Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Businesses

Google, LG, Don't Want Qualcomm's Super-Expensive Flagship Processor Snapdragon 865, Reports Say (ndtv.com) 59

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Google and South Korean tech major LG are likely to skip the top tier Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 platform this year for their smartphones as the cost of the chipset is too high, a report claimed. From a report: The Pixel 5 and Pixel 5 XL don't actually use Qualcomm's flagship Snapdragon 865 as per the Android code base. Both are running the Snapdragon 765G, a chip that's one step down from the 865 in Qualcomm's lineup. There isn't actually a Snapdragon 865 Google phone in the Android repository, ArsTechnica reported on Monday. LG is taking a similar approach to its 2020 flagship, the LG G9 ThinQ: instead of shipping the Snapdragon 865, the company is also opting for the cheaper 765G, according to website Naver.
Android

Xiaomi Spins Off POCO as an Independent Company (techcrunch.com) 6

Posted by msmash from the moving-onward dept.
Xiaomi said today it is spinning off POCO, a sub-smartphone brand it created in 2018, as a standalone company that will now run independently of the Chinese electronics giant and make its own market strategy. From a report: The move comes months after a top POCO executive -- Jai Mani, a former Googler -- and some other founding and core members left the sub-brand. The company today insisted that POCO F1, the only smartphone to be launched under the POCO brand, remains a "successful" handset. The POCO F1, a $300 smartphone, was launched in 50 markets. Xiaomi created the POCO brand to launch high-end, premium smartphones that would compete directly with flagship smartphones of OnePlus and Samsung. In an interview in 2018, Alvin Tse, the head of POCO, and Mani, said that they were working on a number of smartphones and were also thinking about other gadget categories. At the time, the company had 300 people working on POCO, and they "shared resources" with the parent firm.

Comment Re:Performance vs flexibility/cost (Score 1) 63

by Ambient Sheep (#59461184) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Much Faster Is an ASIC Than a Programmable GPU?

I suspect the person asking this question is the same one who asked nearly exactly the same question here a few months ago from memory.. and surprisingly, the answers have not changed.

I'm glad it's not just me who recognised it. So I went and looked:

https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/story/360...

Yup, same guy.

Comment Re:it was game over the moment he started it (Score 1) 184

by Ambient Sheep (#58778750) Attached to: What Really Happened To Malaysia's Missing Airplane

"Had they realised about the double-back earlier they might have got him" nope. Everybody was dead the moment he started it and presumably incapacited the copilot. There is nothing the passenger or the military could have done at that point. [...] By that point the only thing that could be changed is bringing disclosure on the where about of the remain.

Yes, exactly. I quite agree. Sorry, my wording wasn't brilliant as I was typing in a rush. By "got him" I meant "got his location". As I wrote to somebody else who picked up on the same point...

at least they'd have known where to pick up the wreckage, which might have given us some confirmation of what happened and would certainly [well, hopefully] have given all those families some closure and bodies to bury

Comment Re:Electronic failure is conceivable (Score 5, Insightful) 184

by Ambient Sheep (#58776526) Attached to: What Really Happened To Malaysia's Missing Airplane

Failure in electronics systems causes a halt of radio and instrument processing. Inaccurate instrument panel. Pilot wanders around confused, can't find where he's going because the instruments give false headings...

I should also add, as someone else's post prompted me to reply that the flight path was intentionally devious. As I wrote:

Cutting a long story short, as soon as he signed off from one ATC area, he promptly turned off all his tracking devices (so from then on only military primary radar could track him, not the secondary radar used by most ATCs), then changed altitude and sneakily doubled back on himself, very cunningly flying a flight path that sneaked him under and past all the nearby primary radars, seriously minimising his chances of being spotted.

By the time the next ATC area (Thailand IIRC) realised that he hadn't checked in with them, he was long gone and heading towards the South Pole for six hours, way out of range of any radar on the planet (except possibly Australian military right near the end).

Had they realised about the double-back earlier they might have got him, but as it was, when he didn't check in they assumed an accident, and started searching where he would be given his last known trajectory, i.e. in the South China Sea.

By the time they reviewed military radar tapes two days later and saw this passing object on the fringes of their scopes, everyone was long dead.

That took serious planning. The idea that this mysterious electrical fault struck at the EXACT moment he signed off from ATC, and then not only did the plane turn back, but cleverly skimmed military radars before then, half-an-hour later, turning another 90 degrees and setting course for the South Pole, is absolutely ludicrous. Sorry, but it is. It could only have been deliberate.

Comment Re:Lost like keys (Score 5, Informative) 184

by Ambient Sheep (#58776358) Attached to: What Really Happened To Malaysia's Missing Airplane

Cutting a long story short, as soon as he signed off from one ATC area, he promptly turned off all his tracking devices (so from then on only military primary radar could track him, not the secondary radar used by most ATCs), then changed altitude and sneakily doubled back on himself, very cunningly flying a flight path that sneaked him under and past all the nearby primary radars, seriously minimising his chances of being spotted.

(Another reason the electrical failure hypothesis is absolute rubbish, his turnback flight path was far too well-planned.)

By the time the next ATC area (Thailand IIRC) realised that he hadn't checked in with them, he was long gone and heading towards the South Pole for six hours, way out of range of any radar on the planet (except possibly Australian military right near the end).

Had they realised about the double-back earlier they might have got him, but as it was, when he didn't check in they assumed an accident, and started searching where he would be given his last known trajectory, i.e. in the South China Sea.

By the time they reviewed military radar tapes two days later and saw this passing object on the fringes of their scopes, everyone was long dead.

Comment Re:Electronic failure is conceivable (Score 5, Interesting) 184

by Ambient Sheep (#58776246) Attached to: What Really Happened To Malaysia's Missing Airplane

Failure in electronics systems causes a halt of radio and instrument processing. Inaccurate instrument panel. Pilot wanders around confused, can't find where he's going because the instruments give false headings. Autopilot might also be driving the plane despite protocol (is there a hardware autopilot kill switch, or just software?). Failure eventually results in fuel system and engine management failure, engines shut down, plane can't glide forever.

Of course a minor electrical fault could screw up hundreds of electrical processes.

Such hypotheses were taken apart on the PPRuNe pilots' forum's 296-page megathread at the time.

There's no plausible explanation for any electrical failure causing the exact sequence of radio communications failures observed. People were even digging out circuit schematics. However they do extremely nicely fit the pattern of someone turning them off one by one and pulling circuit breakers.

It's a good thing for us that he didn't know about the satellite unit's in-built "pings", otherwise he would have pulled that breaker too (he did pull the one for the stuff that feeds data to it!).

The guy who's researched it for years is correct.

I'm afraid you, with your expert autopilot knowledge, are not.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.

Close