Just checked, calc fails at 11^0.41703 (curiously not at 41703, but 41704, maybe a floating point thing). Maybe it changes base to e and uses the Taylor series for e^x, but fails if x is too precise for what it expects?
Would it hurt anyone to put two USB-C ports on a smartphone? Thank goodness my phone still has a 3.5mm jack, but some people would like to charge their phone and listen to (wired) audio without having to buy an adapter. And it's not like this is an uncommon use case either, anecdotally some of my friends with iPhones face this issue.
You're not supposed to charge and listen to wired audio without an adapter. You're supposed to use bluetooth headphones called "AirPods", which cost far, far more than regular wired headphones. If you don't like this and resent being pushed to buy very expensive accessories and dongles, then maybe Apple isn't the company for you.
What's the explanation for every other phone company removing the ports? No phone manufacturer benefited financially from the purchase of my Bluetooth headphones.
I have no way to prove this, but the standard explanation is that other companies are stupid and just want to ape Apple, thinking they'll somehow capture Apple's loyal customers. Cargo-cult mentality.
Of course, there's also the fact that extra ports take up more space, and it's easier to just eliminate features that not enough customers care about. But enough people seem to be complaining that it looks like it really is just cargo-cult behavior, just like these companies have needlessly aped Apple on other design decisions instead of trying to pursue other market niches.
The latest trend of adding iPhone X-style display notches, even by companies that mocked that design when it came out, supports the "cargo cult" theory.
A second port would remove a significant amount of internal volume, as well as increasing the cost due to the port and whatever electronics you'd need to mux them. I doubt those tradeoffs would be worth it for the majority of consumers.
Ever since the Palm V, I've wanted a handheld device with a second charging port built into the side. When LiPo batteries came into production I was hoping for the day where the flip cover had a supplemental battery built in instead of cardboard.
Apple went exactly the other way and built a data port into it. And did the same thing with the Apple Watch (the prototypes had an extra set of contacts in the band slot that people were excited about). Disappointed.
I mean, USB-C seems to be the direction we're going anyways, plus it offers a lot more flexibility for audio eg. allows for active components like a higher-end DAC or amp on the headphones.
Most people probably wouldn't really care for this, and the ones who do probably have portable media players already, so I would prefer to keep the headphone jack. The reality is, though, that USB-C appears to be the future.
You don't need type-C for running an external DAC/amp. Most smartphones support USB-OTG over micro-B and many DAC units use generic audio drivers.
Of course you'd still need two ports if you wanted to charge at the same time.
It would probably be more interesting to see smartphones that could use the headphone output as a digital signal, like a coaxial output. We want the 3.5mm output anyway, so why not just let it dump a digital signal to an external amp?
I prefer keeping the headphone jack, but am not against a second USB-C port. If you make the device thick enough for a headphone jack to work properly then you've got room for a reasonably large battery and the extra ports without any issues.
Mobile phones are thermally constrained these days anyway.
I'd really like to see what he has to say in response to these events, if he has at all. This seems to be the weakest part of his overall argument. Anticompetitive violations _have_ happened in the past in the absence of Title II regulation despite his saying otherwise. That being said, (rural) ISP firms have apparently written to say they are pleased with lifting this regulation:
"VTel wrote to say that 'regulating broadband like legacy telephone service would not create any incentives for VTel to invest in its network. In fact, it would have precisely the opposite effect.' The company went on to say that it's now 'quite optimistic about the future, and the current FCC is a significant reason for our optimism.' Indeed, VTel just announced that it has committed $4 million to upgrade its 4G LTE service and to begin rolling out faster mobile broadband that will start its transition to 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity." [1]
edit: Okay, I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. I'm legitimately curious to hear what Pai has to say about past violations. (Seriously, if anyone has a link, please feel free.)
I just don't see how this helps innovation at all, unless they plan to actively start chopping up blocks of the Internet and offering regulated services.
You literally required less hardware with network neutrality because you didn't need any packet shaping routers.
See my comment below.[1] Regulation tends to impose higher barriers to entry for smaller businesses. (See 'regulatory capture' for what happens to larger businesses.)
>Regulation tends to impose higher barriers to entry for smaller businesses
Sure, they can, but what about in this specific scenario? How does NN deter small ISP's? The big ISP's already stomp out all small options anyway, I don't think NN is a problem.
Yea, if anything NN regulations make it easier for smaller ISPs because they don't have to buy routers that can do packet shaping, throttling or other types of filtering in order to compete with the bigger companies.
