and it has a significantly large screen. I don’t see a point in higher resolutions but I definitely appreciate higher refresh rates. Makes it feel smoother and more responsive.
Interesting that they seem to be using a consumer grade Snapdragon chip this time, typically they used weird chips ment for industry applications if I’m not mistaken. Wonder what sparked the change, did Qualcomm start supporting their chips for longer?
Yeah no I’ve never dual booted on these devices.
Yes but my entire point is that it just isn’t comparable because of the insane scales we’re talking about. For example, WhatsApp has 2 billion monthly active users. Let’s say Signal had the same number and let’s say it costs them 0.5$ per user per year (probably an underestimate). That’s 1 billion dollars in yearly expenses. Wikipedia, which is one of the most successful donation based companies to my knowledge, has a yearly income of only 180 million $. I just don’t see there being enough donation capacity in the general population to sustain that high of a figure.
GrapheneOS might be fine even with 2 bilion users with the same amount of funding as they have now, because their costs aren’t tied to their userbase. But scaling Signal to the size we’re talking about is an entirely different beast.
I mean, of all the things to cut off of them, Chrome made the least sense to me. It’s not a profitable part of the business, it would just die if spun off. The only reason Firefox is alive is because Google is funding them. Plus changing what browser you use is much easier than some of the other monopolies they have (Android, ads, YouTube).