That statement doesn't stand on its own. For example, the most popular OS for laptops at my place of work is Windows. It has very little to do with what people want or price. It has almost everything to do with ecosystem lock in.
A significant portion of windows laptop market share comes from corporate purchases.
Is this totally true? There is advertising, marketing spend and retail shelf space. Surely it's more complex than "solves users problem at price point."
Advertising and marketing spend exist to make people aware of the device's capabilities and its price. I would be surprised to find that any consumer chooses a device because of its marketing spend and retail shelf space.
You wrote “I would be surprised to find that any consumer chooses a device because of its marketing spend”. But advertising does skew consumer choice by its presentation, and the success correlates with marketing spend. It’s far from merely informational. Otherwise we’d just have black on white listings of “this product exists” with spec sheets.
It's actually not bad? "The most repairable MacBook in years" means practically nothing. And for someone who might be comparing with a Framework, it's probably an insult.
You're describing SimCity 4, not SimCity 3000. The SC3k tool is not entirely 2D, but it does mostly behave like one (with emulated voxels instead of pixels).
And while I cannot confirm what Maxis was doing internally, I am quite sure no-one was using 3DS Max for rendering game assets in the 90s considering it had just been released and well into the 2000s it was still humongously slow.
The art looks very rendered, with pixel cleanup in something like photoshop. I was using 3ds Max on my norma PC circa 2001-2002. Game studios should definitely have had 3d studio in the mid to late 90s on their actual workstations if they were Windows based (or lightwave). Crucially, The Sims (3ds max) released quite close in time and we know 4k was also 3dsmax, so I think it’s fairly safe to say Maxis was a 3ds shop in this era. It was ubiquitous in pc gaming of the era.
In the 2000s SC4 was already using 3DS Max, but here we are talking about a game that started development in 97. And they already had 3D games before it...
In SC3k sprites you can also clearly see two different grid sizes, so at the very least the retouching and some props are "pixel art".
Ironically, drm-612-kmod has been pushed to ports a couple days ago (not quarterly yet) so you can now start using FreeBSD with really recent GPUs now from ... let's see ... 2024.
This still makes it like the 3rd operating system overall when it comes to hardware support.
A legal battle is expensive and time consuming. For example they have been fighting one with Visio since 2021[0]. It’s going to court this year.
I’m not sure how well tested AGPL has been tested in court, but assuming it has, the SFC has the right to reverse engineer anything covered by the license. That will help people sooner than trying to get a court to make a decision.
I think the Vizio lawsuit will set a more narrow precedent than the SFC wants. The tentative ruling the judge in that case made in December (not binding, but represents the judge's current understanding of the case going into the trial) is that Vizio has a contractual obligation to provide the GPL source code for the TV the SFC bought because the TV has an offer to provide source code upon request buried in one of the menus. The tentative ruling doesn't cover what happens if a company doesn't offer to provide source code. In the future, a company that uses GPL code without a source code offer could argue that third-party GPL beneficiaries have no grounds to sue because there's no contract being violated, and this would take another lawsuit to resolve.
That was my impression, as well, but I recently met SFC people and they assured me that the judge is taking the third party beneficiary doctrine very seriously, it‘s not off the table. Funnily, because Vizio objected to the tentative ruling, it has little meaning now.
The trial in August will handle the TPB stuff, as well. It will be streamed, btw.
The entire global semiconductor industry, source of vast benefits, only uses about 50000 acre-feet of water per year, which is essentially nothing. As a point of comparison this is half a percent of what the paper industry consumes.
Where is the source for that? I am only familiar with one site, the STMicro one in the Alps, which already used 4000 acre-feet / 5 million m³ per year in 2023 [1], and it's been at least doubled since then. This is a huge chunk of the total water consumption of the region, and there are NIMBY demonstrations frequently because of that [2]. It's also surprisingly polluting. Whether you think the value is worth or not is a different story (I worked there, so guess).
The figures in that report are consistent with what I said. This is because the usage we're talking about is evaporation. This should not be confused with withdrawals. Semiconductor industry mainly withdraws water and then discharges it as effluent. Evaporation is a minor component of their withdrawals.
I'm not talking about the recycling rate. Even if that goes to zero it doesn't change the story here. The point is they aren't boiling the water, for the most part. They discharge it in a pipe.
And? I really do not think anyone is complaining here about the water disappearing into thin air or its atomic components or whether it goes in a pipe or into the moon. The definition of using water is quite clear (you can no longer drink it) and unless I am misreading you are totally distorting it.
Yeah I think you are misreading it. The manner in which a data center (or a thermal power station, or any highly energetic industry) "uses water" is literally the water disappears into thin air, and doesn't come down again until it's thousands of kilometers downwind.
It is weird to limit to "the same attack". Why does it even have to be the same attack? From the moment sshd loads your modified lib, you're literally running code with root privileges on the victim machine. You can literally run _any_ attack you wanted, with zero persistence. This is worse than a OpenSSH RCE.
Even in your own talk you basically admit this, so what are you doing here? If you think there's something here that everyone is missing but you don't, why not actually explain what it is?
I don't have any secret information! Folks were giving me a hard time about claiming that ifunc is central to this attack, and I would genuinely find it valuable to know that Jia Tan could have (for example) performed this attack against a musl-based distro.
> Most programs make zero effort to sandbox themselves, and as soon as one of those links with the malicious library, it could do anything. Like indirectly targeting sshd by patching its binary on disk (optionally hiding it with a rootkit), or using debug APIs to patch sshd in memory.
I do not understand how you even expected sshd to sandbox itself. Its entire purposes is to (a) daemonize , (b) allow incoming connections in and then (c) forward (possibly-root) shell statements. All 3 things are 100% required for sshd and would have already allowed an attack like this. Any talk about sandboxing here (or dropping privileges) is wishful thinking.
reply