Buyers beware: 4-core A53 is genuinely unusable (original Pinebook/PinePhone specs), A55 is better but I still wouldn’t recommend buying. You may expect performance similar to 15+ years old desktops.
For the IMX8MP - The pinephone was 1.2 GHz, this is 1.8 GHz on all four cores. As far as geekbench goes it hits between the Pi 3 and Pi 4, faster EMMC and LPDDR4 gives it a bigger boost compared to the Pi 3. The PCIe 3.0 is also there. Yes it is not equivalent to a desktop use, but for a phone sized usecases, the processor has not been a bottle neck. The advantage you get is a battery life that goes 7 hours on idle with the display on, and on sleep it can go upto 8D and wake up instantly.
The IMX95 is 6x A55 at 1.8GHz but you can check the geekbench below, it matches the single core performance of Pi 4 and beats it at multi-core performance while offering LPDDR5. But at the same time, is only 15% more power hungry than the 8MP.
Off-topic but curious if you experience this issue my Librem5 exhibits - I use my L5 mostly just to play mp3s. Regardless of being powered over usb-c or running on battery, it frequently has audio blips reminiscent of some old laptops briefly going in and out of deeper sleep states long enough for an audio blip.
Have you noticed something similar? do you listen to music on your L5?
Edit: I should also mention it does this regardless of audio out the internal DAC+3.5mm TRS, or over a USB MBox attached to a dock. It seems to be something quite low-level disabling interrupts for too long, something like that.
Without a proper proxy setup, access to GitHub is often painfully slow from mainline China.
But the choice of Baidu Pan is indeed questionable: You need a Chinese phone number in order to sign up, which is out of reach for many expats living overseas. I don't get why they can’t just mirror it on a university server.
They might be referring to Substack having a very open policy of having writers of any political (and other) affiliation on the platform, but I don't necessarily see it as a drawback to be so neutral.
Oh, you're so close. The fascists are parasites: they only tolerate liberalism insofar as it allows them to spread their ideas. They desperately want to--and will--silence their opponents as soon as they wield power. They view tolerance as a weakness, and the social contract as a game to be played only until it can be rewritten.
I do not dispute that Nazis can, legally, say what they say. I don't even necessarily think it's bad that their speech is protected. But their speech should have consequences, and platform owners can and should tell them to fuck off.
> But their speech should have consequences, and platform owners can and should tell them to fuck off.
Sure, some platforms do, and some don't, like Substack, that is their prerogative and if people don't like it they can choose not to read them. But we cannot force them to do anything, nor should we.
This. Sorry you're getting down votes at this moment for speaking the truth, but there really is no excuse for anti society anti intellectual illiberalism from the world's literal biggest losers.
Might be the allegations such as those made by David Farrier this August[1]
> Then, last month, Substack sent out a push notification to some users of the Substack app encouraging them to subscribe to a Nazi newsletter. Like, full-Nazi stuff. Not subtle:
followed by a screenshot of a Substack profile full of swastikas describing itself as news for the "National Socialist and White Nationalist Community"
IIRC macOS upgrades will automatically store a FileVault token (basically `fdesetup authrestart`) before restarting, so the disk is automatically unlocked. It's not a Tahoe-specific thing.
mosh is neat, but I've mostly switched back to good'ol SSH over Tailscale due to various rendering bugs caused by client-server mismatches as well as the lack of port forwarding.
Basically mosh attempts to synchronize the state of the terminal which is made up of character cells. It sounds simple until you realize that unicode and fancy escape sequences exist, and the behavior of the client and the server must match otherwise you get weird misalignments that are difficult to debug:
You really need those patches to have a good experience, and popular mosh clients like Blink on iOS incorporate them in their builds. However, things look wonky if you don't use the corresponding server builds, and you don't want to dig through layers of abstractions to find out why selecting lines in a specific file in neovim causes everything to become a jumbled mess every so often.
There is no end in sight for those patched to be merged upstream, no end in sight for distros to ship new versions, and no end in sight for protocol changes to make state synchronization more resilient. So, back to SSH we go...
Edit: Fixed wrong link for underline/undercurl patch
To be frank, the whole post reads like "I hate change" with no convincing argument otherwise. The author even acknowledges the very lenient ramp-up from CAB _and_ the myriad of available tooling, yet still throws his hands up.
> I am responsible for approving SSL certificates for my company. [...] I review and approve each cert. What started out as a quarterly or semi-monthly task has become a monthly-to-weekly task depending on when our certs are expiring.
I don't get the security need for manually approving renewals, and the author makes no attempt to justify this either. It may make sense for some manual process to be in place for initial issuances, as certificates are permanently added to a publicly-available ledger. And to take a step back, do you need public certs to begin with? Can you not have an internal CA? Again, the author makes no attempt to justify this, or demonstrate understanding in the post.
> email-based validation may as well not exist when we need to update a certificate for test.lab.corp.example.com because there is no webmaster@test.lab.corp.example.com.
I know that this is an example, but as a developer it would be a pain to have to go through a manual, multi-day process for my `test.lab.corp.example.com` to work. And the rest of the post seems to imply that this is actually the case at OP's org.
> Which resource-starved team will manage the client and the infrastructure it needs? It will need time to undergo code review and/or supplier review if it’s sold by a company. There will be a requirement for secrets management. There will be a need for monitoring and alerting. It’s not as painless as the certificate approval workflow I have now.
There are additional costs and new processes to be made, yes, but even from a non-technical POV this appears to be a good time to lead and take ownership.
> Any platforms that offer or include certificate management bundled with the actual services we pay for will win our business by default. [...] What is obvious to me is that my stakeholders and I are hurrying to offload certificate management to our vendors and platforms and not to our CA.
That's okay. If you hate change and don't want to take ownership, pay someone else to take ownership.
reply