Wrong. Google aggressively enabled VP8 on YouTube even when there was very little hardware decode. Saved a few megabits per stream on their side, nuked everyone's battery but hey Google didn't give a hoot because that was an externalized cost.
It's why the h264ify extension existed, and forced h264 was for that time a large part of the reason Safari had vastly superior battery life.
It most likely would prevent you from playing anything HDCP. HDCP is illegal (?) to reverse engineer, and there are special versions of HDCP2 specifically for HDMI. You need a license and a verified device for HDCP.
That might not matter much for an ordinary PC, but this Steam Machine will be competing for the living room with the PS5 and Xbox which have Netflix, Disney, HBO, etc; Not sure if things like Spotify are HDCP-protected.
It will be interesting to see how Valve works out the kinks for that. Honestly in general it'll be interesting, because putting those things on Steam Store basically turns Steam Store into a general software store instead of a game store. And the only cross-platform store at that.
With iOS and Android being broken open, you could have games be completely cross-licensed. I'd say other software too, but sadly with everything going the subscription model, you usually already have cross-licensing, in the form of an account.
Yes and no. HDMI CEC works pretty decent these days, all the kinks have been worked out over the years and the only time it bugs out is if you use Chinese brands (looking at you, TCL) that write horrid firmware and never fix any bugs found after release.
Displayport has DDC/CI, which allows you to adjust things like brightness, volume, etc. remotely. This has existed since the DVI era (!) which means Displayport had a huge headstart. But they never formalized and enforced the DDC/CI spec, which means every monitor has extremely weird quirks. Some will allow you to send and read data. Some will only allow you to send data and crash when you try to read. Some will update only once every few seconds.
Although in this specific case, one wonders why Valve didn't just use two Displayport 1.4 ports and and stuck an onboard HDMI converter in front of one of them, sourced from a company that would be amenable to having Valve work on the firmware of said converter. Make the entire firmware of the converter open source except for the binary blob that handles the Displayport 1.4 -> HDMI 2.1 bits.
Hopefully Valve does this but sells it as a external, high quality converter. It would be a nice little plus even for non-Steam Machine owners, same way like Apple's USB-C to 3.5mm convertor is the highest quality mini DAC on the market for the low price of €10.
> HDMI CEC works pretty decent these days, all the kinks have been worked out over the years and the only time it bugs out is if you use Chinese brands
I don't know. I have an LG TV and it does not support turning the display on/off with HDMI CEC. Everything else seems to work but it intentionally ignores those commands.
Brightness control on external monitors has never been supported in Windows though, partially due to issues with displays that have poor write endurance on internal storage.
> prevent overcapacity" is just a fancy way of saying "we prefer to gouge consumers at little risk to us."
No it’s not. Memory business has been cyclical for years. Over expansion is a real risk because new manufacturing capacity is very expensive and takes a long time to come online.
If they could make new manufacturing come online quickly they would do it and capture the additional profit of more sales.
If you present an operating profit of €25 billion USD, yes, in a healthy true market competition would force you to either A) eat into your profit margin by reducing prices or B) invest in R&D and capacit-
Actually, let me eat my words, you are right. As I typed this I saw some news from an hour ago[0] about SK Hynix planning to invest about $500 billion into 4 more fabs. I imagine [hope] Samsung will follow, and together with Chinese memory fabs ramping up both in capacity and technology, prices will return to earth in 2027, maybe 2028.
Guess I am just a little too bitter because GPU prices finally seemed to normalize after half a decade of craziness. Topped with corporations in the West usually forgoing investment and using profits like these to do massive stock buybacks and dividends, souring my expectations.
Additional profit? They're making a lot more money right now than if they had more supply.
The risk of overexpansion is real but I really doubt they want to expand much in the next couple years. They don't have to worry about being undercut by small competitors so they can enjoy the moment.
No they are making higher margins, but not getting as much profit as they could have.
Look at the standard Econ 101 supply-demand curve.
If they could make and sell twice as many chips, it would not cut there margins anywhere near half. They would be making much more.
When demand spikes up and down there will be pain. Because booms are not predictable, in timing, size or duration. And accelerating supply expansion is very expensive, slow, and risky.
Many boom prompted RAM supply expansions have ended in years of unprofitable over capacity.
Price spikes like we are seeing reflect tremendous pent-up/increased demand.
Any price increase reduces purchases by many customers. This tends to keep prices stable. With only small changes in price relative to regular changes in demand.
