usefulness is bound to scope/purpose,
even if innovation stops, in 3y (thanks to hw and tuning progress ) when 4o costs 0.1$/M and 4.5 1$/M even being a small improvement ( which is not imo ), you will chose to use 4.5 , exactly like no one now want to use 3.5
"Those destinations, which are listed in paragraph (a) to Supplement No. 5 to Part 740, are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For these destinations, this IFR makes minimal changes: companies in these destinations generally will be able to obtain the most advanced ICs without a license as long as they certify compliance with specific requirements provided in § 740.27." [0]
France seems clearly exempt from most of the requirements. The main requirement of 740.27 is to sign a license under U.S. law, under which customers are prohibited from re-exporting ICs to non-Third 1 countries without U.S. approval.
What's more, the text refers to AIs, which can have dual uses. The concept of dual civil-military use concerns a large number of technologies, and dates back to the first nuclear technologies.
The text gives a few examples of dual-use models, such as models that simulate or facilitate the production of chemical compounds that could be used for chemical weapon creation, non conventional weapon creation or that could simplify or replace already identified dual-use goods or technologies.
These uses are already covered by existing legislation on dual-use goods, and US export control. The American legislator is therefore potentially thinking of other uses, such as satellite and radar image analysis, and electronic warfare.
As France is a nuclear-armed country with its own version of thoses technologies, it makes little sense to place it under embargo.
But France isn't going to like being obliged once again to be forced to apply American law and regulation on its soil.
As a European, I hope that alternatives to American dependence will soon appear.
Export restrictions on US models seem like a boon for French Mistral, not a problem.
Even if for now France is strong-armed into applying the same restrictions, they will be in a much better position than US companies if US-Europe relations deteriorate. Something that's not entirely unlikely under Trump. We are a week into his presidency and France is already talking about deploying troops to Greenland
In the case of Mistral, the restrictions on exporting the model would not apply, since the model is produced in France. What's more, Mistral won't be much help in producing deadly gases or uranium enrichment facilities. It is therefore not subject to this legislation for these two reasons.
On the other hand, ICs could be subject to restrictions, and France has no alternative for sourcing large-capacity ICs.
The USA could use dollar-denominated transactions to broaden the scope of the text. It's not insurmountable, but it will complicate matters.
Actually, Mistral by virtue of not aligning/safety lobotomizing their models will indeed trivially "help in producing deadly gases or uranium enrichment facilities!"
talking about E-Waste , why modern tv doesn't have external device for the soc ? why I have to bypass the slow tv using a firestick , but the tv anyway become obsolete,
but the tv anyway becomes obsolete, and lacking security updates also potentially a danger for my home network and for the internet in general? in addition to losing some essential functions that only the soc integrated in the tv system can provide?
would it have been enough to move the computational part containing the cpu, the memory and the sw on an external hw so as to be able to swap it (proprietary or not, but at least upgradable!)
What's the difference between a TV with built in shit smarts and a plugged in firestick, and a TV with no built in smarts and a plugged in firestick?
In the former you get subsidized hardware so the TV is cheaper, in the latter you don't so the hardware is much more expensive.
My TV got a Chromecast on day one out of the box. I have never used it's smart settings, it's never been connected to any network, and it never will be connected to any network. It's remote is in a box or drawer somewhere, never used. I use the Chromecast's little cute remote as it has all the functions I need.
As long as a TV has an HDMI connection, and I can connect my external media box, I will never ever ever use the onboard smarts, but I will definitely continue using the subsidized hardware.
That you know of. It might still connect through other TVs in the vicinity using hidden access points, and reach the internet through those for automatic updates and telemetry and, of course, malware.
The best I could find was Samsung TVs connecting to a nearby unsecured hotspot (some routers used to have that by default).
OTOH, if during setup you agree to them sending telemetry, they might just use a cheap cellular modem with arrangements with local telcos for low-traffic data connections with a lower QoS than telephony, the same way some cars do OTA updates even though you don't give their on-board computers access to your phone or home.
I’m confused by this, just turn the network off on your TV and use the external device.
There aren’t any essentially functions of a TV that require a network connection.
