"Tech giant Microsoft announced today it plans to build a useful quantum computer in just 3 years"
Leading with this dubious claim is fine comedy. Microsoft can barely build a useful conventional computer that runs its own platform and associated products. The Surface Book 3's being used at my job all launch Teams, Excel and Outlook like they're perpetually struggling to get out of bed. The Surface Pros have display issues minutes out of the box. This foolish Dash to Quantum will result in a lot of disappointment as unreliable rushed-to-market hardware is tauted by companies like Microsoft that are historically fond of doing just that.
And no, I don't think quantum computing is all hype. There is definitely meat on the bone, even if it only returns us to the somewhat annoying days of time sharing that most HN readers are probably too young to remember. But these idiots are fueling the hype train for the sake of quick-buck valuation, puffing for an audience that is increasingly tired of over-promising and under-delivering to the point where we will finally have an actual quantum computer and nobody will give a shit, especially after this whole AI circus has continued to prove itself an expensive pagent full of mummers and gimmicks.
I've been to a lot of countries (and thus through a lot of customs agents), the most they ever ask me to do, if anything at all, is turn the laptop on. I think the point is they want to make sure it's an actual laptop and not just a shell hiding something else. I've never had an agent touch my machine or show any interest in doing so, and I say that as someone who gets the extra searches often because I carry a lot of odd looking parts and small tools for work. Just pointing that out because I think the paranoia about what customs agents are allowed to do is a bit overblown unless you're suspected of smuggling or transporting something nefarious. They're not interested in what's on your laptop until you give them a reason to be.
I almost got denied boarding for a EU -> US flight ~13 years ago because the TSA agent at the gate noticed my 2011 MBP had 2 screws missing on the bottom panel (I've opened it up a bunch of times and lost some screws in the process). It didn't convince them that I turned it on and logged in etc. They still had doubts because, apparently, missing screws on a macbook was unheard of.. in the end, they held up the plane for ~10 mins due to waiting for a go/no-go decision via phone from some decision maker at the airline (as the final call was apparently theirs to make for some reason). Luckily, they were OK with missing screws and I was let on board.
I think it probably depends where you're going. We have relatives in a country where it might be a bit more of a concern, and we did briefly research taking a trip there to visit them, which is when all of this came up. In the end, for a variety of reasons, we decided it was going to be too risky to take that trip unless and until conditions change.
There are many countries where I wouldn't be at all worried about that, but I'd still be concerned about the possibility of theft (which, let's be real, can happen anywhere: I went on a trip to Switzerland once - generally considered very safe and low crime - where somebody had their laptop stolen from their room).
The Surface Book or whatever is going to be your best option because you want the 2-in-1 features. We had a few at my job before I switched to an XPS 13 since I never used it as a tablet and it was a weighty thing to have in my bag. Didn't hate using it like a laptop, though. Unfortunately, the price tag is also going to reflect the branding, so it won't be cheap. Same thing with a Lenovo Yoga or X13. That kind of functionality with good hardware is almost always going be pricy, I guess.
Can I ask why you want 2-in-1? I've personally never found the convert-to-tablet useful, and I have to imagine only visual artists might. I bought a nice case with a keyboard for my iPad Mini thinking I'd use it as a tiny laptop on the go, but in all honesty, I forgot the keyboard existed until I started typing this.
Not knocking your needs, just curious what kind of user those are for since I am obviously not the market
2in1s make a laptop immensely more versatile and useful:
- Tent mode is a much better to watch movies on or play games (via controller)
- In tent mode you can position a keyboard how you like, and you can put a secondary screen more how you would on a proper desktop. This way you can create a comfortable full desktop work environment on every desk.
I wouldn't even care much about the touchscreen otherwise, although it's a nice way to read articles on a train.
Didn't really think about tenting it, thanks for explaining. I don't game or watch much media beyond the occasional how-to on YouTube, so the usefulness was lost on me. Appreciate the perspective, since I frequently get asked "which computer should I buy for X" IRL because I'm the local crufty computer guy, I guess.
As someone who always favors the smaller laptops that don't require me to gear up an entire backpack just to do a bit of work on the go, I'd argue that the difference between a 10" and 13" screen is not nearly as much as it sounds. I've found the Dell XPS 13's to be an excellent choice for stowing in my service bag so I have a small-but-functional machine on a job site. That and the Dell XPS 13 just has better hardware all around, when stood up against the Chuwi.
15", sure, that's a bit big, but smaller models are available.
The thing about a diagonal measurement is it doesn't tell you if it's going to fit on a shitty airline tray table or not. Some laptops with a larger diagonal measurement are not too deep. Others are way too deep.