Yet prices have gone way up.
Which means that many people and businesses are cancelling, delaying, or scaling back their RAM purchases. And yet new demand is incredibly high.
To get prices down, supply would have to grow tremendously. Enough to soak up even more purchases from the very motivated, and to cover all the purchasers that have currently pulled back.
There's room for making more, but I don't think doubling makes sense from a profit point of view.
Especially because the demand curve that's skyrocketing right now is the RAM that isn't in long-term contracts. Doubling all production would much more than double the RAM available for normal purchases.
> To get prices down, supply would have to grow tremendously. Enough to soak up even more purchases from the very motivated, and to cover all the purchasers that have currently pulled back.
Is "down" here back to normal levels?
But normal levels are like a tenth of the profit margin. They'd make significantly less money doing that.
I really dislike that Linux proper doesn't by default have x.xx-server, x.xx-workstation, x.xx-laptop and x.xx-desktop kernel variants. Or just doesn't have defaults, requiring distros to think about what to set during compilation.
A lot of the current defaults stem from the 90s, and often were eyeballed by the creator of said code. They're not good defaults for modern servers nor workstations nor laptops nor desktops. And all of those devices work best with different defaults.
It doesn't seem (yes, appearances can be deceiving) to be that much work, because no extra code needs to be written. For each variant, just set different default parameter values for stuff like swappiness, lazy RCUs and what not. Make it a thing to revisit the defaults every 10 years.
CachyOS and some other distros already do this, but a big chunk of distros doesn't because they think the defaults are well-thought out.
> CachyOS and some other distros already do this, but a big chunk of distros doesn't because they think the defaults are well-thought out.
Based on what I saw 1-2 years ago last time I looked at it, most distributions to customize and don't use the defaults straight up. From memory, so someone correct me if I'm wrong:
- RHEL/SLES - Lots of patches to kernels
- Arch - Closer to just using defaults, some config choices and downstream adjustments (so the opposite of CachyOS almost, which is why we have CachyOS in the first place)
- Ubuntu - Probably the most patched distribution compared to upstream components, also includes a lot of Canonical-specific stuff on top of that.
- Fedora - Has some bleeding edge bits and bobs
- Debian - Bit more conservative than Ubuntu, but still has patches for stability, security and backports.
In my experience, distributions changing the defaults and customizations seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
> In my experience, distributions changing the defaults and customizations seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
Which makes each and every one of those totally different operating systems that can run similar code to each other. We need to stop thinking of these as Linux "distros" and start thinking of these as totally separate and distinct operating systems that are based around the Linux kernel. Sort of like a business cooperative model.
I love the separation of concerns. It provides an amazing terminal-first kernel and everything graphical is maintained by various different organizations, and you can choose between many different options.
Maintaining a large distro is extremely difficult and every decision has several trade-offs.
Why would you want different kernels for different device types?
Genuine question! I maintain my own Linux distro (upstream Linux + portage) for all my devices and haven’t found much reason to go beyond kernel per arch. I’m curious if there’s something I could be missing.
vm.swappiness defaults to 60, which is default from when everyone was still running spinning rust with a swap partition. Servers these days usually have very specific storage+memory configurations, whereas the usual desktop or laptop has an SSD and 16GB+ of RAM with RAM compression expanding it.
Lazy RCU loading is good on a laptop because you only lose about 10% performance and only with specific workloads, but your idle and light load energy consumption improves. Most laptops spend like 95%+ in light or idle load scenarios. Conversely, on a desktop you don't care (much) about idle and light load energy consumption, you only care about keeping max load consumption low enough so that your fans stay quiet. And on a workstation you don't care about a system being whisper quiet so you can go nuts with the energy consumption.
> vm.swappiness defaults to 60, which is default from when everyone was still running spinning rust with a swap partition. Servers these days usually have very specific storage+memory configurations, whereas the usual desktop or laptop has an SSD and 16GB+ of RAM with RAM compression expanding it.
You don't need to compile a specific kernel for that, this is setup via sysctl.
Do you mean RCU_LAZY? Most distros will already enable that: it doesn't do anything without rcu_nocbs, so there's no negative impact on server workloads.
[calvin@debian-trixie ~] grep RCU_LAZY /boot/config-6.12.57+deb13-amd64
CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y
# CONFIG_RCU_LAZY_DEFAULT_OFF is not set
[calvin@debian-trixie ~] grep RCU_NOCB_CPU /boot/config-6.12.57+deb13-amd64
CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y
# CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_DEFAULT_ALL is not set
Swappiness and many others can be changed by some sort of system preset rather built that way. I know not ALL options can be done that way, but I'd want to see changes start there where feasible.
