> But is there anything FCC can do to increase it? Is it in their jurisdiction?
Sure. They could apply the line sharing rules from the 1996 Telecom Act. Afaik, that's still law, but when courts said the FCC couldn't apply it to telephone companies and not cable companies, the FCC opted to declare the market was competitive and end mandatory line sharing.
Help from congress would be great, though. There was a lot of shenanigans under the line sharing regime, like ILECs pricing retail internet lower than wholesale prices. After a transition period, the line owners shouldn't offer retail service at all, make them restructure it into actually separate companies providing the internet service vs the lines.
Well, they seem to be able to offer incentives based on how many customers are on "broadband", so presumably they could offer incentives related to offering lower tiers/pricing, or to ISPs entering a market that only has one provider.
Isn't the point of transformer training for it to learn to imitate the distribution of the training data? While concepts of "imitating the distribution" and "copying verbatim" are different, they are not too far off each other either.
It's astounding that such a simple feature was dropped, firstly, and then got a re-launch mentioned by the CEO himself "after hearing some great feedback"... it's just a sorting order, honestly this should have never been removed. Those big platforms really got to go.
I mean, you say that, but... what is the alternative? YouTube is the host of some of the most valuable content on the internet, in my opinion, and some (some!) of the most valuable content produced by humanity. And it allows anyone to access it for free, with incredible technical specs. This is a non-trivial problem, and incredibly expensive.
Sure, I dislike that they play around with features that I think are valuable. But given everything else I get from YouTube, I'm not exactly complaining, and for sure I wouldn't wish them gone without having some idea of what could replace them (and I don't think that exists).
I don't have a satisfying answer. My bet would be something like a decentralized P2P solution that uses the LBRY protocol.
One specific idea that could see reality some day is a site that hosts proprietary videos on their own servers (for professional and paid creators) but also lists non-commercial creators that store their data in their own cloud platform of choice or indeed in the P2P network. The main point would be to not rely on dark patterns and ads in supporting this business but offload as much storage/bandwidth as possible to other servers.
I said they have to go cause I am slowly having enough of their policies. Sorting by old is a minor inconvenience but having 15-45 (!) minute long ads is just ludicrous (I listen to podcasts to sleep). I've also heard some voices about an anti-adblock campaign being rolled out, I wonder how that goes...
I don't want to speculate baselessly but if you've worked in big companies you'll know seemingly simple features become complicated with scale. This is especially when you are YouTube. It could be that the old feature was causing production problems and had to be removed, while a more efficient re-implementation is underway. I mean just look at what Google's Cloud Spanner says about using timestamps as keys: https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/schema-design Having both sort by latest and sort by oldest in an efficient way could very well be a nontrivial problem.
Isn't that the type of sorting you basically only need to do once? Or I guess in the rare cases when a video gets taken down, privated or relisted? I know it's not super rare but it would still be a much rarer event than users sorting by old. So they can just keep the list or set of video IDs, no need for expensive db operations right?
(I'm being a complete armchair expert here, since I have no idea of the actual state of the YouTube backend. It might look simple to me but I'm sure it's not in reality . I'm curious to see what would be the best way to optimize a feature like this one!)
"This feature is set to launch in the coming months." It sounds like he wants a round of applause for this big deal release. They can't even admit that it was a mistake to remove it... or maybe he is like a lot of writers/directors for new games and movies in old franchises that were never fans/users of the original materials.
> The most important decision was shifting to extreme ultraviolet lithography at a time when Intel thought it was much too expensive and difficult to implement; TSMC, backed by Apple’s commitment to buy the best chips it could make, committed to EUV in 2014, and delivered the first EUV-derived chips in 2019 for the iPhone.
Can somebody here correct me if I am wrong, but my impression was that Intel did commit early to EUV, with initial plans to start high volume manufacturing in line with other fabs (initial schedule was to introduce EUV in 2017 [1], it just got postponed many times), but they just failed in their execution.
I think your citation is 9 years old. What I've always heard is what they called 10 nm was non-EUV. You are correct that what they called 7 nm was going to use EUV, pretty much had to, but 10 nm catastrophically failed and the company responded very poorly to that.
Not that long ago I remember reading, forget at what confidence level, that their old 7 mn was believed to have the potential to leapfrog their 10 nm and save the company, but others said they had some problematic things in common (not counting the very poorly run company!) that made that unlikely. In any event what was 7 nm did not ride to the company's rescue.
Their 7 nm process has been renamed now as "Intel 4" and there is a presentation of it at Anandtech, which looks more credible than the fake presentations of the 10 nm process of some years ago.
The first product using this process, Meteor Lake, is expected 1 year from now.
Meteor Lake/Intel 4 would then be six years late if the wccftech.com article's commentary on the two nodes was correct. Good to hear about the presentation material, thanks!
The title here is misleading, I went in expecting that Coinbase stopped withdrawals for 48 hours, which is not the case. They changed how long you have to wait before you can start using a brand new address. And after you wait 48 hours, you can use that address with no delays of any kind. Does not seem that nefarious to me.
I sort of agree, but it is weird they waited to add this until their coins are worth 66% less than their highs. Why didn’t they make that simple integer change from “8” to “48” when things were at the peak (and thus had more financial risk)
Actually, I think recently, Medium has considerably improved their UX/UI. They used to have a lot of popups and text obstructions that you had to manually click away from. Nowadays, on free articles, the middle column column is just content, while left and right columns are simple and clean.
