I did this with EA actually, I was banned for no reason from Apex Legends, EA support told me it was an EasyAntiCheat ban, but I wasn't banned from other EAC games which made me suspect that wasn't true. When I googled around I found screenshots showing that the ban message ingame would have the text "Banned" after the default "client banned" message.
I contacted EAC who confirmed I was not EAC banned, I informed EA of this and just got the default "We cannot discuss bans blah blah" reply.
I then ran a GDPR data request, and after 3 weeks I got a massive dump of all my info, which included the ban reason.
The ban reason was N/A, not blanked out or censored, just N/A from the data dump.
I raised this with EA and they just kept telling me they can't discuss bans etc. I managed to get it escalated eventually via a complaint which lead to my account being unbanned and I got it confirmed that it was an erroneous ban.
I have done this for recommendations, and it now only shows videos I have recently watched, usually the 3-4 previous videos I watched.
If I click on anything I wouldn't usually watch, it is then the only thing that goes in my recommendation for a good 2-3 weeks.
I watched one dashcam video the other day that someone linked me, which had the tags Tesla and Elon Musk.... Now the only thing I get in my recommended is incredibly strange videos about Elon Musk and Teslas.
Why is AMD so important to you? Are there any instruction set extensions these days that are only available on AMD? I can only think of things that are the other way around - only on Intel. And if you need something niche like some SIMD extension I guess you're running a server not a laptop?
For me personally, my preference primarily comes down to extreme differences in low-intensity/idle power usage of Ryzen 6000 vs Intel 12th gen. There aren't true "apples to apples" (same chassis/model, but AMD vs Intel) comparisons yet, although those should be coming in the next month or so, but here's an example of how efficient the Ryzen 6000s are: https://youtu.be/3bSetglEPOY?t=170
For people that need to use their devices on the go, I think it's a no brainer to prefer a Ryzen 6000 vs Intel.
The RDNA2-based Radeon 680M iGPU also significantly outperforms the (admittedly, much improved) Intel Xe iGPUs in 3D rendering. In synthetics, the new Radeon iGPUs are going head to head with Nvidia 1650 Max-Q dGPUs. This probably doesn't much matter if you aren't doing any gaming, but if you are, it means you can play most modern titles reasonably on the road in a thin and light form factor without giving up any battery life when you aren't.
- chips that don't turbo boost themselves into throttling
- not supporting a company with a toxic approach to business
I believe AMD outperforms Intel when you're targeting mobile performance/battery life, rather than "moar CPU" workloads. Though that might change now that Intel is using their own approach to performance cores. Still, given the last decade of Intel development, they don't exactly have my trust that they'll execute performance cores without serious hiccups.
AMD PSP is NOT the same as Intel ME. AMD PSP is a "trusted execution environment" (the first sentence in your link). Intel's equivalent is Intel SGX. Trusted execution environments are a security feature that does not offer remote management. It's not a privacy concern like Intel ME is.
I havent looked at the presentation yet, but are you saying the PSP, like intels ME could be doing nefarious things since its proprietary and closed? Do you have a link to information on the network capturing thing? I mean is that really a thing?
I have heard of these things before but I am not quite sure what the possibilities are. Do you have a link that can summarize what this actual means in terms of security concerns?
I don't, but they do a lot less with the PSP, especially if you're just using Ryzen Pro and not server SKUs. Intel put a web interface you can't disable with an offbrand networking gear level RCE vulnerability that needs nothing more than ethernet access into their security chip. I don't think AMD can exceed that anytime soon.
> - chips that don't turbo boost themselves into throttling
Your level of understanding about how CPUs control their frequency, voltage, and power is evidently "none". Why spread comments like this which only serve to confuse and mislead readers?
Intel configured the chips such that they turbo boost so high that they overheat and downclock themselves to compensate.
Still "no" level of understanding? If there's something incorrect about my statements, feel free to correct me -- I do want to learn more, and I'm certainly no expert in CPUs. But it's just flat out rude (and against the contributor guidelines, I believe) to comment like this. Build other people up, don't tear them down.
Your airplane analogy is not what Intel CPUs do in practice.
