I wonder if someone could set up some form of tunneling through much more mundane traffic, perhaps even entirely over a legitimate encrypted service through a regular browser interface (like the browser interface for services like Discord or slack or MS Teams or FB Messenger or Zoom or Google Chat/Meet) where you can just literally chat with a bot you’ve set up, and instruct the bot to do things on its end, and then forward the results through file sending in that service. From the outside it should look like encrypted chat with a popular service over that https connection.

If you’re 25 now, you were 15 during the early wild west days of smartphone adoption, while we as a society were just figuring that stuff out.

Since that time, the major tech companies that control a big chunk of our digital identities have made pretty big moves at recording family relationships between accounts. I’m a parent in a mixed Android/iOS family, and it’s pretty clear that Apple and Google have it figured out pretty well: child accounts linked to dates of birth that automatically change permissions and parental controls over time, based on age (including severing the parental controls when they turn 18). Some of it is obvious, like billing controls (nobody wants their teen running up hundreds of dollars in microtransactions), app controls, screen time/app time monitoring, location sharing, password resets, etc. Some of it is convenience factor, like shared media accounts/subscriptions by household (different Apple TV+ profiles but all on the same paid subscription), etc.

I haven’t made child accounts for my kids on Meta. But I probably will whenever they’re old enough to use chat (and they’ll want WhatsApp accounts). Still, looking over the parent/child settings on Facebook accounts, it’ll probably be pretty straightforward to create accounts for them, link a parent/child relationship, and then have another dashboard to manage as a parent. Especially if something like Oculus takes off and that’s yet another account to deal with paid apps or subscriptions.

There might even be network effects, where people who have child accounts are limited in the adult accounts they can interact with, and the social circle’s equilibrium naturally tends towards all child accounts (or the opposite, where everyone gets themselves an adult account).

The fact is, many of the digital natives of Gen Alpha aren’t actually going to be as tech savvy as their parents as they dip their toes into the world of the internet. Because they won’t need to figure stuff out on their own to the same degree.

The browser is your thin client.

Mine’s getting pretty thicc

Not sure why companies try to push mobile games like that so fucking hard. Just because everyone has a phone doesn’t mean everyone wants to play games on them.

Mobile games make more revenue than PC and console gaming combined. Of course companies are gonna try to get a bigger and bigger piece of that pie.

Once TSMC Arizona is up and running (probably 2027 or so), that’s going to be a supply chain that goes through entirely friendly countries, not at significant geopolitical risk.

There’s some history here:

SMS was ubiquitous in the United States long before smartphones. We didn’t have country codes to worry about, so anyone else in the United States was reachable in near real time over text, using an asynchronous, open, inter-carrier method of communication. If I had your phone number I could text you for free. Layered onto that was various automated systems over text (alerts, etc.). Later on, the carriers rolled out MMS for basic pictures being sent, group texts, etc.

So when iPhones became popular here, the default method of communication was SMS/MMS. The iPhone user knew that it would work with dumb phones, Android phones, Windows phones, whatever. And those habits and those chat threads predated the rise of WhatsApp, FB Messenger, WeChat, Telegram, etc., and a lot of those apps simply didn’t work with old dumb phones. Why give up an existing group chat thread just because one of those friends didn’t have a smartphone yet?

Then, whenever every member of a chat had an iPhone, the system automatically defaulted to the upgraded iMessage experience: high quality media sharing, typing/delivery/read notifications, reactions, etc. It was a slow transition, and didn’t start to show clear advantage over the open SMS/MMS standard until smartphones were ubiquitous, and where most people had iPhones.

And so once everyone had a “it just works” app, they didn’t want to switch to an app that required everyone to get a separate account and download a separate app. Especially because the iPhone hit something like 80% market share among certain demographics (the young, the non-technical rich, etc.).

Ok, thanks for talking me through this. I have completely unused HDMI ports on my laptops and I’m genuinely curious about those who are using theirs.

display - USB-C at work, HDMI (through USB-C dock) at home

Obviously you can’t use an HDMI port that you don’t have, but I gotta ask: if you had one of the newer MBPs with built-in HDMI, would you be using that HDMI port? Because it sounds like you wouldn’t, and that you’d still rely on the USB-C dock to do everything.

And that’s been my position this whole thread. I think that the MBP’s return of the HDMI port was greeted with lots of fanfare, but I don’t actually know anyone who switched back to HDMI.

Yeah, I’m not going to throw out perfectly good hardware just to unify cables somewhat.

