The original article form the intercept[1] is quite insane, Whole thing is about OpenPower organization[2]. You can replace it with "Linux kernel", "Risc V" or any open technology.
The click-bait is strong with this storyline. It's also been posted and upvoted here a number of times over the past week, despite it being a non-story. Presumably people are seeing the title and upvoting without reading or understanding what's actually happening. Especially since this is just an editorial that regurgitates the high level points of The Intercept's story with little further thought or analysis.
I've flagged it. IMO, the mods should change the title to something more honest like, "Chinese Microchip Company Participates in OpenPower Foundation."
It's a rehash of an article in the Intercept. And it is indeed about the OpenPower foundation, which you can see if you click through the link in the first sentence. The fact that the editorial doesn't even mention the name of the foundation stands as a comment about its quality, not about the facts of the story.
It seems representative of a certain class of article lately that is willing to bend the truth to the point of breaking in order to say something bad about any of the large American tech companies.
When the original article appeared, in addition to the "no comment" from Google and Xilinx and the denial by IBM, there was some deflection by commenters here along the lines of "that's ridiculous, OnePower is all about technical specs for power supplies" or something along those lines.
Can anyone point me to a link on this organization? I found one to something called the OpenPower Foundation which apparently involves IBM and has to do with data centers, but "OnePower" only produces links to consultancies, etc.
"OpenPOWER Foundation is an open, not-for-profit technical membership group incorporated in December 2013. It has applied for 501c6 not-for-profit status and was incepted to enable today’s data centers to rethink their approach to technology. OpenPOWER was created to develop a broad ecosystem of members that will create innovative and winning solutions based on POWER architecture."
Ah, I see from the original article in the Intercept that it was about the OpenPower Foundation. Apparently the writers of this one couldn't even get the name of the organization correct.
they developed a processor together, and now because how it's used they are evil. good stuff. what if some terrorist uses an iphone. is apple some kind of extremist linked company?
I clicked on the link and closed it after 3 lines. No. JUST no. I will not stand for those columns. You have KILOMETERS of virtual space on a webpage. You are not stuck on a physical dead media. Don't pretend to be.
The reason papers adopted the thin column layout is because it suits the eye better. AIUI the eye can cover most of a narrow column and a few saccades to cover the rest. Also finding the next line is easy whereas if it's wide you may find the one above/below the correct one, or simply start reading the same line again (something that happened to me recently). I understand the optimum width is about 6 to 7 english words.
Try reading it. it is strangely archaic but it's an easy read for me, and well, what's more important, the format or the subject?
No it's not dude. The ideal length is dependent on things like font size and line spacing. Having to scroll back up and down is terrible UX. You can just google ideal line length and it'll explain it all.
A quick goggle says various character widths per line. If the average length of an english word is 5.1 characters, then it's considerably more words than I suggested.
None of the links I found mention font/line spacing though it's a quick skim so far.
Your point about having to scroll up and down is spot on; it happens that full page fits comfortably onto my screen so I didn't need to. I forgot it wouldn't on others. If I may add to that, the link to the intercept others had to point out to me I missed because it blended in too well with the rest of the text.
Anyway, that's 1/2 hour reading set for this evening, thanks!
Source article from The Intercept already discussed here a few days ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20441786
The original article form the intercept[1] is quite insane, Whole thing is about OpenPower organization[2]. You can replace it with "Linux kernel", "Risc V" or any open technology.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2019/07/11/china-surveillance-googl...
[2] https://openpowerfoundation.org/
The click-bait is strong with this storyline. It's also been posted and upvoted here a number of times over the past week, despite it being a non-story. Presumably people are seeing the title and upvoting without reading or understanding what's actually happening. Especially since this is just an editorial that regurgitates the high level points of The Intercept's story with little further thought or analysis.
I've flagged it. IMO, the mods should change the title to something more honest like, "Chinese Microchip Company Participates in OpenPower Foundation."
Argh, where does the word "OpenPower" appear in the story?
Edit: a google search for OnePower gets me nothing. Don't get it.
The article is regurgitation of another article from the intercept. Follow through the first link in the article.
The very first Google result for me is https://openpowerfoundation.org. It also returns a info box on the right side about organization.
I responded to you in the other thread.
It doesn't use the word OpenPower at all, and AFAICS it's nothing at all to do with any particular CPU.
It's a rehash of an article in the Intercept. And it is indeed about the OpenPower foundation, which you can see if you click through the link in the first sentence. The fact that the editorial doesn't even mention the name of the foundation stands as a comment about its quality, not about the facts of the story.
Jeez, you're right! That's shocking reporting.
It seems representative of a certain class of article lately that is willing to bend the truth to the point of breaking in order to say something bad about any of the large American tech companies.
When the original article appeared, in addition to the "no comment" from Google and Xilinx and the denial by IBM, there was some deflection by commenters here along the lines of "that's ridiculous, OnePower is all about technical specs for power supplies" or something along those lines.
Can anyone point me to a link on this organization? I found one to something called the OpenPower Foundation which apparently involves IBM and has to do with data centers, but "OnePower" only produces links to consultancies, etc.
https://openpowerfoundation.org/about-us/
"OpenPOWER Foundation is an open, not-for-profit technical membership group incorporated in December 2013. It has applied for 501c6 not-for-profit status and was incepted to enable today’s data centers to rethink their approach to technology. OpenPOWER was created to develop a broad ecosystem of members that will create innovative and winning solutions based on POWER architecture."
Ah, I see from the original article in the Intercept that it was about the OpenPower Foundation. Apparently the writers of this one couldn't even get the name of the organization correct.
Wait until you hear about what they do with US intelligence agencies
they developed a processor together, and now because how it's used they are evil. good stuff. what if some terrorist uses an iphone. is apple some kind of extremist linked company?
I clicked on the link and closed it after 3 lines. No. JUST no. I will not stand for those columns. You have KILOMETERS of virtual space on a webpage. You are not stuck on a physical dead media. Don't pretend to be.
The reason papers adopted the thin column layout is because it suits the eye better. AIUI the eye can cover most of a narrow column and a few saccades to cover the rest. Also finding the next line is easy whereas if it's wide you may find the one above/below the correct one, or simply start reading the same line again (something that happened to me recently). I understand the optimum width is about 6 to 7 english words.
Try reading it. it is strangely archaic but it's an easy read for me, and well, what's more important, the format or the subject?
No it's not dude. The ideal length is dependent on things like font size and line spacing. Having to scroll back up and down is terrible UX. You can just google ideal line length and it'll explain it all.
A quick goggle says various character widths per line. If the average length of an english word is 5.1 characters, then it's considerably more words than I suggested.
None of the links I found mention font/line spacing though it's a quick skim so far.
Your point about having to scroll up and down is spot on; it happens that full page fits comfortably onto my screen so I didn't need to. I forgot it wouldn't on others. If I may add to that, the link to the intercept others had to point out to me I missed because it blended in too well with the rest of the text.
Anyway, that's 1/2 hour reading set for this evening, thanks!
Looks fine on FF mobile. No virtual space. I have JS disabled.
Example of skeuomorphism gone insane.
Yet somehow being flat and minimalist too. Worst of both worlds?