Yeah, I wanted a Matrox so bad at that time because you could also do dual monitor on some of those cards. I had a sick NEC with a degauss button and trinitron style horizontal lines and a shit packard bell monitor. I wanted to do dual monitors so bad with both, despite the resolution asymmetry. Some matrox also had connection points for antennas and video capture. They were truly workhorse cards. But they sucked at 3D and were lapped in the Boot mag benchmarks for Quake 3D et al. I ended up with a 3D Labs Permidia 3D card anyway because I couldn't afford a Diamond or Voodoo and ended up turning textures off fully on Quake 3d in the end. Fun times, shout out Hard OCP.
I had dual Trinitrons around that era, to this day when I build myself a new computer desk I massively over build it (the latest one I can stand in the middle without noticeable flex..) because I lived in slight dread that the spacetime warping monitors would crush the one I had at the time.
I remember people I knew wanting the Matrox because it was possible to have duel screen on Linux. They usually had a huge grin on LAN parties, once they got their breath back from carrying two heavy CRT monitors and a PC tower. Good times.
Maybe I misunderstood something at the time, but the mga X11 driver was weird. My understanding, at least at the time, is that it is/was possible to provide an X11 driver that would work regardless of the underlying operating system, providing features such as dual-head support.
This feels intuitively wrong to me now and I doubt that's how it worked. In any case I dutifully copies the Matrox provided X11 driver to OpenBSD and enjoyed multi-monitor support.
Looking at a few old mailinglists agrees with you. Apparently the mga_drv and mga_hal_drv could just be copied to any system running XFree86, at least Linux and the BSDs, and would let you utilize dual-head support.
I have one of their dry food ones and no longer need it. Sad story, but it happens.
My cat scarfed and barfed periodically, and I always wanted the Petlibro (the simple one) to slow feed by incrementally turning the auger, just to see if it helped. I might dig it out and try my hand at this.
I put it in a hook, and Claude basically re-evaluates every changed comment that it makes against a prompt in the hook. This burns tokens, but my company pays for it, so I don't care.
Sure, but there is nothing in the world of the last 30-40 years that can compare to GLP-1s in terms of helping people consume fewer calories. This is a very coarse statement, but I'm confident in making it: there is nothing healthier than being skinny, and GLP-1s make people skinny in a way that is unique in modernity. Our modern food systems are optimized to encourage people to consume as many calories as they can, and GLP-1s are bulwarks against this system, if you will.
Being fit is healthier. Studies support the idea that being overweight but physically active is cardiovascularly healthier than being skinny(GLP-1 or not) and sedentary.
People are so worked up online in places like Reddit and YouTube comments about how there aren't small trucks anymore. It feels almost like a strange mania. So it makes sense that someone like this would come along and capitalize on that (and probably never produce anything). People will throw $25 at a company without intention to actually purchase the truck, just because they feel some weird memetic vibe to support a small truck movement or whatever.
There is a lot of truth here. Especially the part about capitalizing on the interest without ever producing a vehicle. This is something that I have considered when looking at Slate, Rivian, and other interesting vehicle concepts. Those two did end up with production vehicles. Others were a lot more vaporware.
It feels great and sad at the same time that automakers have lost touch with their customers and no longer produce vehicles that the average consumer would buy and use.
Ford, with the Bronco, took years to commit to resurrecting the nameplate. In the process, they gathered so much critical information from Bronco drivers and other 4WD enthusiasts that they were able to condense their configurations to match the options that buyers were requesting and to offer factory installs of and warranties for components that buyers usually had to buy from aftermarket sources. They did everything right and even though there are hiccups with the vehicles, some due to pandemic parts shortages, others due to similar quality issues, they have a bonafide hit. It is hard to go anywhere around me in NTexas without seeing multiple Broncos and Bronco Sports.
If this guy at REO is smart and committed to the process he will scour forums for configuration information for his vehicles so that he can select components that buyers prefer. He can work on styling once he hires someone with CAD experience.
These are called EREVs in China and are fairly popular. Ford has a patent for one in trucks but never built it. It makes a ton of sense. Use the generator to get extended range, but avoid all the moving parts of a driveline.
Stellantis almost built one, I think the Ramcharger?
A couple other companies tried EREVs but AFAIR one was suboptimal (Mazda had one but the motor was so small it was dangerous to use for uphill) and the other was in an expensive German thing.
