Learning the whole course ahead of time sounds easier said than done. But I definitely recommend pre-learning the next chapter in the course instead of relying on the teacher's explanation. Personally, I could never understand a relatively complicated math concept just by listening to the teacher. I usually need to think about it, draw things, read several different explanations, etc, to really get it. But when I was already familiar with the topic, then I could benefit from another repetition and ask questions if there were some complicated aspects.
It honestly made me wonder whether the article was dated April 1 and I’d been had.
More generously, JS framework design is hard. If you’re ambitious at all, you end up fighting the language and your runtime paradigms will hang like ill-fitting clothes on its syntax. The One/Two example above shows how easily expectations break in this world of extensions to extensions. There’s no way to know what an apparently simple piece of code will actually do without knowing the specifics of a given framework.
> I read it until the point where he defends the idea that these two functions obviously do something completely different
> [code]
> It honestly made me wonder whether the article was dated April 1 and I’d been had.
They don’t do anything different if your model of components is that they rerun. But that model is only one way to implement components, and JSX is unopinionated about semantics exactly like this. Intentionally, by design.
If you’re only familiar with React and other frameworks with a similar rendering model, of course it’ll be surprising that those two functions would behave differently. But if you’re familiar with other JSX implementations like Solid, you’ll spot the difference right away: components don’t rerun, only the JSX does. The first function will always render the same thing because `doubleCount` is set up on component creation and static for the remainder of the time the returned div is mounted.
You are welcome to prefer React’s model. It certainly has some cognitive advantages. But it’s not inherently the only correct model either.
> There’s no way to know what an apparently simple piece of code will actually do without knowing the specifics of a given framework.
Yes. In solid-js JSX interpolation needs to be read as having implicit lambdas. You need to know how a framework works to use it
It's somewhat what the discussion was getting at between Ryan & Dan. solid-js having fine grained reactivity involves a lot of lambdas, in JSX they're implicit, but code outside of JSX has to spell them out explicitly
According to NDI(Movember 2023):
42% say that Ukraine should engage in negotiations, but
84% do not find it acceptable to end the war if it means letting Russia have the territory it controls currently. Even if Russia leaves all territory occupied since the 2022 invasion, 73% won't agree to such peace deal, they want pre-2014 borders.
https://www.ndi.org/publications/opportunities-and-challenge...
If there are any newer poll results, please share.
I remember Bing Chat doing that sometimes in the first days when it was rolled out. Could it be the "temperature" set too high (or interpreted incorrectly) in some instances?
Satelite "internet"? All I have read about is the ability to send emergency text messages. The author goes on a tirade about how you can't browse Bloomberg with a 256kbps internet. Straw man much?
> As per GlobalStar, they are capable of up to 256kbps (32Kbps). This is with optimal, unobstructed conditions and high power and gain antennas.
For text messages, even 256 bps is more than enough, hell, even 2 bps is usable for that.
> The source of this rumor is from Ming Chi Kuo
Ignores that the linked article from Bloomberg does not rely on Ming Chi Kuo and is much more concrete than just "the modem supports a frequency".
> Globalstar believes that over half their revenue will come from terrestrial spectrum licencing.
...
> The most likely path forward, and the one that Globalstar proclaims themselves, is licensing this spectrum for use on a terrestrial basis
...
> The recent meteoric rise in Globalstar’s stock price is almost entirely unwarranted.
??? If you're claiming that the new frequency in Iphones is for terrestrial use, then that validates Globalstar’s own strategy, so how is it unwarranted?
Uhh I understand that good Linux support is valuable, but the price premium for that is just too high.
For the base variant(5500u, 8gb, 240gb):
Pangolin - 1200$
Lenovo Ideapad 3 15 - 430$[1]
For a higher-end variant(5700u, 16gb, 500gb):
Pangolin - 1542$
HP 15z - 640$[2]
I admit these are the absolute cheapest ones I could find(using noteb.com), but even the more premium laptops like Thinkpads are way cheaper(and AFAIK they also provide very good Linux support).
> Thinkpads are way cheaper(and AFAIK they also provide very good Linux support)
My own experience with thinkpads has been one of non-stop frustration with battery life. The T495 advertises something like 14h of battery life; the actual battery life I got running stock Ubuntu on it was.... less than 3 hours, and that's with power optimization packages that do things like making USB no longer work installed. I recently switched to a system76, and so far its battery lasts easily 6-9 hours depending on what I'm doing.