A better analogy:
An airplane takes off at full power, reaches cruising speed, but its engines have overtaxed themselves and can't maintain altitude. The place descends to a suboptimal altitude until the engines can turn back on, and raise the plane back to the altitude it's supposed to cruise at.
Your CPU explanation is technically correct:
> A CPU uses max power until it reaches its max operating temperature, then it maintains that temperature operating at lower power.
Yep, this is a very high-level explanation of what CPUs do. The trouble with Intel processors today is that they use max power for too long, and have to throttle so heavily to "maintain that temperature operating at lower power" that you can notice the latency when the CPU downclocks. An ideal operating curve wouldn't use max power for so long that it causes obvious latency issues to an end user. That's why I have Turbo Boost disabled on my laptops -- the few seconds of "max power" it yields just aren't worth the massive downclock while the CPU cools down. Better to set a more conservative power level that doesn't get in my way. This is especially noticeable if you use emulation or a beefy IDE like Android Studio that turbo boosts your computer to a high temperature in the first few seconds of use, then turns text editing and code suggestions into a sluggish slideshow for the next few minutes because the CPU has downclocked. Or maybe I'm just imagining that?
> This conversation started with you tearing down thousands of expert electrical engineers who make Intel CPUs.
Did I say anything bad about the engineers? I have lots of disparaging things to say about the way Intel works as a business, mostly based around how product and sales operate. I think the engineers at Intel do the best they can under the constraints of a poorly run company. But there's a reason engineering talent has been fleeing for the better part of a decade.
Better power handling per performance ratio, at least when compared to previous Intel generations.
Better integrated graphics, especially with the upcoming line, if what AMD says holds true.
Non-toxic approach to business.
Dr. Lisa Su has done incredible things with that company, and I'll happily support a group that recognizes the need for experience in top tech positions vs. MBAs/Lawyers/Fund Managers/etc...
Integrated graphics is a big deal. I was talking to a friend just this morning who has been waiting to buy a Framework until there is a gaming capable option. Intel integrated graphics isn't viable, but AMD integrated graphics meet a casual gaming bar.
Unfortunately it seems the pendulum swings on this one at least a bit. Unless you want a flagship CPU, you'll wait a good half year to a year to get half as much choice of budget CPUs with rather extreme handicap (cache).
Also half of them are OEM only.
Try to find a good current gen CPU for a small to mid sized NAS in their lineup, it's not easy.
Even if you want a flagship CPU; e.g. see the newest 5xxx series Threadrippers which were only released after a year and half and even then they are only available in overpriced e-waste systems from Lenovo where the CPU is locked down to the motherboard and won't work anywhere else.
AMD is not your friend. Just like every other huge corporation.
It's relative. AMD is "your friend" as long as it's on the back foot, so to speak. Their GPU pricing remains much better than Nvidia's, even with the extreme availability issues over the past two years, and some of their actions on the GPU side are more consumer-friendly (such as offering open-source Linux drivers). But when in a more favorable position with respect to their competitor their behavior can and does change.
> where the CPU is locked down to the motherboard
Don't quote me on this, but I think I heard that this wasn't on by default?
> It's relative. AMD is "your friend" as long as it's on the back foot, so to speak.
Which is why you should reward behavior and not branding. Buy because they're doing/selling the right thing now, not because you've got loyalty towards a multinational conglomerate.
One signal for instance I want to send is "I buy from whoever has good Linux support". You stop supporting it well, I look for competition.
First, it shows that they listened to feedback. From way over here in the corner it seems like AMD has been the most requested feature for the Framework.
Second, many people perceive that AMD outperforms Intel.
Third, many people think it is extremely important to reward positive competition in the market place.
Eighth, it would truly, truly prove the upgradeability and versatility of the Framework. Then we could move on to imagining dual^H^H^H^Hquad-Arm boards and RISCV boards and other fantasies.
> First, it shows that they listened to feedback. From way over here in the corner it seems like AMD has been the most requested feature for the Framework.
I would argue one of the most glaring problems with selling Framework laptops was that they where "still"
on Intel 11th Gen hardware which is often perceived as "not so grate" of a choice.
