Generally fast charging has been a much harder nut to crack than fast discharge. If you have fast charging you necessarily have fast discharge in my experience.
One of the key skills of a software developer is inference and you guys need to go get some more coffee and come back and try reading this thread again.
For code only, even then only sometimes or even rarely. The HN comments section is like a gold mine of the Dunning Kruger effect for social awareness/intelligence. It's not even worth pointing out because you'll just get 5 paragraphs in response of "no, you're wrong because I'm smart and so I'm right". It's exhausting.
I'm only pointing out that ever since the French revolution, we have a rich history of regime change (and also of strikes and demonstrations). Some were due to external factors (like the Vichy régime during WW2) and some were bloodless (like the end of the Fourth Republic).
Us rolling the dice whenever we have a major political crisis is a meme at this point, for better or for worse we're just not the kind of people to keep the same constitution around for 250 years.
Are you trying to say the US are snitches? Or in any case, more snitches than the Europeans? More snitches than the ex-communists from the Eastern Europe?
For what is worth, France offered to extend its nuclear umbrella to protect other European countries, offer accepted by 9 countries so far. Okay it's not permanent, doesn't necessary mean deployments in those countries, but still things are moving and the direction is obvious.
Last century most people were only sometimes using the Internet. They'd "Go online", if you're young enough not to recognise that noise in Blue Prince when you use the network, that's a "Dial up modem" which is how a typical person would "Go online" in the mid-1990s. So in this regime counting minutes makes some sense.
I got a preview of the modern world from about 1996 because my first shared student house (shout out to any Hitchers reading) had a single dial-up modem set to always connect to a free-to-use University modem and then used IP Masquerading (the ancestor of today's NATs) so that all of our computers could share this tiny connection.
So by the time of my 21st birthday, I was "always on" in the same sense that you'd always be today, except with much, much lower bandwidth and what I can tell you is that this, not the bandwidth is what makes the difference.
When you're "always on" the reflexive answer to "Wait, where do Porcupines live?" is to look online. It's 1996 so Wikipedia doesn't exist yet. Google doesn't exist yet. But Tim's crap hypermedia system (the "World Wide Web") exists and so you just need to know where to look to find information about porcupines.
I didn't watch videos in 1996 because it'd take hours to receive a short low resolution video, even reading web comics was quite an undertaking, I remember downloading all of Bruno (at the time) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_(webcomic) over night so I could read it. But the fact you don't have to explicitly "go online" makes a huge qualitative difference even though the bandwidth is tiny.
> if you're young enough not to recognise that noise in Blue Prince when you use the network, that's a "Dial up modem" which is how a typical person would "Go online" in the mid-1990s
I have some lovely high-quality video of dialup modems both dialling out and dialling into with good audio, which I'll post up at some point.
We still use them at work, at least until BT finally cut the copper services off at the end of the year.
The similarity between mobile internet (CSD) and dial-up wasn't really obvious from the users' perspective because they weren't explicitly making a call to access the internet. The session was established transparently when data had to be transferred, and the time this took was charged as minutes.
Operators always dreamed of a world built on circuit-switched networks that they fully control instead of packet-switched IP networks where anyone can take part and operators are just a carrier. So the big operators started the mobile internet era with the telephony model.
Circuit switching has latency and QoS advantages, but it's definitely not worth the cost for most use cases.
Interestingly, TDM carriers have a latency of approximately one bit per hop and jitter less than that, while any kind of packetized voice such as VoIP has a latency of at least one packet worth of audio, plus one to several packet transmission times per hop, and jitter of several packet transmission times, and packet drop on top of all that. We've actually made quality worse in the name of fitting more services down the same wire, which isn't necessarily bad but it's something to think about.
Things I learned today: the very first mobile (cellular) data protocol was indeed dial-up over the GSM voice line: namely the CSD. What I had in mind - GPRS - came only later... so yes, even on mobile it was initially billed by minute. Wow.
In the early 2G GSM days, you would connect via "CSD" (Circuit-Switched Data[0]) which essentially emulated a dial-up connection (except it was digital the whole way) and that was billed per minute. Using HSCSD you could bundle multiple CSD channels for higher bandwidth but the minute charges were per channel so the cost added up.
By the time phones got built-in WAP browsers, GPRS had arrived which was billed per byte, but CSD was still supported (I remember using it once or twice in a certain building at uni where GPRS never worked for some reason)
Very early on, mobile data was essentially an emulation of an analogue modem call, at blazing fast rates like 19200baud or less, held over the same channels as voice calls with a bit of extra jiggery-pokery, and were charged by the minutes just like voice calls. Sometimes they were charged as normal voice calls, sometimes you ended up being charged extra (or not being charged extra as such, but with data calls not being counted in any pre-paid minute allowance your plan had). It was vitally important to check this before making modem calls, as some providers charged data calls in the same band as premium rate voice calls, meaning that just picking up a few text emails could be quite expensive.
[cue misty eyed memories of trying to get my Psion 5mx to connect to the Internet by infra-red serial link to my phone, to try get updated connection information for my next train as the one I was on was going to be too late to make the planned connection…]
Other way around. The phone plans were billed by the minute. Then came the Internet. In is first generation, Internet was essentially just a long distance call through a modem. Hence it was billed - like the call - by the minute.
Dedicated Internet wires came much later, and then the dedicated phone lines were dropped as voip was better quality and cheaper compared to the dedicated lines.
While the phone still had a dedicated line it didn't actually need a power connection, as the power through the phone wire was sufficient.
I'm thoroughly confused as to how what you're saying differs from my previous post, but I believe you just misunderstand that by "early phone plans" in my post's and the parent post's context, I meant phone plans for Internet access ("early" being the feature phone era).
Online services most assuredly billed by the minute. He'll, AOL had a huge marketing campaign offering "free" minutes for new customers. You might also have charges from the phone company but those were independent of the online service charges. It wasn't until the late 90s the major online services went to flat rate "unlimited" plans.
> Online services most assuredly billed by the minute. He'll, AOL had a huge marketing campaign offering "free" minutes for new customers. You might also have charges from the phone company but those were independent of the online service charges.
AOL was offering free minutes because it was an ISP, not because it was an online service. (It was also an online service. Most of that service was indeed free; some of it billed by the minute, but that was separate from the rate you paid for connecting to the internet.)
> Dedicated Internet wires came much later, and then the dedicated phone lines were dropped as voip was better quality and cheaper compared to the dedicated lines.
The telephone network made the utterly bizarre choice to intentionally degrade the audio signal of a call, guaranteeing that people would have an unnatural, distorted voice if you spoke to them over the phone. There was no way for voip not to be better quality.
If you were used to dial-up internet, (IE, where your computer was plugged into a phone line and made a phone call to your internet service provider,) that's a reasonable assumption to make. Some early services billed by the minute, too.
How do you do that without sounding negative? Because by doing that there's the risk of the general impression "we didn't agree", as you basically focused on the disagreements.
"You're totally right about X and Y. I think the only thing we disagree about is Z". People like being told they're right, and you then downplay the importance of the actual remaining disagreement. Often that lowers the stakes for people. They've already "won" since you agreed with most of what they said, so the rest becomes less important.
Repeating back what someone said (specifically: trying to mirror their exact words as best you can remember them) also has proven psychological effects: increased empathy and calming of your own emotional response and theirs.
...heavily decentralized Switzerland...? What does this even mean? Care to explain, if there is anything to explain of course? And no-regulations Switzerland? I don't know the other countries but if at least one example is completely imaginary, the rest kinda lose their strength in my view.
reply