The T495 is s special kind of disappointment (I have one too), but the fault is with AMD. Zen 1 mobile has extremely aggressive C-States and they essentially never clock down. Ryzenadj helps a bit, but not much.
I have a P14s Gen 1 from work now, that’s one gen ahead but an entire different league in battery life (and it wouldn’t cook your fingers on the palm rest)
Newer kernels have helped a bit too, much more than TLP, if you still have that device try Fedora on it.
My experience too: until I got an X250 (i5, 2 core) earlier this year that lasts around 10 hrs on a charge. Cost $160 in mint condition. Noticeably less powerful than my old T430, but can still do some real work on the go. Screen and keyboard are seriously cramped though, so it gets uncomfortable over long stretches. Still, there's something to be said for small and light. My work laptop is a big heavy Dell workstation machine that could double as an offensive weapon in a pinch.
I spent over $2500 on a ThinkPad X1 Extreme three years ago. Died within three months (wouldn't turn on). Lenovo replaced all the innards, but then the 3D video didn't work at all. Had it replaced again. Two full replacements in the first six months. Later, I spilled a drink on the keyboard, and despite their claims of spill-resistant keyboards, it permanently fried eight random keys. By then it was past the warranty period (one year) and Lenovo was unwilling to service it at all. I was ready to pay, but it's not even an option. They told me I had to go through a third party. Couldn't even get any supposed "authorized repair center" to respond to my requests for estimates. A few months later, the video started going, and now it locks up a few minutes after booting.
I get that shit happens and sometimes products have defects. I'm willing to put up with a reasonable amount of annoyance. I'll never buy another Lenovo product, though, because once you're out of warranty, you may as well throw the thing away. They don't care at all.
I bought a consumer-grade Lenovo (Flex 15") for about $1200 CAD.
While it has amazing components like the AMD Ryzen, Radeon GPU, etc. The quality of the rest of the components is trash.
The trackpad keeps disconnecting, the screen is very poorly backlit, the speakers sound like headphones that came with 1990 Walkmans. It's not a good laptop even if it looks good on paper.
Yea, I've heard mixed things about IdeaPads. My comment was specifically about _Think_Pads. The names are easy to confuse but are very different in build quality.
Really? I bought an Ideapad for my mom a few months ago and I was pretty impressed with the build quality. It was plastic (as all $450 laptops are) but felt relatively rugged, and the internals were surprisingly open too. I was rather happy with the thermals too, there wasn't much we could throw at it to make it sustain uncomfortable temps.
Plastic laptop cases are objectively better than metallic ones. Plastic doesn't heat up your legs that much, and good carbon plastic is stronger than steel, weight-wise. Subjectively, metallic feels better though.
Only "objectively" by your priorities. The fact that metal heats up your legs is also a benefit (e.g. better heat transmission = better performance and component lifetime in the same environment).
As someone else noted, "strength" in material is not one-dimensional. Carbon plastic is still way more conducive to cracking, for one.
Ergo, there is no "objectively better" choice between metal/plastic/carbon in the general case, it comes down to preferences, priorities and requirements.
What about by volume? Also, stronger meaning what? There's a combination of factors here: not just whether it breaks, but also how (dent vs crack..). Also, how well it ages. Also, how much flex does it have and how does that affect the lifespan of the internal components?
I don't know those answers; perhaps carbon plastic wins on all metrics. It would be interesting to learn.
Usually tensile strength. For example: Tensile strength: even a commodity PA6-GF30 (most half-decent tools are made of) is ~110MPa [according to ISO 527], cast Aluminum - would be ~150MPa (22K psi for the imperial folks) depending on the alloy.
Of course, most laptops would be using an ABS blend, which is the hallmark low-quality tools.
>Dents
That would depend on the top finish, not so much of the material itself.
> That would depend on the top finish, not so much of the material itself.
Would it? If I dropped an aluminium bodied laptop like a Macbook or HP Envy, I'd expect it might scuff and slightly dent at the point of impact. If I dropped the cheapest plastic bodied thing from Currys/Walmart/whatever, I'd expect it might scuff and crack the plastic between screws or something.
What top finish would you apply to a cheap plastic laptop to make it 'ding' like aluminium instead of crack in a drop test?
