You are correct. Microsoft invested significantly to create a modern properly designed font that is easy to read on a variety of screens, prints clearly and consistently, scales well, and can do italics, bold, etc well.
I think this came out back with Office 2007 or something. I believe Aptos is actually the new next generation font that should generally be considered an enhancement to Calibri.
While Microsoft isnt great at many things, their investment in font design and support is outstanding.
Yea netflix will ship a server to an ISP (Cox, comcast, starlink, rogers, telus etc) so the customers of that ISP can access that server directly. It improves performance for those users and reduces the load on the ISP’s backbone/transit. Im guessing other large companies will do this as well.
A lot of people are using large distributed DNS servers like 8.8.8.8 or 1.1.1.1 and these cansometimes direct users to incorrect CDN servers, so EDNS was created to help with it. I always use 9.9.9.11 instead of 9.9.9.9 to hopefully help improve performance.
Yea, I always laugh when folks talk about how expensive they claim bandwidth is for companies. Large “internet” companies are just paying a small monthly cost for transit at an IX. They arent paying $xx/gig ($1/gig) like the average consumer is. If you buy a 100gig port for $2k, it costs the same if you’re using 5 GB a day or 8 PB per day.
Yea ive been thinking about this for a few years. The Mx series’s chip would sell into data centers like crazy if apple went after that market. Especially if they created a server tuned chip. It could probably be their 2nd biggest product line behind the iphone. The performance and efficiency is awesome. I guess it would be meat to see some web serving and database benchmarks to really know.
TSMC couldn’t make enough at the leading node in addition to all the iPhone chips Apple has to sell. There’s a physical thoughput limit. That’s why this isn’t M4.
Isnt one of the ways of solving the problem using all the tools at your disposal? If at the end of the day, isnt having working code the fundamental goal?
I guess you could argue that the code needs to be efficient, stable, and secure. But if you could use "AI" to get part way there, then use smarts to finish it off. Isnt that reasonable? (Devils advocate)
The other big question is the legality of using code from an AI in a final commercial product.
Yes that’s a fair question. Some companies do allow LLMs in interviews and on the job. But again the solution isn’t what the interviewer wants, so relying on an LLM gives them no signal about your intrinsic capabilities.
Keep in mind that the amount of time you spend in a real job solving clear and easy interview style problems that an LLM can answer is tiny to none. Jobs are most often about juggling priorities and working with other people and under changing conditions, stuff Claude and ChatGPT can’t really help you with. Your personality is way more important to your job success than your GPT skills, and that’s what interviewers want to see… your personality & behavior when you don’t know the right answer, not ChatGPT’s personality.
Ive always thought they might have a method to ignore the wake work if theres a specific frequency sent at the same time. I’ve noticed that there are sometimes TV commercials that have the “alexa” or “hey google” wake words, but they do not activate the smart speakers. But if the smart speakers hear something close on just a random tv show they will activate.
But as others have said, they might be able to just sleep the wake algorithm temporarily when they know it’s playing back its own wake word.
I already have a TOTP app on my phone for all my other security (I have like 15 MFA codes), so adding an extra code isnt really a problem for me. P
lus I'd much rather have just an extra code than carry a 2nd phone.
Plus for me, a 2nd phone means on call.
Plus Im just happy to have a good paying job. Me complaining about wanting an extra device doesnt benefit anyone.
But thats just my situation.
I've always been curious why people so fervently dislike Gibson. I think the most genuine criticism is that Spin-Rite is not a backup solution and people may rely on it as such. Ideally, no one should need it since all data should be replicated and backed up. Any drive can fail at any time for any reason and it may be totally unrecoverable.
[Side Note: He also once claimed in a "testimonial" that a special ops team recovered data off of a hard drive during a mission in which they hit a terrorist with a computer.]
That being said, he produces a free security podcast which is quite good. He knows his stuff.
> Any drive can fail at any time for any reason and it may be totally unrecoverable.
While in principle this is true, I have been using hard drives for more than 30 years now in PCs and I have never had one fail. I still back things up to separate drives since there's always a first time, but I've never used SpinRite or any other extra "protection" over and above what my OS provided.
There are stats on failure rates and bathtub curves. Consumer hard drives these days have an AFT of ~1.41%. Never used SpinRite and I don't know if there is evidence for it but I suggest you backup your data.
The podcast is great. Provides great information and is more than happy to provide corrections when some calls him on it. Takes a very scientific approach to issues.
I agree. Not sure why all the hate. I’ve used SpinRite to recover some bad drives of mine and friends/family over the years and it’s worked quite well. Had one Windows box that was failing to boot before the login screen, ran SpinRite and it found / fixed some issues. Rebooted and the machine was fine. At least fine enough to copy everything to a new drive and ditch the old one. Haven’t tried it on an SSD though.
You can take or leave the relevance of this "old" information, but there are dozens of pages on his current website that speak for themselves.
Most of it is just self-aggrandizing technobabble trying to appear authoritative and "educate" people on security issues with hilariously dumb content like the page that recommends checking Facebook's cert hash on his site before trusting it. His number one goal appears to be to convince people he is an "influential voice" in the security community (he uses that phrase to describe himself repeatedly). I just find it sad when I encounter people who buy it. Luckily, it mostly seems to appeal to a certain kind of misinformed enthusiast that I rarely encounter these days.
Note that this isn't to say all his info is bad. I particularly like stuff like his explanation of how NAT works. That's great content. If it wasn't mixed in with the chicken little snake oil stuff, I'd actually refer people to it.