I was referring to the replacement of HDMI 2.0 stuff with 2.1 stuff - not seeing an advantage to choosing HDMI 2.1 over Thunderbolt. And then there’s the support hell of intermingled HDMI 2.0 and 2.1 stuff, including cables and ports and dongles and adapters.

Either way, I’m still stuck on the idea of direct HDMI use as being so ubiquitous that it warrants being built into a non-gaming laptop that already has Thunderbolt and DP (and USB-PD) support through the preexisting USB-C ports.

Thunderbolt only works for workstations if the monitor supports it

Even if driving multiple monitors over HDMI or DVI or DP or VGA or whatever, the dock that actually connects directly to the laptop is best served with Thunderbolt over USB-C, since we’d expect the monitors and docking station (and power cords and an external keyboard/mouse and maybe even ethernet) to all remain stationary. That particular link in the chain is better served as a single Thunderbolt connection, rather than hooking up multiple cables representing display signal data, other signal data, and power. And this tech is older than HDMI 2.1!

So I’m not seeing that type of HDMI use as a significant percentage of users, enough to justify including on literally every 14" or 16" Macbook Pro with their integrated GPUs. At least not in workplaces.

You use HDMI for all those use cases? Seems like Thunderbolt is a much better dock for workstations, and DisplayPort is generally better for computer monitors and the resolution/refresh rates useful for that kind of work. The broad support of cables and HDMI displays is for HDMI 2.0, which caps at 4k60. By the time HDMI 2.1 hit the market, Thunderbolt and DisplayPort Alt mode had been out for a few years, so it would’ve made more sense to just upgrade to Thunderbolt rather than getting an all new HDMI lineup.

To a second screen, sure. But I’m saying that DisplayPort and Thunderbolt are so much better, are generally supported by more computer monitors (but probably fewer TVs). I’d be surprised that there are a lot of people using HDMI in particular.

Now, I don’t know if it’s in USBC cables

It’s not. Apple specifically follows the USB-PD standard, and went a long way in getting all the other competing standards (Qualcomm’s Quick Charge, Samsung Adaptive Fast Charge) to become compatible with USB-PD. Now, pretty much every USB-C to USB-C cable supports USB-PD.

Also a shout out to Google Engineer Benson Leung who went on a spree of testing cables and wall adapters for compliance with standards after a charger set his tablet on fire. The work he did between 2016-2018 went a long way in getting bad cables taken off the market.

Are people connecting their laptops to TVs frequently enough that this should be built into every single unit shipped? I can’t imagine the percentage of users who actually use their HDMI ports is very high.

HDMI is a dogshit standard and everyone should’ve moved over to DisplayPort or Thunderbolt over the USB-C form factor.

Most people don’t look while typing, especially things with muscle memory like passwords, when using a physical keyboard. And a zoom call doesn’t convey facial data in three dimensions. The unique nature of the virtual keyboard, plus the three dimensional avatar, makes this new attack more feasible.

From my frame of reference they designed the phones to be backwards compatible with preexisting accessories.

Sounds like what they already did: as soon as the virtual keyboard pops up the eye movement isn’t transmitted as part of the avatar.

Do you mean Lisa Frank, the artist for colorful animals on school supplies, and not Anne Frank, the famous diarist who was killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust?

Yeah, this advanced packaging stuff is pretty new, where they figured out how to make little chiplets but still put them onto the same package, connected by new tech that finally allows for high speed, low latency connections between chiplets (without causing dealbreaker temperature issues). That’s opened up a lot of progress even as improving the circuits on the silicon itself has run into engineering challenges.

So while TSMC seemingly ahead of its competition on actually printing circuits on silicon with smaller and denser features, advanced packaging tech is going a long way in allowing companies to mix and match different pieces of silicon with different strengths and functionality (for a more cost effective end solution, and making better use of the nodes that aren’t at the absolute bleeding edge).

Engineers are doing all sorts of cool stuff right now.

You’re right, it’s not the same die, but the advanced packaging techniques that they keep improving (like the vertical stacking you mention) make for a much tighter set of specs for the raw flash storage silicon compared to what they might be putting in USB drives or NVMe sticks, in power consumption/temperature management, bus speeds/latency, form factor, etc.

So it’d be more accurate to describe it as a system on a package (SiP) rather than a system on a chip (SoC). Either way, that carries certain requirements that aren’t present for a standalone storage package separately soldered onto the PCB, or even storage through some kind of non-soldered swappable interface.