The reason you can not build a 0% tolerance resistor is the laws of physics. A very high precision resistor can certainly be build but it will never be perfect.
Increasing precision has a cost to it. For normal resistors the shape and thickness of the film of resisting material is calculated and the tolerance is mainly dictated by the precision of the manufacturing process. Increasing this precision of the process adds cost. High precision resistors can be trimmed to specification. When you manufacture the resistor with a lower resistance you can use a laser to trim some of the resistive material away. This is an extra step and adds extra cost. While this can be very precise you are limited to what you can measure and there is a limit to that.
Also precision is limited by environmental factors like heat, humidity and aging.
That's also how many higher end analog chips are made, just blast it with laser till it fits tolerance. Making a bunch of chips in less precise process then trimming them chip by chip ends up cheaper than going to more expensive processes.
It sounded like you were saying that a 0 tolerance resistor would be worth the extra cost, and the reply is pointing out that a 0 tolerance resistor is not actually possible anyway, and as you approach 0, the cost increases beyond whatever your limit is.
It would seem pretty pointless to try to nail the resistor to within 0% tolerance when the solder bridges, wire that connects them to the circuit will have resistance.
You can get really high precision for a resistor at the silicon level but as for a regular resistor, the most you can do is buy the best TCR value you can and laser trim it to the exact spec. You can also buy hermetically sealed that have extremely low TCR and tolerances but they are expensive as hell and are relatively massive. If you can control the temperature of the board really well, you can hit very precise resistance values but again, expensive and not possible for all applications.
Overall, it's much easier to understand where your noise bottlenecks are in your system and cheap out on the parts that won't contribute to any reduction. Like if your ADC has a bit resolution of only 1uV, worrying about noise at the nano volt is just a waste of money.
The answer is probably quite subjective. In my case, when I deal with materials such as wood, cardboard or paper I enjoy immensely to have dimensions that snap to a certain grid. Call it a mental defect if you will. To illustrate further, let me propose a strawman: would you have no preference between the A4 size being: (1) 210.32 x 297.912 or (2) 210x297? Does it not bug you that 210.25 was rounded down to 210?
Indeed, Almere is a sleeping city. Many inhabitants moved from Amsterdam to Almere since gentrification has made housing in Amsterdam almost unobtainable for people with a median income. Almere is comfortable enough and you can get by without a car. But the fun still is in Amsterdam only a half an hour train ride away. In the US it would be called a suburb of Amsterdam.
Also what drinking water are they comparing to that gives 99% of the chlorine intake ? In dutch drinking water chlorine is not used at all, neither for primary
disinfection nor to maintain a residual disinfectant in the distribution network.
Still doesn't mean that small chlorine intake is bad for your health. Does seem however they use chlorine rich drinking water to justify the extra intake from chlorinated chickens.
https://dwes.copernicus.org/articles/2/1/2009/dwes-2-1-2009....
Being able to sideload is a double edged sword. Yes, it would be a barrier for Apple to go to far overboard on monetizing the ecosystem. It would also give companies like Microsoft a means of ONLY distributing their applications via their own app store forcing you to side load this app store with less oversight. Maybe they add a forced installer to push their apps ? It's not that I trust Apple that much. It's that I trust other companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon less.
As long as the iOS model exists, the sideload store model is only viable on Android, and vendors are forced to support the first-party store model anyway. If both ecosystems allow sideloading, you could easily imagine Microsoft or Epic switching to sideload-only and branding their own stores across Android and iOS. As it is now, if you can get something first-party on iOS but are forced to sideload on Android, it just makes the Android experience for Fortnite (or whatever) seem janky.
This is a good point, though the lack of auto-updates from non-Play stores on non-rooted phones does add enough friction to updating that e.g. Signal won't even distribute via f-droid because of update latency. At least that's my reading of Moxie's reasoning. It seems likely this would dissuade some companies from making their own app stores, though obviously not all.