I'm sure they would love to also ship AMD based mobos (and Arm too) but it needs to be profitable, i.e. the additional sales gained through also supporting AMD must outclass the higher logistic cost as well as higher development cost. This might not seem like a big deal but from the little experience I have with logistics and things like maintaining Intel and AMD BIOS support, still having pressure to also ship a faster Intel mother board etc. I highly duped this makes any sense at this point in time.
Also, yes many people perceive AMD outperforms Intel, but many also perceive the opposite! Sure competition is grate, but Framework is not yet a well established company. Lastly I don't think they need to technically prove that upgrading to AMD or ARM is possible, the problem is not technology but logistics, resources (BIOS maintenance, testing, etc), supply-chains and potentially shitty contracts and practices by Intel (and other Companies).
So IMHO they need to first establish themself well, and then branch out.
Because at the moment AMD is the least scummy of the two x86 chip manufacturers. Intel as the only feasible player in town for a good segment of time, asked premium prices for meager performance increases, generation by generation.
Mainly is just out of principle and voting with my wallet.
Exactly. If we're going to be told to vote with our wallets all the time, you better let me vote with my wallet.
I bought an ASUS ZenBook earlier this year because as much as I like Framework's product, I don't want to give Intel another dollar after they bent me over a barrel for a decade.
It's simply a political/better CPU market perspective. Intel had the entire market for so long, and therefore stopped improving. They are getting some fire behind their behind-parts now, but that took a good while. I'm cheering and voting with my wallet for the underdog in the market to make the whole market more competitive. At least that's what I like to believe.
Why is there so little interest in ARM-based Linux laptops? Does AMD (or Intel) have anything even close in performance / watt that one can get from an ARM-based system?
AMD and Intel both have processors that perform much better than anything ARM-based except Apple's M1 processors (which of course nobody else has access to). That might change once Qualcomm release the new design they are supposedly working on, but that's not available yet.
I think Apple's chips aren't that far off being twice as fast as Exynos chips in single-core performance. Whereas the latest AMD and Intel chips are more or less on a par.
ARM-based laptops are definitely more niche and if you don't have a large company like Apple forcing the adaption, you'll have a hard time to support proprietary software, including stuff like drivers. It would absolutely be cool to have an open ARM-based high-end laptop, but it's not drop-in like AMD.
Does anyone know if the Framework laptop use a mainboard form factor that is available with AMD chips?
The modularity of some components can be assumed because they are industry standards, like wifi modules I suppose. Other components perhaps Framework have designed their own range of modules with a common form factor, but it must be very expensive to engineer a compatible mainboard in the same form factor with a different chipset, unless they are using an existing standardised design.
I'm not totally sure, but I think their mainboard is of their own design. They would need to adapt, but they could do it. I also think the differences are not too large, since most mainboard manufacturers offer surprisingly similar mainboards for either brand.
I have an email address that I've only used for official things, and it was used by an employer as my contact email for pension savings with Santander.
I've had the address for 10+ years and never gotten spam.
The same day I got an email from Santander about being signed up for pension there I started getting lots of spam emails.
I've recently switched to GrapheneOS, and I had issues using my old banks app (DNB, Norwegian bank) but my current bank (Sparebank1, also Norwegian) works perfectly on GrapheneOS.
I've also discovered that some apps that require safetynet, can be grabbed from the Huawei store and used, because apparently on chinese phones your bank suddenly doesn't need safetynet to be secure.
I don't live in Sweden, but in Northern Norway and go to Umeå, Skellefteå, Luleå etc a lot, and I have to agree that these are actually an absolute menace.
I am personally a car person and absolutely love the idea of an EPA in general but I've seen both crashes from them going dangerously slow (30kph on E4an, a motorway where everyone does 120-150kph) and also 250-300kph trying to outrun the police because it's a 15 year old that panics when they see the police because they were going slightly over 30kph, and conclude that flooring their overtuned Volvo 740 and escaping the police is the only thing they can try to not get a license suspension when they become 18.
I've seen some extreme builds way past 500hp too, but those tend to be more show car type builds.