Where it is challenging is that, AFAIK, a direct driveline (i.e. Honda's system) or close to (THS used by Toyota/Ford/Subaru/others), it is easier to hit a higher Gas-only MPG rating than with an EREV due to the conversion losses on each end.
And, If you compare a BYD Seal 5 DM-i to the Current Prius Prime, AFAIK if you compare euro WLTP numbers the Prime gets better MPG when it switches to gas, and has a competitive electric only range. The Seal 5 DM-I is a little bigger but close enough. The BYD certainly wins on 'price' however it is unclear how much of that is due to a truly simpler design versus labor/material input cost.
A more accurate description would be that starlink will become the trunk, and possibly the service. Local cell services will own the poles but will essentially provide access for starlink customers. It's not a bad business idea, actually. People pay $30-40 a line for starlink cell service, starlink provides the big pipes so to speak and splits the bill with the local companies that put up the last mile towers.
In rural areas you can put up isolated 5G towers that have their own dish connection to starlink, no need to string a line to the towers anymore...
It was never necessary to run fibre to any specific individual tower. Microwave backhaul works fine of you have good coveragef the area. Less well if you don't. If cell providers wanted to put up enough towers that's a self solving problem.
I live in the land of trees (Maine) and cell service sucks, line of sight between microwave towers is a non-starter AFAICT, but line of sight to the sky is do-able everywhere.
It's true that obstructions above the ground level would decrease the distance you can get line-of-sight to the next tower at the same tower height (a 40 m pole-style tower could have only 20 km LoS to an equally tall tower with 30 m tree cover vs 40 km for no tree cover, meaning 4× as many to cover the same area; effect is less if you use taller lattice towers at one end or both, of course) but it also decreases the range you can get out of the connection from tower to UE, not exactly to the same extent, but close enough. The change from GEO to LEO for satellite backhaul means that satellite is more technically competitive, sure, but microwave backhaul is possible, at least for basic mobile service (I would not want to use it for fixed wireless without even more tower density)... if you wanted to blanket even the mostly empty land between the two towers with good mobile coverage, which is way more towers than what most MNOs would want to purchase.
I spent last weekend under some of the darkest sky you'll find in the eastern US. Miles from cell service. I had a starlink portable with me and it was nice to get some service and stay in touch, but to watch the sky is to see satellites everywhere.
I've spent a dozen or so weeklong stretches in the last few years completely off grid, only connection being bringing up the inReach once a day. At this point I actually get anxiety at the end of such a trip, knowing that I'm going to be wading through a morass of notifications and slack/email/texts. Doing a once or twice a day sync via starlink didn't really bother me so much when I'm out in the backcountry this last trip.
I'd love to be rid of all of it, but that's not how the world works today.
> I'd love to be rid of all of it, but that's not how the world works today.
Why do we think the human made world is out of our control? Learned helplessness? We could stop this. We do not need Satrlink.
Starlink will fail. And this will be more likely the more satellites they put up[1][2]. Or the more wars we get in. It will not be hard to cause a major destruction of all Starlink satellites [3].
It’s just that, while so much of the sky is static, it’s impossible to gaze at without your attention being grabbed by the moving flick of light, it takes active effort to ignore it. So it’s a totally different experience stargazing now vs 20 years ago.
Starlink satellites are intentionally designed to be very dark, but they become more visible when the sun is about to come up or if there are super bright light sources on the ground nearby to reflect off of them.
If there are super bright light sources on the ground nearby that are bright enough to produce a visible reflection off a satellite, you are about to be dead.
Yeah, I meant to point out there that there is a tension between the technology that I don't mind, but the infrastructure for it that I do mind. I don't really know what the answer is. I do know that we're probably not going to put this toothpaste back in the tube.
I love being off-grid with just my slow inReach Mini 1. I can communicate in case of an emergency, but otherwise it's a great forcing function to not be hyper connected. I worry if I brought the portable Starlink with I'd connect much more than necessary.
Sorry but this reeks of marketing. To what extent was Ford actually attempting to replace these engineers with AI tools in the last three years or were they just letting them go by attrition? Was this the result of an actual AI influenced layoff? I read both the Verge and the Bloomberg piece and none of this seems to be articulated but it sure does seem to capture a vibe right now that companies are footgunning themselves all over the place with LLMs, despite no evidence of this being related to any of that...
reply