I totally missed that part of your comment, my bad. Thanks for elaborating on those, I feel inspired to experiment!
So far my kernel journey has been about making my hardware work + enabling features, and that’s mostly how I’ve been discovering config options. Do you have any suggestions on where one aught to read further on this sort of kernel tuning?
EDIT: doing some further research, couldn’t you just set those options via sysctl w/o needing to build a separate kernel?
Yes you can adjust them via sysctl or directly as kernel parameter arguments. That isn't my point. My point is that Linux has some horrible defaults :+)
I generally have three types of Linux devices I typically use. My desktop, servers locally/remotely, and "mobile" devices (more like tablets I guess).
For the first, I want the lowest latency for everything I do, together with the highest burstable speed whenever possible, for pretty much all the components.
For the servers, I basically have two types, one which does storage, they just need large disks that can be slow, and one which users actually connect to, that one needs focus on throughput, latency and performance isn't as important as "can serve all requests in a reasonable timeframe, even under load".
Finally, many of the portable devices run on batteries, so on those the focus is power-saving, even if it compromises on performance.
I'm sure others out there have more device types, like ultraweight watches, security devices, monitors, radios and much more. Each one of these have different tradeoffs, and tuning the kernel and OS for each use case makes it a lot better usually. Personally I use NixOS for everything except my desktop (CachyOS right now!), and it makes it really trivial to create profiles based on the same configuration, deployed to all devices, and today they're are tuned for exactly their purpose, as Linus intended :)
Somewhere there is a dark timeline where the BSDs won, there are 50 commercial and open source variants all with their own kernel and userland. The only promise of interoperability is in extremely ossified layers like POSIX. There is, however, something terrible gathering its strength. A colossus. The great Shade that will eat the net. In boardroom meetings across the land, CTOs whisper its name and tremble... "OS/2."
There's also the UK practice of deliberately mangling French for comedic effect, as in Del Boy's cries of "Bain Marie!" and "chateuneuf-de-paper!" on 1980s TV. Saying "Toot sweet" can fit right into that bucket.
> Their Snapdragon X laptop didn't do very well, and they likely realize an ARM Windows laptop will always be a second class citizen
Why? So far ARM laptops provide either vastly better battery life for the same performance or vastly better performance for the same battery life. Even versus discrete GPUs.
Within a couple years from now you're gonna look like an utter fool for buying x86 (and Nvidia / AMD / Intel GPU) unless Intel, AMD and Nvidia really pull their head out of the sand.
There's a few specific workloads like local LLM and legacy where you'd want a discrete GPU or x86, but otherwise it is looking like GG.
Well, in your article it already clearly states performance tanks as soon as you go on battery. By 20-40%..
On another very reputable Dutch site, you can see the Snapdragon consistently lead the Lunar Lake laptop, and that's with Lunar Lake set to maximum performance[0]
There is also a general logic to it: Apple M-series still handily beat anything Intel has, and Qualcomm's Snapdragons beat the M-series they follow up.
Maybe Intel can truly push x86 to unseen heights, who knows? There's nothing technically stopping them but so far it hasn't beared out. Similar with Nvidia, their RTX 3090 power limited at 340W got beat by an M1 maxed out at 120W. Why isn't the RTX 4090 or 5090 half the TDP?
The Alzheimer """cure""" claim was already disproven by another study. Aside from that, the people who stop taking GLP, 75% gain 50-75% of their bodyweight back and lose all concomitant cardiovascular, cancer etc. risk benefits.
No research out on, say, alcoholism yet, but I'd hazard a guess the results are the same.
This is not a cravings loss drug but largely a cravings management drug. Which is still pretty great but it saddles healthcare funding systems with an enormous burden for the next 20 years. Or you keep it private, which means you introduce an enormous gulf of health inequality.
I hate that our solution to obesity is not the way Iceland treated it's youth drinking problem: reduce access to the harmful thing, give people money and support to do the healthy thing. Stick with it instead of cancelling the program if it doesn't show results in 4 years.
Modern food (started in the 80s) has carefully been engineered to be as addictive as possible, health consequences be damned. Let's start fixing the problem there.