You can actually quite reliably get 450-500hp out of a 2.3 redblock without even spending that much money, redblocks are notorious in tuning communities for this, almost like the 2JZ of Sweden
240kmph is where the gearing ends on a 740 iirc. The biggest engine is a 2.3l turbo that makes 170 hp stock. however, very little work goes into getting it to 300hp. Upgraded turbo, clutch, injectors and an off the shelf chip tune that you simply slot in. Past 300hp and you're looking at beefier rods and most definitely transmission upgrade or a non existent third gear.
I find this hard to believe for a different reason. Your average car becomes quite hard to control at 160kph ish (barring a completely straight stretch of road). I cannot see a 15 year old surviving any instance of going over 250kph, much less something described as ‘escaping from the police’.
I had an old 240 with the naturally aspirated B230. Going 160 kph was not really a big issue, of course not in a tight corner, but OK on regular open roads in Sweden. But 250 kph is pushing the limits for sure.
And I think you're actually agreeing with GP here, since the outcome of those attempted escapes are typically fatal accidents rather than teen escaping.
All else being equal (initial engineering and handling), an older car has a lot more wear and play in the suspension components. If you haven't spent much time under a car, there's a surprising amount of rubber there in the form of bushings.
Over time, the rubber loses its resilience, and doesn't keep things located as they should be for best handling.
Metal on metal pivots wear as well, springs get less springy, dampers degrade in damping ability, etc.
You're unlikely to notice at regular speeds, apart from getting in a new car and the handling feeling sharper. I presume at high speed and under the sorts of maneuvers one might try as a teenager doing teenager things, the results could vary.
For sure a friend of mine had a very old EPA, it would be about 70 years today if it still exists. It could not go faster than 50kph because the handling combined with imbalance in something almost shook it off the road while going "straight".
Mostly because fat sidewalls and suspension tuning that prioritized comfort over having a lap time .04sec less than whatever other mom-mobile the Consumer Reports journalist is comparing yours to.
In the UK I'm pretty sure you'd get pulled over by the police for doing 30kph on the motorway, it's reckless driving and you're putting yourself and others in danger.
Especially since those are the least experienced drivers. I wonder how 18-21 drivers look in countries with a higher age.
Though one way to look at it is that a teen driver today is just as safe/dangerous as an average driver 20 years ago, much safer than an average driver 30 years ago, and over twice as safe as an average driver 40 years ago. At least as far as fatalities go.
In the U.S., 18–21 year olds cannot legally drink, either: the federal government withholds highway funds from any state which has a drinking age less than 21, so they all raised their drinking ages.
Car safety ratings in the USA do not test for safety of people outside of the car. Otherwise the vast majority of modern pickups and SUVs would not pass those tests, primarily due to the increased hood heights. See NHTSA[0] for info.
Andrew Gounardes, a NYS senator, attempted to push through a bill that would require additional ‘pedestrian safety’ ratings be posted for vehicles for sale in the state[1]. But otherwise, I don’t know any other state that has any safety ratings for people outside of the vehicles in the US
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Pedestrian injuries and fatalities in the USA are up higher than they were since the 90s[0]. Just because it’s now safer to be a driver or occupant in a car doesn’t mean everyone is safer as a result.
Feel free to cite some sources and specify what you mean by a small fraction... The United states is large and I can point to several areas where pedestrian and cyclist injuries and fatalities are not a small fraction. They tend to be where people are allowed to walk and bike and not just areas where it's only legal or feasible to drive.
> The average crash kills more occupants than pedestrians
In the United States, that is by design. Besides a handful of primarily coastal cities, you cannot legally or feasibly bike or walk in many places.
> I don't think pedestrians are a reason to say teens shouldn't drive.
I can't find anywhere in this thread that anyone was making a claim that teens shouldn't be able to drive. I believe people were saying we shouldn't allow people who are, statistically speaking, the least capable of driving safely to drive just because they'll be safer if they crash. We shouldn't lower our already extremely low bar for driving standards just because cars are getting bigger and occupants are more likely to survive when they run into a person or a tree.
I'd be perfectly fine with a driving age of 16, as long as the license was limited to vehicles that were under a specific size/weight and our driving standards and tests were greatly improved... With states like Georgia moving ahead with allowing anyone to get a license only with parental approval[0], I have no faith in things getting any better.
