Khanzarate

joined 1 year ago
[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Countries willing to pass on a US patent to China stop getting the chips (or, in this case, chip-making jobs, realistically, but that still hurts)

Also Taiwan doesn't wanna help China and even if a US sanction was just an excuse to hurt China and get away with it they'd probably do it.

Edit: in this case, this chip is "foreign-produced items [...] that are the direct product of U.S. technology or software", according to the article. I feel it was implied but clarity is always good. US technology, used with permission in a Taiwanese good, and that permission could be retracted.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago (7 children)

I did the same thing. It was allowed in general, with the correct thought, "if you can code it yourself, you know the content"

I had another "program" that would fail to run but that's because I wrote notes into it. Doubt that was allowed.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Completely agree.

The only reason the relative had it at all was because of those old fears. As soon as I learned that they had it bundled with the computer (hate that. Malware's gotta get in somewhere though I guess), I knew why it was being slow.

I hold this up as an example because even their own troubleshooting website and a program dedicated to the purpose above and beyond the usual uninstaller couldn't do it though. Avast doesn't even know its own malware.

Also this nonsense got me the chance to put mint on their computer, but the "switch to Linux" argument isn't constructive in this particular spot. They didn't end up sticking to it because a required-for-school piece of software for tests just doesn't do Linux at all. Couldn't get it to run in wine or even a virtual machine either, and they're not great at the whole computer thing so I didn't wanna be tech support for dual booting.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Here's an example. I removed avast via the uninstaller on a relatives computer, it made it laggy as hell. I restart after as the uninstaller demands, but it was still there.

Searching, I find this official support option. https://support.avast.com/en-us/article/10

The official Avast Uninstall Tool, the tool to use when the included uninstaller didn't work.

The official uninstall tool didn't work either. I ran it in safe mode, like it said. Didn't work, either, but it removed some stuff, and finally let me delete some things manually. Ran it again in safe mode after that, finally seems to have removed everything.

Anyway it's a great example of if a company doesn't know what they're about, windows has no process to recover from that. Window's process is identical to a Walmart employee saying. "I dunno, man, contact the manufacturer." Genuinely, its usually enough, but when its not, there's absolutely no recourse.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

They wiggle around to clean your eye and keep debris out of it.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

Can't I'm pretty certain Wonka still has the patent.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The issue here is because they're linked by the owner. If one stock goes up/down, the other does too. This has happened repeatedly with these two companies specifically, even.

So although they don't own stock in the company in question, they still have a stock in seeing it succeed. Its success will bring about their own financial gain.

The fact that this issue was voiced and they specifically took the action that raises questions about authenticity also means we must question if that's even the goal. If this went to a different judge, after all, one with no bias, then if this judge is unbiased, he should expect the same outcome. Of course, if he were biased and intended to give a biased ruling to take advantage of the chance to directly increase his wealth, then we'd expect him to be reluctant to let another judge rule on it. He could miss his financial opportunity, after all.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well they still have a finite life and are less replaceable than a battery. Even if it quadrupled the lifespan (which is a reasonably generous estimate given OP's 4-year duration and wikipedia telling me supercapacitors last 10-15 years), it would still eventually need to be replaced and that would generally require resoldering it.

I think a much better solution is 2 battery slots, one to be a backup battery, unused, and then when needed, an LED on the mobo can be turned on. Honestly OP could jury-rig up a similar system if he wanted to, although it'd be a bit ugly and anytime something is jury-rigged I don't really think of it as reliable.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The only real solution is to make this an extended maintenance task. The batteries are cheap so an alert every 4 years is likely sufficient to replace the battery before it dies. You could do it every 2 or 3 years instead at your discretion.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 96 points 3 months ago (4 children)

The thing they're trying to market is a lot of people genuinely don't know what to say at certain times. Instead of replacing an emotional activity, its meant to be used when you literally can't do it but need to.

Obviously that's not the way it should go, but it is an actual problem they're trying to talk to. I had a friend feel real down in high school because his parents didn't attend an award ceremony, and I couldn't help cause I just didn't know what to say. AI could've hypothetically given me a rough draft or inspiration. Obviously I wouldn't have just texted what the AI said, but it could've gotten me past the part I was stuck on.

In my experience, AI is shit at that anyway. 9 times out of 10 when I ask it anything even remotely deep it restates the problem like "I'm sorry to hear your parents couldn't make it". AI can't really solve the problem google wants it to, and I'm honestly glad it can't.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

That'd be funny and also still accurate. It'd end up being one of those asterisks.

I think that's a fair result.

Either way, they'd be allowed to sell the 99.99% boneless wings, despite them technically not being guaranteed boneless.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

We aren't really carving an exception though. The condition of something being free of another substance is always a percentage chance.

My hand sanitizer only kills 99.99% of germs. Should it not be allowed to be called hand sanitizer because it cannot kill all of them? What should it be called? Hand almost-sanitizer? Those germs could get me pretty sick if I lose the cosmic lottery.

There's always a point in reality where "good enough" is actually good enough.

I'm not actually saying this company has or hasn't met that standard, I'm not an expert in poultry production techniques, but saying something needs to be 100% perfect to be sold doesn't make things safer it just means it'd be illegal to debone wings without grinding up the chicken. I dunno the actual odds but it sounds like you're already more likely to be struck by lightning than this occurring, and I'm still willing to go outside while its raining.

view more: next ›