Are we sure this is not just harmless and arbitrary information being parroted? Do we have verifiable sources other that anecdote? I find it hard to believe that there is just a single value for water intake across the massive biological spectrum that is humanity and expect to see a range when this conversation comes up. You're also getting water from foods, which I am sure is not being accounted for. Reminds me of the 10k steps a day that just happened to be "correct enough" to be believed and acted on. The truth is much more nuanced and depends on a number of factors in a person's physical health.
Without concrete verifiable findings, the best we can do is learn to pay attention to our bodies and drink maybe a little bit more water than we think we need to.
The European doctor quoted certainly said "3 liters" from both drinks and food (especially vegetables). In Europe I think we drink between 1 and 2 liters per day in actual water, depending on how dry the weather is.
Agreed. Being in the Midwest US, my intake also varies widely, depending on weather or season, physical activity, and the foods I've been eating.
I'm not entirely dismissive of doctors, be they European or American, as most I've encountered do have the patient's best interest at heart. But they are also human, and it is very easy to stick with the safe and easy answer rather than do the work to find the real answer. So when I hear claims like that, I immediately doubt them, assuming it is placeholder information because we do not know the actual answer. Unfortunately, a lot of our media in the US considers such "placeholder information" to be actionable, and ends up convincing the public (including doctors) of its veracity.
I always laugh about those ridiculously large water bottles American carry and how they remind you all the time that you must drink water as if I did need it. I wonder why that happens.
sure, there are different recommended amounts, the EFSA recommendations are 2.5l per day for a grown up man and 2l for a woman[0]. I'm a bit bigger than the average so I got 3l as a recommendation when I was on a diet or when I had specific issues.
But I didn't mean to imply everyone should drink it, just that it's not hard to drink that much. And yes, of course you ingest a lot of water through other means too.
I’ve always been extremely suspicious of constant water consumption. No other mammal seems to do this. Even the ones that require a lot of water like horses will only drink when they’re thirsty or while eating.
Its aggravated because the "water sensor" appears to fail early with age. Elderly people tend to not get the thisty feeling as often, but get dehydrated anyway.
I wonder how much of the effects of ageing are due to cascading failures downstream of alterations like these. For example, it's common for people to lose teeth in advanced ages. How much of this is due to dry mouths from insufficient water intake? Fallen teeth then may become entry points for infections, et cetera. Perhaps fixing a few early causes we can avoid a lot of negative effects and live more, without the need to go full spartan in lifestyle discipline.
I don’t know the exact things. I only know that diabetes would make this loss tremendously. As to teeth loss, it’s mainly because periodontitis but not age though it always goes worse as the age increases because of their life behaviors.
I agree, but in fairness, I don't know of any brand, tech or otherwise, that can completely wall itself off against insider threats. No matter how vigilant you are, someone who knows exactly how you move will find a way around you.
I can understand it's hard to defend against plausibly deniable errors that create backdoors, etc. But this would show a complete lack of code review, no?
> But this would show a complete lack of code review, no?
You'd be surprised how many websites use Google Tag Manager to allow their marketing department to roll out trackers and other JS snippet directly into the site's root context.
GTM et al's sole reason of existence is to provide marketing people with a way to bypass corporate IT.
And I definitely would not rule out something like this being the cause in the end.
Not even that. Bury it in a sufficiently-large PR and there’s a very good chance it’ll be rubber-stamped because no one wants to take the time to carefully review the entire set of changes.
I did the same thing, but realized I was contributing to the problem. If a web app requires Chrome for full functionality, then us switching browsers is giving them permission to continue and expand their invasive practices.
These days, I just navigate away from anything that demands I use Chrome "for best results." One of the sites for a local utility company does this, so instead I just call monthly and pay or manage my service by phone. I'm old enough to remember when that was the preferred way after mailing personal cheques went the way of the dodo, so it does not feel that inconvenient to me, but I can see where it might for other people. Still, nobody said the fight to regaining our agency online would be easy. Or convenient.
Leading with this dubious claim is fine comedy. Microsoft can barely build a useful conventional computer that runs its own platform and associated products. The Surface Book 3's being used at my job all launch Teams, Excel and Outlook like they're perpetually struggling to get out of bed. The Surface Pros have display issues minutes out of the box. This foolish Dash to Quantum will result in a lot of disappointment as unreliable rushed-to-market hardware is tauted by companies like Microsoft that are historically fond of doing just that.
And no, I don't think quantum computing is all hype. There is definitely meat on the bone, even if it only returns us to the somewhat annoying days of time sharing that most HN readers are probably too young to remember. But these idiots are fueling the hype train for the sake of quick-buck valuation, puffing for an audience that is increasingly tired of over-promising and under-delivering to the point where we will finally have an actual quantum computer and nobody will give a shit, especially after this whole AI circus has continued to prove itself an expensive pagent full of mummers and gimmicks.
reply