> I can't find anywhere in this thread that anyone was making a claim that teens shouldn't be able to drive.
To be clear I meant "under 18" there when I said "teens", because that's the group for which the law differs by country. "teenage minors" is normally what that word means to me.
So specifically, the chain of conversation went like this:
"The issue is that 15 year olds are just that, 15 year old kids. "
"How come 16 year old kids can drive just fine in the US?"
I very much read that as talking about whether teens are a hazard and should be able to drive, deliberately making a comparison to 18+ rules in Sweden.
"They can't. [...] Sixteen- to 19-year-olds represent 3.9% of licensed drivers, but account for 8.6% of drivers in all crashes and 6.0% of drivers in fatal crashes."
That continues the same comparison. Then I argued that the total rate of fatalities has been dropping tremendously, so teens these days are less of a hazard than non-teens in decades past.
> I believe people were saying we shouldn't allow people who are, statistically speaking, the least capable of driving safely to drive just because they'll be safer if they crash.
Do you mean Aeolun's comment? It's definitely not what I meant and nobody replied to that comment. So I don't think that's what the conversation was about.
> We shouldn't lower our already extremely low bar for driving standards just because cars are getting bigger and occupants are more likely to survive when they run into a person or a tree.
I'm not sure which age bar you're talking about, but honestly it depends on what you're trying to optimize for. And it's not just occupants surviving more. People in other cars survive more, and if you look back at the same years pedestrians survive more too! In the last few years the pedestrian fraction of vehicle deaths has been 16-17% of 1.15 deaths per hundred million miles, and in the late 70s it was 16-17% of 3.3 deaths per hundred million miles. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
The improvement is less if you go per capita instead of per 100 million miles, but it's still a big improvement.
And yes I'm aware that pedestrian deaths hit a low point and have been rising in the last few years, which is a real problem, but they're still significantly lower than they used to be.
The reporting rate for collisions has gone up which confounds that measurement
Back in the day when costs were lower it was much more common to reconcile things without involving third parties and the legal requirements for max damage in low speed collisions were much more stringent.
The risk of young drivers can be mitigated by more rigorous driving tests, and also driver monitoring of risky drivers (check for patterns of sudden braking, speeding, things like that) by insurers.
But driving in the US is much, much easier than most of Europe.
Like a small city in Calfornia vs. Barcelona was a world of difference. The US has lots of wide, straight roads instead of the nightmare of one-way streets, bus lanes, bike lanes, mopeds and motorcycles etc. in Europe.
As an American currently living in Europe, who has driven in almost every US state and over half the countries in the EU, I don't fully agree. Driving in the US may be easier in the sense of requiring less cognitive load most of the time, but that doesn't translate into lower risk.
The challenges are different, but the probability of a fatal collision is higher in the US, whether per person or per vehicle, than in most EU countries. This doesn't surprise me, and it's not just due to driver training.
Navigating small streets built before cars is very likely to lead to broken side mirrors and scratched paint, but not injury or death. Misusing a bus lane gets you angry honking and gesturing from bus drivers and maybe a ticket from the police, but not injured or killed. A low-speed car-on-moped collision is bad of course, but not as bad as a car on one of those wide, straight American roads running a red light at 60 MPH and crashing into your driver's door at a right angle.
Here's a study with evidence that very wide lanes result in people driving faster and crashing more frequently, a particularly bad combination for safety.
I personally very rarely actually go check out what is linked on HN, due to mostly using it on internet connections with very restricted speeds.
I also know a fair few people in my social circle that do the same, HN is the goto "I need good content that doesn't zap 100mb of data in 3 minutes" place
I contacted EAC who confirmed I was not EAC banned, I informed EA of this and just got the default "We cannot discuss bans blah blah" reply. I then ran a GDPR data request, and after 3 weeks I got a massive dump of all my info, which included the ban reason. The ban reason was N/A, not blanked out or censored, just N/A from the data dump. I raised this with EA and they just kept telling me they can't discuss bans etc. I managed to get it escalated eventually via a complaint which lead to my account being unbanned and I got it confirmed that it was an erroneous ban.