> Things look similar on the mobile side of the market, with Google Chrome having 69.15% (+1.92 points) and Safari being second with 20.32% (-2.2 points).
Okay? This is not relevant. What matters here is that they have developed this technology. “Patents” in the title of the article is a way of saying that they have developed the technology.
I don't agree. I think most people would think that "patents" implies that a patent office has granted a patent.
For what it's worth, confusing patents and patent applications is a pet peeve of mine as a former patent examiner. I've seen people criticize the USPTO for apparently granting a patent on some nonsense, but when I look at it, the USPTO rejected the application. The problem is that people can't tell the difference between a patent application and patent. I saw an opportunity to clarify this issue and I took it.
> What matters here is that they have developed this technology.
Having a pending patent, or even a granted patent, does not mean the technology described has been invented. There are many many patents on all sorts of infinite energy devices for example. It should go without saying that none of those work.
The way I understand your comment, it implies that a) users of public transportation should be invested in it, whilst it’s more likely that they use it because they have no alternative, and that b) civic and national pride results in higher demand for public transportation. I don’t think those are universal truths.
You don't think that people who use services care more about the service than non-users? Whether they're forced into using it or not, the fact they do absolutely makes them more invested in it being good.
Civic and national pride makes citizens (which includes politicians and the wealthy) more likely to care about the actual state of their country. That's what national pride means, as opposed to nationalism, where they are proud without reason. Is public transit guaranteed to be one of those reasons they feel pride or shame? Not at all, but support for it is certainly more likely to come from that than a bunch of nationalists who don't actually feel any shame at failings of the country, of which public transit is currently.
When users of transit are few there is not enough people to care. often the only users are those least likely to be usefuly involved. so you can't get a useful advocate. Even when transit gets support it is from people wanting to feel good about helping the poor - but would never use it themselves and so they want something with no care for quality. They often make alliences with those whose intersts are not for good transit and don't care that the compromise is bad for transit.
It will be funny when one of those reports says that certain steps will be taken in the future to make sure the same incident doesn't occur again, nobody reads the report so nobody notices, and then when the same incident occurs again one of the clients sues.
In my perspective it's not that complicated. I'd like to have a good life and I would like for every other human on the planet to also have a good life sustainably. I think it's a rather optimistic vision.
Or the guy working for that twitter profile had no idea what curl is and thought it was third-party software. Of course that wouldn't work that well for the author of curl who to put it mildly loves attention.
Also tobacco users cost less in healthcare because they far more often die right around retirement age, never incurring the far more expensive age related healthcare. Being a smoker also disqualifies them from many common procedures, and also the sin taxes smokers pay on tobacco often exceeds their entire lifetime medical costs.
People who blame smokers for healthcare costs are just looking for someone to blame because they either don't want to admit, or don't realize, that their 90 year old granny taking 30 medications a day, having hip replacements, and 3rd round of cancer costs as much in healthcare per year as most people do over 2 or 3 decades.
There are tobacco taxes in the US but it varies by state. Also it seems US is in the lower range on smoking rate compared to many other OECD countries.
Yeah, it "works" in that it's a processor and does things. But the "fix" they provided was to basically eliminate its top end performance (the thing that got benchmarked, and the reason it sells at a premium).
As far as I can tell that’s not what happened. What happened is that some motherboard manufacturers gave the chip too much power, more than intel recommended, and fried it.
No that wasn't the problem. Intel was providing too much voltage internally on boost and it is damaging the CPUs. They decreased the voltage but then a bunch of already damaged CPUs are marginal so now they are boosting other voltages to bring them to stability and the consequence is a reduction in the boost clock speeds. The patches will keep coming as these CPUs degrade more rapidly, they are all going to die young its just a question of when and whether Intel will be on the hook for it or not.
That's what Intel wants everyone to believe but not quite accurate. Intel was vague at best about what the motherboard manufacturers should and were allowed to do but even following their guidance as best as possible resulted in CPU failures. Gamers Nexus did a few videos on this, here is one that covers most of it.
Thanks, EU! Always on the right side of history.