I'm really not sure, that's Pai's argument. It seems to be a mixed bag [1][2]. Some ISPs don't mind the regulatory burden, and some don't really notice it. Bigger ISPs (like Verizon) also claim that this regulation hurts innovation, and corroborate that with a downtick in broadband investments in 2015 when the rules passed, but for all we know that could have been orchestrated.
>Bigger ISPs (like Verizon) also claim that this regulation hurts innovation
I don't really want innovation from my ISP aside from investing in infrastructure. Their version of "innovation" is, in reality, "how to bilk our customers for more $$$ by delivering shit they neither want nor need."
I realize they've also claimed that they need more money to re-invest in infrastructure, but that claim appears to be a lie given their recent investments and prior statements.
Right, which is why you could argue that downtick was orchestrated. In that article you linked Pai cited research claiming investments went down, but Free Press found otherwise.
The argument goes that ex-ante regulation imposes unnecessary costs in the form of regulatory compliance for smaller businesses, erecting a higher barrier for entry into the ISP market. Or something like that.
I mean, that is what Pai claims to be doing here: reducing regulatory burden on smaller ISPs so that more can compete.
"Monday, we are ending this flawed approach and allowing smaller internet service providers to focus their efforts on deploying more broadband, connecting more Americans with digital opportunity, and offering more competition in the marketplace." [1]
Right, but many areas have entered into township agreements where only one provider is allowed to provide service to residents. These agreements carry fun legal print like requiring the town to reconvene with the provider before the agreement can be terminated... at which point, the provider will give whatever benefits the smaller provider was intending to provide and then some.
I don't buy it. This won't change anything. Except for how less useful your internet connection would be.
If the focus were on smaller ISPs, why not make the new rules target only smaller ISPs instead of all of them?
Not quite. There were net netrality regulations before 2015, but it was struck down because isp's weren't under title 2, so in 2015 they were reclassified under title 2. Thats what was ended.
> It's decentralized, you can deploy your own instance
So it's useless as a social network. Not an alternative.
I wonder when will the anti-centralization people realize that their solutions are not for everyone, and that's why so many people don't care about them.
It makes things hard for actual users. Centralization can generate trust issues, but it is often damn effective, that's why it's used so much everywhere.
When it comes to articles like this, part of me agrees with the whole "attention economy" problem. Companies want to suck away our time, etc etc.
But another part of me also realizes that this problem is going to be very, very hard to get rid of. As long as social media keeps feeding our brains with "things you might like" and endless junk notifications, it's going to be near impossible to stop.
That's like saying, "just stop smoking" in 1960. Ok, there's a handful of us that recognize the danger here, and have ceased using social media, but what are we going to do to help everyone else?
What are we going to do? Accept that it is not our job to stop people from doing things we don't like? I have no social media accounts, I never have, but I don't begrudge others their pacifiers.
We all do harmful things to ourselves. I find it easier to accept if I just accept my own negative acts. It's easier, for me at least, to accept that other people enjoy different things. I'd probably make a piss poor evangelist, but the reward is I spend less time being unhappy with other people's choices.
The problem is that the dangers and impacts don't simply stop at individuals. "Who Hacked the Election? Ad Tech did. Through “Fake News,” Identity Resolution and Hyper-Personalization":
The data I present here suggests that before we keep pointing fingers at specific countries and tweeting about companies “hacking the election,” as well as to solve the scourge of “fake news,” it might be good to look inward. By this, I mean we should start the quest for transparency in politics with a few firms based in New York City and Silicon Valley.
The author is Jonathan Albright, Director of Research, Tow Center for Digital Journalism, School of Journalism, Columbia University. And ex-Googler.
You have no social media accounts that must be liberating! I suppose you wouldn't know though as you haven't "been through the looking glass" as it were, the dark side of Facebook.
I removed my accounts for a few months and whilst it was liberating it wasn't as life changing as I thought it would be. Horse for courses I suppose.
I've never had one. At least not one of the ones people consider social media. HN and Slashdot are both social media, but nobody seems to call them that. So, no Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc... G+ may have made me a profile. The others may have data about me, but they aren't my accounts.
I never saw a need for one. If people want me, they know where to find me. It's not some secretive thing. It's just more inertia. I can't be bothered to make accounts and they'd just take away more of my time. I am not even all that private, people know who I am. I've had many, many Internet friends in my home. One stayed for about five years, as she and I decided to date. Similarly, I haven't ever used online dating sites. That just kind of happened.