Google's privacy requirements on the Play Store are a lot less developer-hostile than Apple's. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that Android and the Play Store are owned by one of the data-harvesting tech giants that Apple's rules just so happen to impact.
I tend to agree with you. Side loading on iOS would be much more lucrative for, say, Facebook who reportedly just lost $200B due to Apple's privacy restrictions. They're likely more happy with Android's play store than Apple's.
If both iOS and Android allowed sideloading this would be a much more attractive option. As it stands something like that isn't really worth while because most high-value consumers of mobile apps use iOS.
One difference: Apple is far more developer-hostile (or end-user friendly depending on your perspective) than Google, so someone like Facebook would be heavily incentivized to open their own iOS App Store and tell their users they must install that app from their store, in order to bypass constraints Apple enforces via their store.
Why is that a problem, though? If we assume that the Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp apps all have some levels of good behavior and bad behavior, then we can probably assume that the "Meta App Store" would be similar. So what's the big deal if they require you to install it?
They could also just offer direct app downloads from facebook.com, instagram.com, etc.
So what? This feels like a nothingburger to me. Given how sideloading is a much less pleasant experience on even Android (and we can expect Apple to do worse), Facebook wouldn't leave the main App Store without an earth-shattering reason.
Apple’s App Store has very strict privacy rules. Last year Apple implemented the App Tracking Transparency requirements, which Facebook says will cost them $10B in lost revenue this year [0]. If sideloading becomes a thing, I can definitely see Facebook requiring it in order to get around these privacy rules.
That's a dangerous gamble. The data tracking and privacy concerns aside, users are going to be mad at the additional friction that involves. They might get mad at Apple for making the enablement of sideloading an uneasy process (lots of disclaimers about how insecure it is, etc.), but they'll also get mad at Meta for pulling their apps off of the store for no discernible reason. Meta would have to offer more than the existing service they're getting from their current apps, to convince users to do this without losing goodwill.
One would argue that the app stores provides a benefit to the consumer that would not be implemented anywhere else since these benefits are not lucrative. One example is the ability to cancel subscriptions from one source, App Privacy Reports, seeing when an app is reading from the clipboard etc.
And no, entitlements mean nothing without enforcement.
> One example is the ability to cancel subscriptions from one source
You pay 40% extra for that. The creator gets $100, Apple gets 40, you see $140 sticker price. It is a nice feature, but how many would pay 40% extra for that? And if many wanted to pay 40% extra for subscriptions to have them cancellable, I'm sure there would already be companies doing that.
Developers creates things users wants, developer hostile is ultimately being user hostile when you are large enough. Being developer hostile can create gains short term, but that is mostly when you are a fringe, when dominant parties starts being developer hostile it starts hurting everyone as the tech sector as a whole becomes less effective.
Developers create things users wants, of course, but they also create things they want. Things like user tracking or data harvesting.
There's an inherent trade off here where adding safeguards to protect users will make the life of developers more difficult. Balancing these two concerns is hard.
I find that Apple mostly strikes the balance right, and so I choose to be their customer. People who disagree have other options available on the market today.
I guess I just like my tech stack to be as open and unrestrictive as possible.
The argument that Apple provides more safeguards is a bit flimsy in my opinion. I honestly don't know what people think Apple is protecting them from, especially when Apple's own features have led to people being stalked (air tags).
Also, most iPhone users that I know tend to have bought their iPhone for cosmetic/style related reasons, or the camera. They don't seem to be all that privacy conscious, especially when their phone is loaded up with every social media app on the planet, including Tiktok!
> I guess I just like my tech stack to be as open and unrestrictive as possible.
Note that this is another area where you have this user vs. developer trade off.
- GPL or other copyleft licenses will put the user's rights above the developer's.
- MIT or BSD-style licenses will favor the developer rights above the end user's.
"open and unrestrictive as possible" is all relative depending on whether you are a user or a developer.
> The argument that Apple provides more safeguards is a bit flimsy in my opinion.
