I believe you might be right regarding the port itself being the issue here. I have a Minisforum UM775 (basically the previous gen of the 790 Pro mentioned in the OP) and despite having two "USB4" ports, only one is rated for 40Gbps while the second one is 10Gbps.
I cannot find any specifics regarding the ports on this 790 Pro one, but I'm certain that's ultimately the issue: the bottleneck is on that second (the one on the right) USB4 port.
Finding working-as-advertised chargers appears to be hard if not downright impossible. The situation does appear to be a little better if you own a Tesla, but if you own most any other make of EV you're going to have a bad time. From a hard requirement of a third-party app to pay, chargers using cables that do not meet spec, outright broken charging stations, issues with the apps themselves, and so on. Aging Wheels did an excellent video[1] on how frustrating the experience can be.
There's the GPD Win Max 2[1] which is 10.1" or the Pocket 3[2] at 8". I have the Pocket 3 and the keyboard, while serviceable, is not good enough for day-to-day use. I also briefly had a Max 2 and the keyboard was much better, but still nowhere near as good as the X220.
Not entirely true. Take the recent controversy around YouTuber Markiplier having users' accounts shut down (including both YouTube and Gmail) for spamming his YouTube livestream chatroom.[1]
I also did a quick search and it's been a while since both Gmail/Google accounts and YouTube accounts are tied to one another.[2][3]
>I live in Mexico, I've never seen anyone in Mexico make minimum wage, ever. And I do know people from all walks of life.
Sorry, but have you really met actual working class people that work in "maquilas"? It is not uncommon to see people earning around 600 MXN pesos a week which is barely enough to count as minimum wage.
What advantage does this solution have over having a custom font configuration on Linux with fallback support for a font with unique unicode glyph support? In my case, I have Google's Noto font as my main font and have Font Awesome and Emoji One as my fallback fonts and it seems to cover everything.
I totally agree that fallback is the way to go. Unfortunately I couldn't get powerline glyphs to work on my archlinux box, lost patience and just grabbed the droid patched fonts.
I would say that it adds portability, consistency and makes it easier to have glyphs working straight.
I'm genuinely curious, do you have any idea how other OSs handle fonts? Does OSX have something similar to Linux's X11's font configuration? What about Windows?
Agreed with this comment. We have the technology where creating an organization should be fairly trivial. From Facebook to LinkedIn to MeetUp to Twitter, there are endless places where one could find other similar-minded folks. Gaining exposure might not be easy, but it shouldn't be difficult enough to make it impossible. There is endless information and postmortems for similar organizations that should help figure out the best way to approach these issues.
I can't remember exactly if it was the GNOME Women Outreach program that was shut down recently, but I remember there being a lengthy author about the president of the organization's decision to step down and close the program (because no one else would step up to the chair, among other problems). The post went into some detail about where it succeeded and where it failed. Stuff like that could be very helpful if a new self-interest group decides to form.
> I can't remember exactly if it was the GNOME Women Outreach program that was shut down recently, but I remember there being a lengthy author about the president of the organization's decision to step down and close the program (because no one else would step up to the chair, among other problems).
Outreachy is alive and well, and has grown to encompass many more projects beyond GNOME, including the Linux kernel, OpenStack, and others. The Software Freedom Conservancy runs it now.
I rarely ever comment, but posts similar to this one have been popping out more and more as of late. I am a minority. I grew up in a different country, and most of my close friends are minorities, too, both female and male; half of them being in the tech industry. (If my username didn't give it away, I'm hispanic and so are most of my acquaintances.)
With that out of the way, I do not understand anything about this article. This bolded line, for example:
>Rarely, though, will you ever hear a white person lamenting about working conditions that their black/brown child/spouse/sibling might have to endure, because they rarely have those relationships, so aren’t forced to develop empathy for brown/black people.
