It has been associated with 3D rendering, but given that things like the S3 86C911 are listed on the Wikipedia GPU page, saying "Accelerated GUIs don't need GPU" feels like attempting to win an argument by insisting on a term definition that is significantly divergent from standard vulgar usage [1], which doesn't provide any insight to the problem originally being discussed.
[1] Maybe I've just been blindly ignorant for 30 years, but as far as I could tell, 'GPU' seemed to emerge as a more Huffman-efficient encoding for the same thing we were calling a 'video card'
Is that what's going on? So many touch gestures seem to rely on landing in the right 2mm diameter area, but the minimum reliable resolution for touch seems to be a 4mm diameter circle. It's even worse for my father, even though cognitively, he would have no trouble understanding the hypothetical requirement. It's also noticeably worse during the depths of winter.
What does "GPU" mean here? Previous uses of the term seemed to imply "dedicated hardware for improving rendering performance" which the SVGA stuff would seem to fall squarely under.
Was it the same 1% that was using each of the long-tail features? I suspect that by refusing to invest effort in at least some amount of niche features, we essentially alienate _everybody_
I would take things somewhat further: I'd be happy to pay the equivalent of $20 2015 dollars for this service if it were comprehensive. Unfortunately, that might allow for a consumer surplus to occur in the viewing experience and the motion picture industry ties with maybe nVidia for peak pathological hostility to retail consumer surplus.
Also worth remembering that around 2010, the music and film industry associations of America were claiming entitlement to $50 billion dollars annually in piracy-related losses beyond what could be accounted for in direct lost revenue (which _might_ have been as much as 10 billion, or 1/6th of their claim):
"No security features should exist for anyone" is itself fanatically hyperbolic narrative. The primary reason this event has elicited such a reaction is because OnePlus has historically been perceived as one of the brands specifically catering to people that wanted ultimate sovereignty over their devices.
As time goes on, the options available for those that require such sovereignty seem to be thinning to such an extent that [at least absent significant disposable wealth] the remaining options will appear to necessitate adopting lifestyle changes comparable to high-cost religious practices and social withdrawal, and likely without the legal protections afforded those protected classes. Given the "big tech's" general hostility to user agency and contempt for values that don't consent to being subservient to its influence peddling, intense emotional reaction to loss of already diminished traditional allies seem like something that would reasonably viewed compassionately, rather than with hostility.
For the audience: I had never heard of Brian Berletic previously. In an attempt to understand what this person's undisclosed conflicts of interest were, I found numerous reports of him painting the Myanmar Junta in a positive light:
There's a certain event-horizon where bitterness taints / skews perspective enough that even what would otherwise be helpful insights becomes so costly to disentangle from grudge-extrapolation that it's not obvious if any of it ends up being worth the cost of entry. At least to me, this person's work seems well beyond that point.
If the political environment gets bad enough, you may expect to die anyway, and the TTL difference that obfuscation provides means the difference between making a small improvement before the inevitable, or not.