I looked over their financials. You conjectured out of feelings and ignorance. Calling my evidence naive, when you are simply making things up, is ludicrous.
Go do some legwork, get some actual data, not make believe feel good fairy dust.
The fed suit had exact numbers, which they blacked out for public. The fed suit settled for a dollar amount. If they thought they’d get a better amount, they’d go to trial. So likely the proceeds are on order of the settlement, else they’d likely win more by trial. The feds are not idiots.
Last year was 5b net profit on 44b revenue. Attributing more than a tiny fraction of profit to the right to repair stuff is wild dreams, given the amount of physical goods they sell.
Nothing in their SEC filings shows anything mentionable about such claims. It does break out actual profit by company sectors.
What’s the number of Teslas sold per year? Declining year over year as others have grown significantly. Profit margin sans regulatory issues? Peaked 2021, declining since then. Same in about every company wide metric.
BYD? Most all such metrics over the same period doubled to quadrupled. They outsell Tesla. They have better tech than Tesla. They’re clearly out innovating and outselling Tesla.
And, as the other poster made clear, your moving-the-goalposts let’s-ignore-the-rest claim doesn’t even stand slight scrutiny. Try harder indeed.
Rent vs own is about price. If you want to own something, digital, physical, information, goods, then a vendor will charge more, sometimes a lot more, to sell you an infinite ownership vs you get limited rights.
Most everything I buy needs to fight for my money. Of course some vendor specific things, such as a specific movie, are not replaceable, but since very few things, if any, are so important to me that I won't spend elsewhere if a good is too much.
With that competition for $, vendors generally are competitive, and don't tend to have extremely high profit margins.
I prefer the limited rights, since I can try far more things that way, with finite budget. And I don't get stuck with higher prices on things I ended up not wanting/using after I got it. I can simply cancel.
I think the general disconnect is people too often assume they handed out money so should get infinite rights, while ignoring the nuances of economics/pricing.
If it's held by a unique_ptr, then it auto frees, but there is a lot of programmer work to ensure things behave well, and there are nuances to allocating something into the unique_ptr.
If it's a std::shared_ptr, which is the closest to what people think of, it's then a reference counted object, which requires a little more storage, and also has the ability to be mishandled as a pointer, screwing it up, or making the wrong type of copy of the shared_ptr, so two there are two things, and also fails to release object in the case of circluar references.
Then there's a lot of other subtle things you can do, and none of this is as lightweight as a pointer, and none is as automatic as what most people think of as garbage collection.
And each has costs and tradeoffs, which is why C++ added them: making certain tradeoffs easier to use, but it requires solid understanding of how such things work.
So you replace a loop that delivers last mile goods to a lot of cars going decently out of their way to the limited places just to pick one item? Surely it’s less miles driven when Amazon does a loop hitting several people right near me than each of us driving farther in total to get our goods.
Yes, there is always an issue upsampling since you have to make up new values. For downsampling by an integral factor, you have honest samples at those times, but any other rate will also need new samples to be constructed. So for these, in either direction, there will be the need to make things up.
No matter the process, whether naive fourier transform based, or any possible algorithm that is smarter and tries more things, it cannot make up the true values in all cases, since that data is simply not in the signal.
Ancient methods treated sound as a sum of band limited pure sinewaves, which it is not, and you can claim you reconstructed up to that model, but it's pretty bad, and fails even theoretically for the reasons I posted elsewhere.
So you then start doing all sorts of signal processing, but none can actually reproduce all sounds, and most (all?) methods make tradeoffs - what error do you accept for what gains?
And if you optimize a system for one rate, and don't do it to cover all other sample rates you want to handle well, then you will make some rates worse and some better.
Well designed signal processing has to be careful to handle all the ranges it cares about.
And no one who knows or has worked in these areas would simply drop in a new system that is untested for major uses for such a widespread tool as ffmpeg. Precisely because they understand the nuances in these things.
I take it you don't know much about frequency time tradeoffs.