What working conditions? Care giving any examples? What are some pointers you could give to white people to help them understand your deplorable working conditions? Is it simply that there are no black speakers at conferences, or holding positions in these tech organizations?
Personal experiences, as well as experiences from my hispanic friends, point to no such implied "bad working conditions." Some of my friends are brown-skinned and have noticeable accents. Most still use Spanish as their primary language, both on and offline. Yet there has been not one single incident involving either myself or any of my hispanic friends where we suffered any sort of discrimination, or experienced unwelcoming working conditions.
Maybe the author and I have different goals when we attend such conferences. Maybe there are more hispanics than blacks or native Americans in tech. Yet I don't understand why that would matter when attending a conference.
>Yet for the 2015 conference, they could not manage to find one black woman to be a “headline” speaker. Two white men are included in the set of headline speakers at a conference celebrating women in technology, but not a single black woman.
It infuriates me to see this obsession with ethnic or racial background. This obsession with the color of the speaker's skin. In my eyes, that the keynote speakers are white males does not invalidate their opinions in any way. There is no implied message that they speak on behalf of women, or minorities. It's an invitation. It does not mean that they're not qualified on the subject - if anything, these "old white men" are the ones running these big companies and are there not just to speak, but to also listen to the other speakers and the attendants.
I opened the videos linked in the article and I'll try to skip through them and I'll report back, hopefully. It just boggles my mind that in this day and age there is still this obsession with the speaker's racial background. And there is no solution proposed, either, besides "they should find more people of color to speak at these events." Isn't that the one of the points of these conferences? And is there any progress being made, considering that last year's was the first one Google organized? Did the author gather any information about this year's? Does the author have any proposals or people she would like to see at these events?
I go to tech conferences to learn. My political and ethnic background is never, ever something that makes me biased against or for an event. It is also never a problem. My slightly noticeable accent, my hispanic facial features, my shirts with Spanish sentences, they do not have any effect on how people treat me.
It might all come down to what your goals are when attending any event.
you're speaking from your experience which is fine and YMMV, but it's useful to listen to hers about how she feels. Discounting others' experiences doesn't help. She's talking about feeling excluded from tech as a woman of color because tech has made a priority to include more women speakers, but has completely ignored that there are women of color who are ignored. The industry thinking that they're"solving" diversity by increasing women, but ignoring women of color are only solving part of the problem. The main point I'm making is inclusion matters, in the workforce and at conferences. And the benefit of having people of color speaking is being exposed to experiences and P.O.V.s from people of color. There are studies that show that people of color or from various backgrounds are better problem solvers because of adversity they've had.
Also, using anecdotal evidence from your circle of friends who have had positive experiences is dismissive of others who haven't.
You know, I find it strange how I can't remember a single person complaining about lack of diversity who wasn't complaining only about their specific type of diversity.
Case in point: the author is, by her own admission, a black woman and complains about the part of her identity that is not well represented: her (black) skin.
There's something almost funny in asking people to care for one's situation when the speaker isn't even speaking at large: why isn't she also complaining about asian, native american, indian and how many others not being represented?
Because in America, your opinions are only valid as far as your credentials. For example, if you have dark skin, your opinions on black Americans are valid, if you're autistic, your opinions on mentally ill Americans are valid, if you're a computer, your opinions on American computers are valid, etc. It may be a flawed system, but it's better than slavery and feudalism, and it somewhat works to keep people's minds off the real issues, so it's all good.
Not sure if sarcasm or not, but it's REALLY hard to understand wha ankther races experiences without listening and people who listen without being dismissive/judgemental are exceptionally rare.
[Same poster as ohhimark, had forgotten my password]
Maybe so, but what I mean is that I (and presumably the people she is writing this for) are not black women. They're not indians, asians and many other things too of course (which is my point).
As an opinion piece (which I suppose it is), it's something interesting to think about. Yet, doesn't it say something about everyone of us if even minorities advocating for equal rights don't see the bigger picture and advocate for more than their specific situation?