My smart TV is only connected to the network to upgrade the firmware, and the moment firmware upgrades stop coming out I’m not going to connect it anymore.
even disconnected from the network, however I have to buy an external device to bypass some functions ( which is a non optimal workaround ),
however the bugs are not solved, however the TV remains very slow and I do not even have the courage to do a reset of the TV sw because I do not know if I could reinstall the sw to a recent version (or it would remain with the first factory beta because the updates are deprecated anyway), it is a 7 year old 65" Sony Bravia for example (led, 4k, i'm good with video/audio I don't want to change it but i'm almost forced to.. ) , the menus are very slow, some recording and playback functions of content from the line crash (since the latest updates) and I often have to restart it.... all for a non-replaceable integrated soc of $50
maybe If there was a function to disable android running in the background from the tv ( which is the default), the menus and other primary functions would run better, maybe it's possible.. but do really I have to hack the tv ? how many will do that ?
and as I've said, I'm not even confident in performing a firmware reset at this point given that I would probably get only the version released with the tv without any successive update ( anyway not a solution for everyone )
Ah that’s your problem, you bought an old Android TV.
Unfortunately you bought a bad product in the first place.
If you get an LG with WebOS or whatever Samsung puts on their TV it’s just fast from the factory and it doesn’t get slower over time.
I have a very old LG OLED, so old that it’s curved (2015 probably), and it has no slowdown or bugs like this.
But every Android TV including new ones like my friend’s cheap HiSense purchased last yesh seem to have slow volume buttons, slow bootup, slow slow slow.
I think Android wasn’t designed for the type of SoC that is in a reasonable budget for a TV manufacturer, and that’s why most TV producers like LG and Samsung don’t use it. Plus, Android TV was very much a half-baked product until recently.
In other words, your problem isn’t the non-upgradability of the SoC, your problem is that you have a bad product in the first place.
My advice is don’t worry about the waste. Every moment you worry about the waste, Taylor swift takes a 20 minute driving commute via private jet. You have finished the useful lifespan of your device, it is probably not long before it gets picture uniformity problems anyway. Get yourself a new LG OLED or Samsung QLED or something like that. You won’t regret it. It’ll be a huge upgrade over a 7 year old Bravia LED in picture quality and capabilities.
And still don’t use the smart TV built-in streaming. Use a high-end streaming box with a good processor like an Apple TV or Nvidia Shield. Don’t use a cheap Roku, that’s how you get a slow experience.
[I used to previously work at Google on Android TV, all opinions my own]
There's a constant push for more and more features because consumers and cable operators shop based on that. There's also a constant push for ridiculous BOM reduction to the tune of individual cents being saved. Android TV is non-trivial to monetize so it's hard to dedicate a whole team for performance improvements. There's an imaginary bar for "good enough" (read not too shitty) and you get this result. I hate the result but I can't see what market dynamics might change it.
Unsubsidized "HDMI output" type TVs would cost so much that they would sell poorly, resulting in even higher prices, ad nauseam. I think we're stuck with this.
Can't you just tell it to automatically switch to some HDMI input on power on?
I have one of those "smart" TCL TVs, with Google TV. No idea what the difference is with Android. I've tried using the smarts, and it was a shitshow, even brand new. Laggy as hell.
Fortunately, it has an option to turn on to the last used input. It's also possible to turn on and off by receiving some signal from an external device over HDMI. I basically never touch its remote anymore and the only reminder that it runs "Google TV" is the logo when it turns on. It's unplugged from any network, and the only consequence is a notification which disappears on its own that it's not connected to any network.
I had six TCL Roku TVs before we downsized. I plugged an AppleTV 4th Gen into the two I used the most often and set them automatically switch to the port the AppleTV was connected to.
The Apple Remote could control the volume and turn the TV on and off.
WiFi was disabled on the two that were attached to AppleTVs.
if she wanted to use this sum to aggravate her addictions, it would be understandable why they don't want to accommodate her, also in light of the fact that for Sam it would certainly be less of a bother than dealing with this whole thing, if they are going down the most difficult path for them (the family)
it is possible that they are doing it for her own good, otherwise they would have given her even $1m a year, making her sign that all the accusations were false if they had been as perverse as some commentators in this thread suggest