My point is that this is a market where people value different things.
I value the safeguards Apple is putting in. I find they do a better job at it than their competition. But I fully understand that other people do not think so, or that they value other things more.
What I don't particularly like is some of these people turning to the State to force Apple to do things differently.
One could imagine that if the platform was opened to side-loading, the first third party app store to gain popularity would not be one from Meta or Google, but an F-Droid analogue for FOSS hobbyists and purists.
There seems to be a thread of argument where the merits of Apple's App Store model aren't actually discussed or substantiated, but instead what is trotted out is the big scare tactic of "But Facebook!"
Apple is big enough to have network effect to effectively mandate even facebook et alia to play by its rules.
Put it behind 10 hidden menus inside settings and facebook will not be able to explain to your average user that they have to enable this shady looking setting to download facebook. They can of course choose to ignore half of the US market, but that’s hardly a sane decision.
I fail to see how that's an issue when other developers can make third-party clients if there's a significant demand for it. If Twitter/Facebook start forcing people to install their third-party store to access their app, then there's a massive opportunity to make a better app that's distributed through the App Store.
> If Twitter/Facebook start forcing people to install their third-party store to access their app, then there's a massive opportunity to make a better app that's distributed through the App Store.
Wouldn’t Twitter, Facebook etc in turn demand that those third-party apps be taken down from the App Store?
And even if they didn’t, how is any third party going to keep up with Twitter/Facebook/etc API changes.
And what about push notifications? Those would not work with a third-party app installed via the App Store unless Twitter/Facebook/etc explicitly made it so that they supported that on their end.
> Wouldn’t Twitter, Facebook etc in turn demand that those third-party apps be taken down from the App Store?
No? Why would they? Third-party clients are alive and well on the App Store today, and have been for years.
> And even if they didn’t, how is any third party going to keep up with Twitter/Facebook/etc API changes.
They've done a fine job of it so far.
> And what about push notifications? Those would not work with a third-party app installed via the App Store unless Twitter/Facebook/etc explicitly made it so that they supported that on their end.
It does? Check out Tweetbot or Apollo for Reddit. Both have push notifications that work fine.
They are not fully "alive and well". Twitter and Reddit have APIs because they are old enough to have made them back when it wasn't clear it would hurt their business. Can you imagine TikTok or even Instagram to add APIs to support third party clients?
Twitter has been gradually killing their APIs.[0] Reddit doesn't offer APIs for the newer features, like polls.
Apple has no incentive to let other companies get away with bad behavior. And so far, their own bad behavior has been much better than other companies.
This argument comes up a lot, and while I ultimately don't agree with it, I still am sympathetic to it and I do think it has a grain of truth embedded in it.
Here's a question though: isn't that also a reason for Apple to hobble web browsers? Everything you're saying about app security and developers refusing to follow Apples rules also applies to progressive web apps unless Apple commits to making its browser meaningfully less powerful than native apps, and (importantly) meaningfully less powerful in ways that Microsoft/Amazon/Facebook actually care about.
That means you've kind of got to commit to the idea that web apps on iOS never get notification support, they never get intent support with other apps or the ability to handle opening resources, they never get support for good background audio or timers/alarms, they never get reliable clientside storage for offline usage without accounts. It's not just that you can't do low-level complicated sensor/GPU stuff, Apple has to hobble browser capabilities that make it good for reading news or setting timers.
Is that a world you're comfortable with? I know a reasonable number of people on HN are comfortable with that idea, just because they don't want the web to have application capabilities in the first place. But a lot of other people bring up the web as an alternative to the app store (Apple itself is fond of making that argument), and it makes me think -- if the web ever is a viable alternative for good apps on iOS, then the situation you're worried about already exists, doesn't it? Instead of the NYT distributing a native app that you subscribe to with Apple's system that gives you easy cancellation, instead you would get a PWA reader app that you pin to your homescreen and you subscribe through their web interface. The only way that doesn't work is if the experience of reading the NYT and getting notifications about new articles and saving your account details is a worse experience inside of a browser.
