- clhodappI would agree if they would sell them over 55 inches with the latest panel technology in a similar pricing ballpark.
- A cheat code to what?
- China's new HDMI replacement currently has no known benefit over HDMI in terms of protocol governance issues.
- GPMI isn't an open standard and it doesn't support HDCP. It might end up being very popular in China but it will be a hard sell in markets that aren't primarily consuming Chinese media.
- HDMI Forum don't like TV SOC boards that have both kinds of ports and discourage them from being made.
Also, HDMI Forum don't like converter boards that support every advanced feature at once (Variable Refresh Rate, HDR, etc.) and won't license them.
DisplayPort and HDMI kind of leapfrog each other in terms of technical superiority, so neither is definitively technically superior in the long term.
- It's cheaper to implement than HDMI. So if DisplayPort ports are common on displays, devices will start using it (cheapo devices first). If DisplayPort ports are common on devices, displays won't need HDMI anymore. Plus, industry-wide, it's wildly inefficient to have one high-bandwidth video connector for monitors and a different one for TV's when the technical distinction between those is pretty much non-existent and we could scale our engineering effort across a much wider set of devices.
So, after a transition period, cost-saving will eventually lead to DisplayPort taking over.
- It's not the connector, it's the communication protocol.
It's super lame though. It will be great to watch the downfall of HDMI Forum when their artificial dam against DisplayPort in the living room finally breaks.
- Open source rarely wins at the start.
Instead, its strength tends to be a continued improvement over the long term, in a way that commercial software just can't sustain because it needs to show a return on investment.
- I'm pretty sure that the majority of shops that aren't worrying about Android have moved on from Java 8. The JVM team only keep Java 8 working for customers paying them lots of money for extended support contracts. And that's only because they have this long-term extended support system for all LTS JVM releases (they are also still supporting 11 in a similar manner).
On the other hand, Android doesn't even support Java 8. It supports the long-dead Java 7 plus a subset of Java 8 features. Android essentially froze their core application runtime in amber over ten years ago and have just been adding layer upon layer of compiler-level sugar ever since. The effect is an increasing loss of the benefit of being on the Java platform, in terms of code sharing.
- Subject to the accuracy of the translation, you are guaranteed to answer that one correctly by not selecting any options. That is because the instructions do not constrain what you may do about incorrect statements. Thus, in a purely logical sense, you must not select any correct statements but you may select or not select incorrect statements.
- It's not standard mini-itx. Since the physical form factors for their laptop boards are published publicly and are somewhat stable, are "desktop" cases for them.
- Apple already made it, it's just that it targets developers rather than end users: https://developer.apple.com/games/game-porting-toolkit/
- They were ejected because they submitted some seriously broken patches, which triggered kind of a panic re-review of their previous patches, which concluded that they had been careless the whole time (Chesterton's Fence type stuff).
The political stuff is just an extra bonus.
- The libertarians that want to live in the woods have a point.
The problem is the libertarians that want to burn it all down and build a corpo-state.
- It's even more of an intelligence bonanza when it's done to the private citizens! That's the point of trying to do it!
- I think it honesty just boils down to: It sounds bad.
- It's not that I want to see someone made whole for some hurt.
What I want to see is for government to do its job and stamp a big "DENIED" on OpenAI's request to reorganize.
The response should be "Sorry if you feel like you screwed up your corporate structure, but your money really is locked in this non-profit and you can't just take it out".
Edit: Put a different way: Your point seems to be that there is no civil law damage so nothing can be done. My point is that this isn't a civil law matter, it's a corporate law matter: it's not about damages, it's about the social contract we hold corporations to in exchange for allowing them to exist.
- It's not that I think they owe me (or any one specific individual) some specific material value, it's that I don't believe they should be allowed to "take the money and run" after amassing it under the guise of being a charity. Their options should be to continue their mission or to donate their assets to other charities that might be able to further their original mission. Anything less is an affront to those that donated, those that the charity was supposed to support (which is everyone), and any customer that believed their dollars were being spent on a product under the management of a charity.
While it's true that we don't tax investments, we do tax gifts past a dollar value threshold, which is what donations become when nonprofit status drops away.
- What about me, a random person?
As stated in their foundational legal filings, the primary activity of OpenAI is supposed to be described as: OpenAI, Inc. ("OpenAI") is a nonprofit artificial intelligence ("AI") scientific research organization. Its goal is to engage in research activities that advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. AI technology will help shape the 21st century, and OpenAI wants to help the world build safe AI technology and ensure that AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. To that end, OpenAI hopes to build AI as part of a larger community, and wants to openly share its plans and capabilities along the way.
As a member of humanity as a whole, they are supposed to be operating for my benefit, not primarily for the benefit of their investors. If they wanted to operate primarily for the benefit of their investors, they should have been paying taxes on every dollar they brought in.
- You might be thinking of Reddit