I think customer speeds is 144 and the 6Tb is their ground links to their stations. That is my take on it at least as its not super clear. I'm curious as to how it works as well.
My read was that they're going to have 144 Gbps RF for both regular users and their ground station gateways, and 6 Tbps optical for satellite-satellite back haul, but then you can also buy direct ground-MEO access to a back haul link. (Presumably MEO-only because it's hard to maintain the link to a fast-moving LEO satellite?)
They don't seem to mention using optical for their own ground stations - maybe too unreliable?
The GB/T is for charging and not in car connections. Tesla already has an arguably better connector NACS or J3400 now.
As for China having the most electric cars on the planet. I don't feel that makes them the experts. China tends to steal / copy technology from other countries and has little innovation them self from my view point. They have the most EV's from heavy government subsidies. Tons of cars in graveyards over there.
The details in the summary given by the previous poster were from the article. I don't know what distinction you think exists between a "hit piece" and "fact based reporting", but this article falls into the fact based reporting category.
I called it a hit piece because instead of saying users recently found a bug affecting 1 link to NPR. They say X "Caught" blocking links like it was something intentional and not an erroneous error. Any other site not connected to Elon with the same issue and it wouldn't of been writen I suspect.
> instead of saying users recently found a bug affecting 1 link to NPR
This is a good example of bias. It is not a fact that this was a bug. The fact is Twitter displayed the warning. Twitter has told NPR it was a false positive, but a journalist shouldn’t take an uncorroborated secondhand statement from the party being accused of potential wrongdoing as proof of anything.
Imagine for a second that this was done maliciously. Do you think Twitter would immediately admit that? Of course not, their statement would likely be identical to the one we got. Therefore the “fact based reporting” thing to do is present the facts, present Twitter’s response, and let the reader come to their own conclusions.
>It's a fact that a pattern of behavior was accused, but a pattern of behavior was not shown.
Yes, that is exactly what both the article and I said. The warning was applied to the link. Some people accused Twitter of doing that nefariously. Twitter denied it and claimed it was a mistake. Those are the facts of the situation.
The motivation for applying the warning or whether it was a mistake are not facts that can be confirmed by an independent journalist. They are speculation regardless of which side of the issue you come down on.
What are you talking about specifically? Can you point to a quote from the article that you think crosses a line journalistically? Because it seems like you’re equating reporting on the existence of accusations with actively making accusations and that type of thinking comes from either bias or a lack of media literacy.
> Who needs to know X erroneously blocked 1 link to NPR?
The appearance of a conflict of interest is a story. This appears to be a conflict of interest because a site is making it more difficult to read a negative story about a candidate endorsed by the company’s owner.
> Is it one link or many?
This is a rather pedantic complaint but multiple instances of the same link qualify as “links”. This is easier to see if you imagine them physically, multiple copies of the same book would be referred to as “books”.
Making some assumptions here but I suspect most game developers outsource their anti cheat to a 3rd party and that is what you are running into. Some of the 3rd party anti cheat rootkit computers. Some are okay and some are just terrible.
You're correct, most companies don't make their own anti-cheat. We have categorized the different anti-cheats and have ways around them where needed. But whether or not the game devs or some 3rd party makes the anti-cheats it still leads to the same problems, I'm blocked from fixing their games on our hardware. I can't/won't share to many details about or internal process.
1) We're dependent on external tools for capturing and debugging shaders, most of which are detected as debuggers by anti-cheat and will kill the process before we even have a chance of reproducing the issue.
2) The other thing is driver signing, our solution use to be just production sign drivers and test with those, but Microsoft didn't like that we could sign as many drivers/dll as we wanted every single day. So they limited us to X per day and told us to use Test Signing which anti-cheat still detects and blocks. We have other methods too, but they're all slowly being detected by anti-cheats.
Guess, but GPU drivers have been known to change shaders being sent to the GPU for certain games, to fix things and increase performance, it's possible this could be detected as some kind of cheating by the anti-cheat.
Good guess, but most games don't actually look for that. The closest I've seen is them saving off the final rendered image and checking for wrong information. I think Vindictus was one that did that (learned about that outside the job so I have no issues sharing that.) I believe they mainly used it to detect cosmetic mods that might cut into their profits.
We only really replace shaders to fix issues that the game devs won't fix, and only then when the game isn't updated very often since it has a high chance of breaking our patches. On top of that I don't believe there is a good way to pull the information back from the driver in a reliable way, so it would be very hard to rely on any information that comes back from the driver.
Is ant's fault, they keep making all those little bumps around.
The real problem is that we are spending a bazillion of hours on dubious philosophical amusements, while the planet is being slowly cooked with us on board.
Not trying to be 'that guy' but the first line calls out AWS and DriveHQ:
Cybersecurity threats are increasingly leveraging cloud services to store, distribute, and establish command and control (C2) servers, such as VCRUMS stored on AWS or SYK Crypter distributed via DriveHQ.
Ah, woops, good catch. But none of those services are used in the 2 sets of malware described. It's kind of just a throwaway line with no relation to the article.
But if you already knew the drive was damaged, why push it to the point when you can't possibly have the time to image it, which will take forever? Feels like advising somebody to push through their asthma until they're about to lose consciousness.
This. I naively thought that SpinRite could "fix" the bad sectors (forcing the drive controller to copy the data to a spare sector) and let me copy out of the data through a normal process after, but bad sectors are often an indicator of a larger mechanical issue.