If what you're describing about companies removing user choice or forcing users to accept worse alternatives -- if what you're describing is an inevitable result of any serious, alternative user-facing app platform on iOS, then the only way Apple avoids that situation with the web is if it consciously commits to Safari being perpetually behind on standards and perpetually systemically and deliberately made worse as an app platform. That could either be through making sure the browser always lacks features or it could be achieved through other UX designs like blocking PWAs from showing up in app lists, making them unreliable to install, blocking their installation entirely in some cases, etc...
Is that an outcome that Apple users are comfortable with?
I have push notifications disabled on my phone for (almost) literally every single app except my email client and Element/Signal.
I don't get why the web is special, push notifications in native apps are just as abused as they are on the web. Even built-in apps abuse them. We could just as easily make an argument that native apps should have them disabled as well.
But regardless, this kind of goes back to my point. Okay, let's say that every web app abuses push notifications. What we're saying is that we're not going to have progressive web apps. Any app that needs push notifications is going to be a native app, even if it's something as simple as a messaging client or a reader app.
There was a really strong movement around phone platforms a while back where people were asking, "why is this an app in the first place, why isn't this a website?" Well, you can't have that if you don't trust alternative app stores to some degree, because the answer is that any version of the web that is powerful enough to provide meaningful substitutes for native apps is an alternative app store that's outside of Apple's control/moderation.
That doesn't explain why someone who has an Index doesn't use it. The setup and expense is just one time. The updates are all automatic via Steam. It's just a matter of putting on the headset and go. And yet, just like @wayoutthere , I find myself using it less and less. Not because lack of content either. It's just so inconvenient and awkward to isolate yourself from the other people in vicinity. Plus you'll be moving your arms without regards of your physical environment. So basically you need a room with a 2 meter by 2 meter clear space and no other people available. Most people don't have that.
I used the quest 2. Personally I was not impressed. Graphics are soft and simple compared to the Index and the field of view is so small. You can tether it to a PC for better graphics but then you loose the main advantage of not having a cable. And you still keep a small field of view.
>That doesn't explain why someone who has an Index doesn't use it. [...] It's just a matter of putting on the headset and go.
It definitely is not (saying as a PC gamer for over 15 years). If you don't already use your gaming PC regularly for other stuff so that the whole loading, update and maintenance is part of the daily experience anyway, then, you first have to fire up the gaming PC, wait for it to load, login to Windows, then you might have Windows nagging you for an update, then maybe Nvidia gaming hub or whatever they're calling it nowadays nags you for an update, then maybe you have to reboot, then open the steam launcher, then maybe that also want some updates, then fire up the game, then you have to clear your surrounding environment to make room for the cable tether and make sure you don't trip on it, then put on the Index, then finally you can play.
To most people that wohle ritual gets annoying and puts off the casual gamers who want a quick gaming session every now and then without dealing with any of that crap. The Quest is literally just put on and go since it's just like a console, which is also more popular for gaming than PCs for the convenience and the lack of friction.
If you only use your PC one day a month then yes, you may have to wait sometimes for updates. If you use your PC a few hours every week, nope. If you only use your Quest 2 once a month you've demonstrated my point: there is a barrier to using it.
Windows updates don't prompt anymore. They download automatically and apply at the next reboot. Steam starts at boot and updates every thing in the background. Never had an Nvidia popup, don't use anything else than a driver for my GPU. As soon as you put on the headset and turn on the controllers it wakes up, starts SteamVR and you can play.
I don't care how long you've been a PC gamer in the past. The time that gaming on Windows was a chore is long gone. Stuff just works on Windows now.
>If you only use your Quest 2 once a month you've demonstrated my point: there is a barrier to using it.
Which barrier? People can game twice a month due to lack of time, not because of a barrier from the device. And those two times a month they have the time to game, they want to jump into the game directly, not do OS/driver/game updates first.