It's a self-defeating argument in a way: the author is arguing that people are caring mostly for only one type of inequality… by decrying only their specific situation while making no mention of all the other types.
I guess what I am saying is that I wish the author would have framed her case as an example tying in to the general case.
When one gets to this point in their reasoning, perhaps they'd realize that we are resource-constrained and no matter what we do, we'll be "excluding" some categories.
And yet what I just wrote is too dismissive. I don't know what the best way to go about all this is, but it sure is very upsetting to be blamed, as part of the "dominant group", for not doing enough when the very people pointing the fingers seem to have similar biases towards minority groups they are not part of.
Then again, perhaps in this case they could have just called the event "inclusion for women" since that's what it's currently focused on.
Well yeah, she's obviously speaking from her position about something she sees and feels. Like most people, you're most aware of obstacles you face and less of others. She's fighting her fight. And obviously anyone reading that can apply that to other races/groups.
And it's not just Carmack and Abrash - they also have Tom Forsynth [0] and Atman Binstock [1], two other amazing people who've been pioneers in graphics programming and VR (and AR) development! And it's very likely that Valve will soon be firing most people who worked on their VR prototype, which means that it's possible that Oculus VR picks them up as well.
It's the closest thing to a dream team for nerds: Abrash and Carmack, two of the people who completely changed an entire industry in the 90s; Luckey, the definition of a true hacker who helped revive a dying market (if there ever was one in the first place); Forsynth and Binstock, who also played a key role in many areas in the games industry; and lastly, Zuckerberg, a ruthless nerd with impossibly-deep pockets.
I'm kind of curious as to why you think that Valve will be firing most of their VR team. Do you think that they have fully proven that VR is possible and done what they can without going in to production?
If I'm not mistake I believe that a handful of the VR people are also working on the steambox and controller which still has a ways to go.
Last year Valve did "mass" (relative to the size of the company and divisions) firings [0] after Jeri Ellsworth was fired. Right now it's just speculation, but I doubt Valve has either the time, money or motivation to compete against two giants, Facebook and Sony, and against the other new competitors that are starting to appear [1][2][3].
Valve's hands are already full with the SteamBox, the controller, Steam itself and however many games they have in development. But yes, you're right - some of the VR developers might simply be relocated to other projects within Valve. Who knows.
You say it's "very likely" that Valve will fire certain people, but when pressed your reasoning is that they fired some other people in the past and are involved in a number of projects.
But the AR guys' project was seen as a failure, or at least as a poor fit with Valve, they apparently weren't very interested in working on Valve's other projects, and there had been antagonism between them and the rest of Valve. I don't think there are similar problems in this case.
Yes and no. It's still too early to tell if Oculus VR will ditch or give less priority to the gaming aspects of the Rift. These are all knee-jerk reactions, and they are unwarranted. Carmack himself says not to worry[0] about the Facebook acquisition, and I trust him.
Considering that Oculus VR is hiring industry veterans like Abrash, Carmack, Forsynth, Binstock, et al. I'd expect them to be even more focused. These are all people that have worked on big projects, some of which have failed (Abrash and Forsynth worked on the failed Intel project Larrabee, for example) and some of which have been quite successful (Carmack's tremendous history with graphics engines, the working VR prototype from Valve). They are focused and you can see from this blog post/announcement that they are extremely excited about the project.
Another thing is, Sony's Morpheus, at least right now, will work only on the PS4. The PS4's hardware will be "outdated" by the time the Morpheus is released, if it isn't already. The Rift provides more freedom to the developers from what we've seen, and given the history of the Oculus VR employees, with their openness about their goals and projects, it's going to be more favorable for the developers in the long run than working with Sony's closed system.
I cannot find any specifics regarding the ports on this 790 Pro one, but I'm certain that's ultimately the issue: the bottleneck is on that second (the one on the right) USB4 port.