This construction of wind and solar has nothing to do with renewable, and everything to do with China's desire to get as much electricity generation as possible, which involves increasing nuclear, coal, hydro, and everything else.[1]
That wikipedia article needs to be updated for the last few years.
2025 was the first year where coal generation declined YoY. Nuclear capacity additions in 2025 were about 1% of solar additions - there is no comparison. Primarily solar and secondarily wind is the core generation strategy.
1GW of nuclear is worth about 3 to 6GW of solar if you account for the weather and nighttime. If you also account for nuclear not needing fossil backup its worth even more
The ideal is the owner being able to use TPM/SecureBoot/etc to ensure that the device is in the configuration they want. That means resisting tampering, and making any successful tampering become obvious.
The problem is third parties using TPM/SecureBoot/etc as a weapon against the owner via remote attestation, by preventing them from configuring their own device, with the threat of being cut off from critical services.
Having the upside without the downside would be nice, but how could it work? Is a technical solution feasible, or would it need a law/regulation?
Not a crypto expert, but given how both, bad players seeking control and people seeking to verify their cloud machines are both remote it seems that the technology will rollout without problem and will end up being force fed into all consumer devices with bullshit excuses.
There are several gaps in capability between headsets and glasses, which cannot be filled by any existing technology.
For example, consider field of view, which is a critical measurement of these displays. Typical specs are 120 degrees for headsets, 40 for glasses.
Headsets also perform very high performance rendering compared to glasses. The tiny <1Wh batteries in glasses are insufficient for that amount of work.
Glasses can't be expected to compete with headsets, much less eliminate them from the market entirely within a few years. It makes more sense to think of VR headsets and AR glasses as completely unrelated product categories.
All of that will be solved by miniturisation and advancement of tech.
I think you are short sighted (haha!) to think that headsets and glasses are different categories, and that headsets are not just a preliminary research phase to things in the future like smart contact lenses etc.
Let's not hand-wave field of view. Glasses cannot display anything outside the bounds of their frames, and therefore cannot have a field of view as large as a headset. No amount of miniaturization will overcome that limitation.
Contact lenses having the capability of a headset? That's just magical thinking.
> But I wonder if they have run afoul of the EU Radio Equipment Directive in this case, by refusing to receive power from some devices.
Sorry for being out of the loop, but is this recent?
I have been annoyed on my ps5 dualsense controller since purchase, as it wont take charge from several of my USB-C cables. Most notably it refuses to take charge from my macbook USB-C charging cable.
One of those small annoyances, I need a "special" usb-c cable around just to charge my usb-c controller...
I didn't have this problem when I had a PS5. Is it a known problem? Because I charged my controller using a Sennheiser headphone cable, and even an old type-A to type-C cable worked. Never had a single problem.
There are lots of details about the technology, license agreements, service history, comparable platforms, and whatnot, which all form reasonable support for botghost.
None of that matters in the slightest. They're dealing with an indifferent, capricious, unaccountable company. And trying to do it without enough leverage to even get a response.
It seems like it's about to end the way it was always going to.
And they should treat them like it. Adversarial interoperability is the name of the game now. If they need little robots typing on real phones, so be it.
yup, agreed- worth going over the non tl;dr (sufficient to say the tl;dr misses some good juice, but thats what the page in full is for).
i was sorta curious on the policy changes over time, since botghost has been around since '18. all i can say is good luck to botgost
histories of policies-ish:
- from the tl;dr (they also explain #4 as well in the non-tl;dr):
> Discord issued a breach notice to BotGhost, claiming the platform violates Developer Policy 4 by handling bot tokens, which has been a core part of how BotGhost has worked since 2018.
> 4. Do not collect, solicit, or deceive users into providing passwords or other credentials. Under no circumstances may you or your Application request or attempt to obtain login credentials from Discord users. This includes information such as passwords or account access or login tokens.
> Do not collect, solicit, or deceive users into providing user login credentials. Under no circumstances may you or your Application solicit, obtain, or request login credentials from Discord users in any way. This includes information such as passwords or user access or login tokens.
- and archive.org of github of the before 2022 change (mentioned in the above archive) (does not really mention collecting of user auths - as per my quick glance [i welcome a double check]): https://web.archive.org/web/20220921062136/https://github.co...
> NEITHER DISCORD NOR ITS AFFILIATES, SUPPLIERS, OR DISTRIBUTORS MAKE ANY SPECIFIC PROMISES ABOUT THE APIs, API DATA, DOCUMENTATION, OR ANY DISCORD SERVICES.
The existence of terms like this make any discussion of the other terms look pretty silly.
Their policy is simply that they do whatever they want, and that hasn't changed.
It's also funny how selective-enforcement the discord TOS and dev policies are -- they turn a blind eye if not even encourage third party/modified first party clients "because retro" / "haha discord on windows 95 funny" (and even encourage it in some cases), yet those modified clients are explicitly banned in the TOS.
Every business does this. Every business. Every institution, even.
Rules are there for a few reasons, but precisely enumerating the things you can and cannot do isn't one of them. (That's why programmers definitely shouldn't litigate pro se.)
One purpose is to try to indemnify the institution making the rules: "See, we said you're not allowed to do X. Damages resulting from X aren't our fault." Another purpose is to deter bad behaviour: if they say you're not allowed to do X, you're less likely to do X. A third purpose is to provide cover for their actions - most easily by writing a rule that literally everyone breaks and then selectively enforcing it, or by writing vague rules you can selectively interpret. If they can punish you and then point to a rule you allegedly broke, you're more likely to accept it and less likely to retaliate. Notice how all of these purposes have to do with manipulating other people. (Are you reminded of any countries?)
You should do it too, if you want to be successful in an amoral business environment. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Unless your customers pay extra for well-defined rules to create a stable environment for themselves. In that case, you should do that, and take their money. That sort of thing is, for example, why some people would rather pay more for a technically inferior Fairphone or Librem than a flagship Android phone or iPhone.
That isn't an AI image. This thread is people winning an argument in their own heads.
It actually very much looks like the kind of ads for chemical companies you see in Japanese airports. (A funny contrast to the UK, which has decided it doesn't need to have an economy anymore so literally every ad in the London subway is for a musical.)
What's your source for that assertion? The image has AI-isms and is suspiciously similar to a much less AI-looking image that someone else in the thread linked to in a PDF regarding the research. You can say it looks like a human could've done it, but that's not any less "winning an argument in your own head" unless you've got evidence of what human drew that image.
I don't see any AI-isms. The most common one would be that parts of the image tend to be conceptually unclear or blend together, but these are recognizable objects composited into one image.
At most the bubbles could be, but I think they're just stock art.
The ocean having two distinct surfaces, one distinctly below another, is such an AI-ism that I don't think I've ever in my life seen it in human-generated art.
True, and applies to many other things as well. Anyone claiming otherwise is shirking responsibility for their own actions. Every single sibling comment here suffers from this.
Arguments in the form of "other people do it, so I must also" are unpersuasive and pathetic.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
reply