This is not a cravings loss drug but largely a cravings management drug. Which is still pretty great but it saddles healthcare funding systems with an enormous burden for the next 20 years.
Semaglutide goes off-patent in 2032 in the US, and in 2026 in Canada and China:
No they have been on the market for decades, but only recently have been found to be of use to non-diabetics. That's why you are hearing about them much more.
Effects on Alzheimer’s have not been disproven; it was shown that there wasn’t a perceivable benefit from oral semaglutide at the doses prescribed for folks with a certain degree of progression of the disease.
> the people who stop taking GLP, 75% gain 50-75% of their bodyweight back and lose all concomitant cardiovascular, cancer etc. risk benefits.
I don't think that framing is right, from another study:
* 17.5% maintained 75+% of their weight loss
* 25% maintained 50-75% of their weight loss
* 23% maintained 25-50% of their weight loss
* 24% maintained 0-25% of their weight loss
At least 75% (possibly more!) maintained some form of weight loss 25% to 75%+. That is tremendous. And 43% maintained 50%+! For reducing being overweight, that is just amazing.
> I hate that our solution to obesity is not the way Iceland treated it's youth drinking problem: reduce access to the harmful thing, give people money and support to do the healthy thing. Stick with it instead of cancelling the program if it doesn't show results in 4 years.
I don't think it's possible to "reduce access to the harmful thing" when that thing is "food".
Many people show long term results even stopping it. I don't understand this desire to say "people should suffer!" instead of taking something that helped them.
Plenty of people have tried (me included) but if it was easy to lose weight, nobody would be long term overweight.
Exactly this. It gives you the CHOICE to stay healthy. Losing alot of weight is hard, before Ozempic I went to a weight loss clinic where they precribed stuff like the "hcg diet" or old medically assisted fads. I lost ALOT of weight, online they would all say the same stuff of "you'll just gain it back".
A person cannot lose weight that fast normally, losing 70 or 100 pounds at 2-4 pounds a month is alot of time. But I was able to lose it and go from not being able to run, to being able to walk and run all day at festivals. Guess how it's easier to lose weight now...
I think alot of people don't understand how hard it is to exercise or lose weight while fat, just due to the join pain and muscles. Let alone shoes not being meant to support you. Losing that, it becomes alot easier to "just go for a walk", or work on cardiovascular health. I got on it after I went on a trip with a friend and walking for a few hours had me bed ridden the next day and he was like "Ya, I'm tired but I could walk all day if I had to", and he wasn't fit. Now I'm that person and can fit in a whole meal with how much I burn from walking/running.
I will say for the time I was on a GLP-1 at the end, it's amazing. It's almost the same effect as the other pills on appetite, but without the side effects. Phentermine and other stuff will make people manic, paranoid, or make your heart pop out of your chest. This type of drug is a godsend, and anyone who's committed will maintain the weight loss and live a healthier lifestyle.
> I don't understand this desire to say "people should suffer!" instead of taking something that helped them.
Religion is my assumption. Or human nature more generically. Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins in Christianity. So it is a moral issue for many people.
> I don't think it's possible to "reduce access to the harmful thing" when that thing is "food".
If you look at obesity, it was a very stable problem until the 80s, when it suddenly skyrocketed across all age groups and both sexes. So unless we had some sort of mass infection of a discipline-destroying virus, another factor must be at work. Which, rather clearly, is food engineering.
So miss me with 'the thing you don't want me to have access to is "food"..'. No, the thing I want is for food to to back to being more natural and not tweaked to the microgram to elicit the highest hormonal response.
So no, I do not want to reduce access to "food".
> I don't understand this desire to say "people should suffer!" instead of taking something that helped them.
Cute strawman. I didn't say anywhere that people should just "tough it out". Food can be addictive just like alcohol or cocaine.
There is the nit that people using GLP drugs think those that control weight the normal way do it happily, resting on the couch or in bed smilingly as their stomach grumbles. We don't. We suffer too. It's not easy for us.
> So no, I do not want to reduce access to "food".
But you do, to foods you think is best. Regardless, it'll never work.
> Cute strawman. I didn't say anywhere that people should just "tough it out". Food can be addictive just like alcohol or cocaine.
Not a straw man, it's taken from your own words - because you literally just said "the normal way". If we could do it that way, we would! We know you suffer, but you want us to suffer too, but also not lose weight. Because that's how it works for us.
It's why the h264ify extension existed, and forced h264 was for that time a large part of the reason Safari had vastly superior battery life.
reply