That's one of the reasons the Quest destroyed the Valve index in sales and why consoles are more popular then PCs for gaming.
That’s actually not my problem with it; my big problem with it is that the whole thing gives me a headache after about 15 minutes. And you can’t use your phone, have something on in the background, etc. Also basically every game was way easier to play outside VR.
In my mind it’s a novelty you will be far more productive without.
I think maybe because you haven't played any great titles bespoke made for a fun experience in VR. I think this is where the Quest shines. It's not trying to play PC games in VR, but it has great titles made bespoke for it wich are great fun in VR. Same how you don't buy a Switch to play PC games, but you play the games made by Nintendo for it which are also great fun. Quest has the fun factor through its library of great VR titles. Without any fun VR titles, the Index is just an expensive peripheral. The ecosystem makes the whole experience make or break.
>And you can’t use your phone, have something on in the background, etc.
The Index has plenty of VR titles; there’s a whole VR section in steam with all the standard ones (there really aren’t that many native VR games, maybe a hundred give or take), Half Life: Alyx, Serious Sam VR, etc.
My favorite VR experience was actually a game that wasn’t designed for VR but sort of serendipitously worked extremely well (Elite: Dangerous). Space dogfights in VR are incredible and super-immersive. It still gave me a headache after a bit of playtime but I usually pushed through until my ship was out of ammo and I needed to reload.
But after playing E:D in VR, most VR native games like Space Pirate Simulator, Beat Saber or Superhot VR just feel like shallow toys. E:D is closer to an immersive experience than any of them; I actively wanted to stay in VR longer but my eyes would not let me.
> I don't get what you meant here.
I meant that it’s hard to simultaneously perform VR and non-VR activities (or switch back and forth between them quickly).
Anecdotally, I know people with both Indexes and Quest 2s, and from my experience the Q2 gets way fewer strain/headache/motion sickness complaints than the Index.
As much as I like VR I have to agree it will stay a niche product. The need to wear something on your head is a major hurdle. Like 3D TV's that have mostly disappeared. Also when you are in a VR environment you want to interact with it. You need free physical space to do that which is an other hurdle. There are more niches than gaming only though. Like education and product design and demonstration.
The main problem with 3D tv was the content. 3D really only works with bad movies like resident evil. You are not going to have need or want 3d in a movie that is an oscar contender.
Ehh, the content is the problem because there is a lack of bad content ? There's a heap of 3D content and growing. Like last years Marvell movies, James Bond, Dune. And movie theaters still show those in 3D. Which works because people go to a movie theater for the experience and donning 3D glasses is a minor annoyance with that mindset. Most people don't go to the movies very often. However people wanting to view a quick movie at home don't want that annoyance.
It's a bit the same with VR I think. When you go to an arcade or a friends house the space is already available and you accept being isolated because it's expected. Going for a quick VR session at home is an anti social hassle (unless you got a dedicated VR room or live alone).
I'm just saying that things flying out of the screen rarely add value to the movie. I had 3d tv and my only shows for it were some documentaries, Avatar, Paddington bear, and 3d adventure of tintin.
2 kids movies
1 animated movie
some short but interesting documentaries.
(horror movies runner up (mostly resident evil lol)
This reminds me of a joke Norm MacDonald did on his podcast:
Did you see the Great Gatsby? Did you see it in 3D? It was almost like the sober examination of the unrestrained materialism and absent moral center of the roaring 20s jumped right out at you.
Take up a hobby ? Preferably one with a club in your neighborhood. Good way to meet people with at least one common interest.
Or do volunteer work that's different from your paying job. You get to know different people and talk about different work.
Go to events, workshops, concert or whatever. You can do that online and meet people there. Alas most of the time you'll be on mute and contact with fellow attendees is scarce and difficult. Going to a physical event makes getting to know people easier is my opinion.
Covid has made it hard to do this last few years though.