I would not consider cracks "dents". I already mentioned the cheap 'ABS' plastic, they would crack (also it's not UV stable). You can look up PA6-GF30 (nylon, 30% glass fiber reinforced) tools and they survive ~2m (6 feet) drop tests. Laptops won't do that as their screens would crash. Here: a popular video[0] of some massive abuse of a multimeter.
Again, a good plastic with glass or carbon fiber reinforcement would have similar properties to al-mg body, yet feel cheap as most people consider all plastics quite the same. For example: polycarbonate, 30% carbon fiber would have tensile strength of 150MPa (which the same to cast aluminum)
No, neither would I. I was agreeing with the commenter you replied to, that I'd expect a plastic laptop to crack, and a metal one to dent. If it has to be damaged, I'd prefer the dent.
You said above that that was more to do with 'top finish' than 'material'; that's what I was responding to - how would you finish crackable plastic material to make it dent like aluminium/alloy instead.
Just an anecdote, but I know someone who had an Ideapad gaming model and while it seemed solid brand new, a year or so in it started falling apart and by year two it was looking ragged just from normal usage, mostly at home on a desk or a lap (so no wear from travel or being knocked around in a bag).
The issue seems to be less with structural design and particular choice of plastics that cause them to not hold up to wear.
On the flip side of this, I have an old 710S and apart from the now completely unusable micro-HDMI port it's held up really well throughout use and abuse over the years. Battery life holds up as well.
If only it had a less brittle video-out and TB it would be close to perfect even today, but these to otherwise minor factors unfortunately make it close to useless apart from as a spare travel device.
I am using a Lenovo Duet Chromebook (has good Linux container support) right now, and it is cheap and has good build quality. It is not particularly fast but it was about $260 including pen and keyboard case.
After ~10y straight of ThinkPad T-series, I won't be getting another one. The BS you have to go through to get firmware updates with important security and bug fixes is ridiculous. On paper they're in fwupd/LVFS but in practice it've very spotty. After a full day of trying other approaches, I eventually succumbed to installing Windows and Lenovo's adware-encriched update manager on a spare SSD just to be able to use my Thunderbolt port with my official Lenovo dock.
On top of that, every series have been getting worse and worse maintainability/extendability/serviciability for pretty every generation. The latest vanilla T-series are comparable to the first-gen Carbon-X1 in this regard.
...Now if only System76/any of the others in the open-laptop space could figure out a way to do more than 1080p on a 13-15" panel. It's 2021 and I can buy a decent 2K 10.1" USB-display online for $200, why are there no options for that many pixels on a new customizable laptop starting at $1200?
Before you conclude that Thinkpad have good Linux support, go on over to lenovo's Q&A forum and look up battery issues for the t14. At this point in time I've spent so much time on this that I could have easily saved 5k or 10k by having a machine that just worked!
Today you can get a Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 13.3" Ryzen 7, 16G RAM, 1T Disk, QHD screen for about the same price.
And in september and november Lenovo will launch additional QHD IdeaPad Ryzen models for an even lower price.
QHD (1440 resolution) is important to me because I've become accustomed to it on my workstations. And my work got me a Thinkpad Yoga X1 4th gen which has an internal resolution of 2560x1440 so now I just can't go lower than that.
Yes, you can get cheaper laptops. Whether they are "equivalent" is a matter of what you consider "equivalent". Certainly you can get Clevo from other sources at a lower price. They just don't come with the same enduring Linux support, let alone niceties like coreboot, etc.
That is the problem with basically any commodity market. The margin are so thin, it sort of hard to compete without the economy of scale. Not to mention the selling point of Linux support doesn't exactly have a large TAM.
My Ideapad Flex 5 runs great (Ryzen 7 5700u), but fingerprint and autorotate do not work (yet). Otherwise, it is completely stable and everything works.
Well it's a finger-sized antenna. Admittedly all I know about antennas is that size matters. An Iphone is bigger than a finger, why is it inconceivable that it could have a comparable antenna on its surface?
Also for an Iphone this would be just one rarely-used feature, it could get by with somewhat worse reception and lower bandwidth than a dedicated satellite phone.
Mobile phones used to have antennas like this in the early 2000s, and now they don‘t anymore. I don‘t know that much about antenna design, but I‘d suspect that there might be a similar opportunity here?
Does not look like that was his only metric: "but I'm pretty sure there would have been more total users of the code, likely making the amount shared in the open still greater."