It is not possible to convert 48 khz to 44 khz without approximation. And there is incredible room to design filters that have great response at frequency X but terrible at a nearby frequency, since most of filter design is about where to stash the noise. That noise can add perceptible beats to audio.
And don't try some silly Nyquist limit stuff - none of that is actually correct in actual filtering. The initial simple reasons are that that stuff assumes infinitely precise, mathematically perfect sample values - impossible since these are PCM. They assume infinitely periodic inputs, also false (and there's an entire industry of trying to find window functions to smooth lack of periodicity, also with flaws and tradeoffs). For perfect reconstruction, they use sinc, which has infinite support, which is not computable. So people think they'll use some windowed sinc, which again then fails to do reconstruction fully.
After these ancient, and in practice lacking, ideas, modern filter theory and practice has invented generalized sampling, which has provably (from math and in practice) better signal reconstruction. And even that is only the tip of an iceberg of knowledge.
These codes don't simply "work in the frequency" domain as if this is old school DFT stuff. Even in that domain, your claims don't work. These codecs also do psycho-acoustic modeling, to be able to decide which data to drop, alter, increase, or decrease, to get following bitratres to encode at target. Again, these type of filters and models can be terrible at 44, but awesome at 48.
So yes, they do need to test before putting this into the world's most used by far audio/video transcoder.
So yes, is is cynical, apparently driven by ignorance.
It’s not that cynical. The author didn’t test on the most common rate in use, so it would be ludicrous for any serious project to wholesale replace a decades old working pipeline with it. It makes perfect sense to wait till due diligence is done.
There’s plenty of papers showing exactly this. What do you think has driven productivity? People simply bring smarter?
The fact is capital expenditure from company or investors has bought machinery, compute, pipelines, transport, and massive investment to make those workers more productive for decades. As such, the returns to capital as a share has increased. Those places able to deploy capital to add productivity win over those that don’t.
And real total remuneration across all quintiles has increased significantly. BLS among others has all historical data to check.
If/when there’s a period where there isn’t more gains to be had by more investment per worker, and workers become more productive via their own skill (education, diet, genetic implants,…), then more returns will flow that direction.
True. From that page RAM companies have been sued and found innocent before:
“ The district court ruled in favor of Samsung, Hynix, and Micron and dismissed the lawsuit. This dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in March 2022 that the plaintiffs did not offer sufficient plausible evidence for their allegations to make a case under the Sherman Antitrust Act and that the district court properly dismissed the lawsuit.”
RAII has nothing to do with garbage collection. It only provides a way to get a resource somewhat atomically. If the creator doesn’t delete the object, or if the object has a malformed destructor, it fails. If the creator calls delete twice, it fails. There’s really no garbage collection at all here.
> where the programmer is responsible for invoking "free", was a serious mistake and it was an obsolete technique already at the date of its introduction.
It wasn’t obsolete then nor now. Garbage collected languages, to this day, still use on average about 2x-5x the working memory of carefully written manual memory programs. A significant amount of devices then and even today cannot support such sloppy use of resources.
That's not a reason. That's an anecdote, a post selected and cherry picked example. Is this truly how you'd allocate resources?
A more correct way to use reason is to look at all possible things that have been proposed that cost $500m, and see how those turn out in general. Then possibly weight using expert knowledge about this particular problem and the possible benefits. Then consider what the opportunity cost is, i.e., what you give up by spending $500m here instead of something else.
The Englert paper did not have the equations for the the hypothetical field that would become known as the Higgs field, and it did not have the Higgs boson. The Higgs paper had the details to make these more aptly named for him.
Englert (and his coauthor) had some of the mechanisms, but not enough details to truly have the field or boson, hence the phrase "Brout-Engelert-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble mechanism".
The photo is subtitled “ Representative image of a vintage notebook, not Marie Curie's. Photo via Pexels.” so it’s clear it’s not trying to be deceptive. It’s entirely common, even among the best human authors, to put in a photo to give some idea of a topic when actual photos are hard to obtain.