wasp nest on a tree??
no, please rather don't respond, especially not with an image, I don't want to see it!
WhyJiffie
joined 2 years ago
I wanted to say this is not how it works:
My pet theory is that a lot of systems are constantly looking at what is active on the network and those pings are keeping the machine awake.
or if you meant that, computers are normally not pingable when they are asleep. net adapters only wake the computer when seeing a magic packet with their mac address in it, and it is the operating system that receives the ping request and decides to send back a ping response.
an exception is when it is set up to wake on some network traffic pattern, but few net adapters support that mode of operation
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Wake-on-LAN#Enable_WoL_on_the_network_adapter
as I heard that's pretty common at oracle, but it's good to spread the word
its not the system that handles wol, it doesn't need to ping anything. even the net adapter doesn't need to do that
it would not be a trusted service, but at most legally. just like centralized chat scanning systems.
It doesn't even have to store the verification result, if you don't want to
"if you don't want to" lol. you won't decide whether they will store anything, silly. the control is theirs, cemented, the law is on their side, the political narrative will be on their side (think of the children!!), they'll do whatever the fuck they want.
that does not seem to be right. 21 is way too high, and also this would effectively be a universal restraining order kids and not-so-kids, and adults. I don't want to go to jail just because of walking by a kid or a young adult, let alone converse with them, only sick people would actually endorse this.
but also pagers only do one way communication, don't they? that is worthless here. the goal is not to just put a GPS tracker to kids, but to give them a simple communication device.
a heavy handed approach, but I don't see one that is not heavy handed, private, and effective enough.
slight modification: mobile phone is ok if it only has a small screen like on old feature phones, no capabilities for mobile data but only calls (that's probably a software limitation), and no social media apps (or any installable apps).
perhaps wifi capability with a weak antenna, or a wifi interface that only supports low speeds.
private communications is a question though, because phone calls and SMS are anything but private.
hey people, this could work!
and its not like we need to ban kids from the internet, but to only allow them with the active supervision of a parent.
how would you ensure that this stays private? not just from facebook, but completely. as I see it, this would require some form of biometric authentication
~~I have not found an answer to this part:~~
I realized I just quoted the first 3 paragraphs of the post, so lets stay at the clarification. I haven't found the answer to OPs question.
And to clarify what I don't understand: each year flagship phone's performance don't seem to increase significantly. Regarding real world performance, not benchmarks.
That's why the question is why don't they keep the previous chipset until more meaningful gains. As OP suggested, they could either lower the price, or have more profit. Users would not feel the difference, and there's plenty of other things the manufacturer can improve or experiment with.
If the concern is that people would say "ah it's the same chipset!" and they wouldnt buy it, then the manufacturer could just replace that with another one that has roughly the same cost and performance.
they wanted answers about phone design practices, not cheaper phones.
paste resume
how do you do that? are you just uploading the PDF?
view more: next ›
yeah, now that you say that is probably most laptops in the last few years. ~~but I don't think desktops do it.~~ wrong, even my 4+ years old pc motherboard supports it according to /sys/power/mem_sleep