In fact I’ve used a 100 foot fiber optic DisplayPort cable that I “just bought” on Amazon, admittedly for a LOT of money (like, I think it was about $100 USD, 3 years ago or so).
I just wish they sold the transceivers separately from the fiber. Being able to use any random length of cheap off-the-shelf SMF/MMF fiber would be so much more convenient than having to get a custom one-off cable.
They exist for medium-speed HDMI (see for example [0]), but I haven't seen them for modern high-speed DP yet.
Huh, I thought I had mine earlier. Mine was from May 2021. They were very very new and had very few reviews, and it was $56. For a 100' fiber optic cable that promised 8k60 and was light.
This cable is absurdly long. I have no idea how to coil it nicely. At my last place I had three stories, and would sometimes just dangle most of it down to the ground then wind it up from the roof.
I hate noise from the PC, so I've sited my PC under the desk at the opposite end of the room to where I sit (so about 3.5m away). I have a pair of 5m DP cables running to my 2 ultrawide monitors without any problems at all, so it seems if you buy decent cables it just works with DP too.
The only potential issue is that they seem to be slow waking up from sleep. I've never been interested enough to investigate if moving the PC closer with shorter cables fixes that, or whether it's just an issue with having 2 monitors. I think the underlying cause is actually just because it's Windows and that one monitor (they're supposed to be identical) seems to wake up earlier than the other, so it briefly flashes on, then goes black while it reconfigures for 2 screens and then on again.
But anyway, my 5m cable runs seem fine. They weren't especially expensive nor especially cheap cables, IIRC around 10-15 GBP each.
It's interesting to discover the reality that packet routing ends up following political affiliations. I didn't know North Korea only has 1,024 IPv4 addresses. Do you know why so few IPs? How did they get them?
> It's interesting to discover the reality that packet routing ends up following political affiliations.
Certainly political affiliations have some influence, but also China and Russia have land borders with North Korea and are not at war. It's very common to run fiber optic on/under railroads and vehicle roads, so there you go. It's probably pretty hard to attract an international cable consortium to land in North Korea given everything, but terrestrial cabling is easier to start with anyway.
> I didn't know North Korea only has 1,024 IPv4 addresses. Do you know why so few IPs? How did they get them?
They would have asked APNIC, the Regional Internet address Registry for their region (Asia-Pacific). I can't find an assignment date, but 175/8 was assigned to APNIC in 2009. 2009 lines up with wikipedia reporting of the startup of the current ISP joint venture.
DPRK can certainly get however many IP addresses they want, DPRK just doesn't have that much infrastructure that they want externally accessible.
As far as I know, end-user traffic from within North Korea usually does not originate from those few IP addresses. Or at least not visibly so, they might be connecting to a proxy from a DPRK IP address.
IPv4 continues to be available to entities that have a need that fits a particular policy shape, just most people don't.
Specifically, you can get IPv4 /24s for IPv6 transition purposes. This includes anycast DNS, MX, etc for legacy clients on other networks, v4-side of CGNAT, etc.
E.g. I was able to get a /24 in the ARIN region in 2021 and could justify 2 more for a _logical_ network topology similar to what NK presents to the world.
APNIC has some addresses [1] and will assign up to two /24s to qualified new accounts within the region. There are also carve outs for National Internet Registries and Internet eXchange Points.
Apnic used to hand out a /22 to most members. Its now a waiting list for 2 /24s. They would probably give some priority to a nation state over yet another mdu fibre isp.
Is _everything_ working? Last time I put Linux on a x86_64 Air Book I was given for free, everything was working _except_ resume from suspend would crash and reboot the system, and from the reading on it, it seems it is a know issue due to T4 security chip or something. Made me believe that if older chips doesn't yet work, the newer ones probably have more caveats. Or am I wrong?
Generally I'm reluctant investing in Linux on a hardware from company more or less hostile to it, but I also don't have any need for ARM laptop, and I'm happy with my Framework.
I wouldn't say the problem is hostility. It's complete non-interest. Apple wisely allowed us to load a non-chain-of-trust OS while maintaining the chain of trust in macOS, which is an incredible advancement still unmatched by other manufacturers.
And that's it. They have done zero work to accommodate Linux. At all. Perhaps if Microsoft ever figures out that NT used to run on more than one arch, Apple will revive Boot Camp for Windows and deem it useful to include Linux this time?
> Apple will revive Boot Camp for Windows and deem it useful to include Linux this time?
If Apple wanted to, they could already do that right now. Windows runs on arm just fine. Heck, windows on Arm in a parallels VM runs better on my macbook pro than it does natively on an x86 laptop.
If Apple would make some drivers, even just for Windows, I bet they'd sell more macs. But it would seem Apple either calculated that ecosystem/services lock-in is way more important to them than a potential boost in hardware sales for alternative OSes, or they are really reluctant to make drivers for Apple Silicon available elsewhere out of fear it'll expose some trade secrets, which they didn't have to worry about when they used intel.
> If Apple would make some drivers, even just for Windows, I bet they'd sell more macs.
The incremental bump in sales would be very small.
Even when Apple did provide bootcamp drivers to run Windows on old laptops, very few people used it as their daily driver for a Windows computer. I'm sure Apple has a better estimate of the market for people who bought Macs to use with alternative OSes back when they supported it, but they've calculated that it's not worth the effort.
You can buy it from the Microsoft Store inside of windows once its installed. That's how it works with parallels, or any other Windows on Arm device (say, for upgrading from Home to Pro).
> Apple wisely allowed us to load a non-chain-of-trust OS
> an incredible advancement still unmatched by other manufacturers
Sheesh, don't forget to zip up Tim's pants once you're done. I hope other manufacturers don't follow Apple in forcing proprietary bootloaders. Open alternatives like Clover and OpenCore are fully viable for booting macOS.
The Macbook M2 Air running Asahi Linux is easily my favorite Linux laptop ever, far superior to any Thinkpad or Dell XPS I've owned, imo. I think things like Thunderbolt and some DisplayPort features are missing, but I have never needed this as it is purely a laptop for me. But it has everything else I could want: suspend/sleep, proper frequency scaling, great GPU drivers, USB/wifi/bluetooth, speakers, brightness/keyboard settings, etc. The webcam works I think but I haven't tried it. The battery life is great, though macOS is still quite a ways ahead in that department.
Whoops, mea culpa. I'm not personally very interested in desktop linux GUI apps, and hadn't realized that was out of scope for Orb's featureset. Given my narrower criteria for "linux support" (VMs for CLI-based operations), Orb has been amazing. Its capabilities exceed that of Docker4Mac beyond stability and performance. But, yeah, that may be moot in light of your desktop GUI purposes. I have no experience w Asahi.
Are you saying gpt-5 produces gibberish 15% of the time? Or are you comparing Mistral gibberish production rate to gpt-5.1's complex task failure rate?
Does Mistral even have a Tool Use model? That would be awesome to have a new coder entrant beyond OpenAI, Anthropic, Grok, and Qwen.
Yes. I spent about 3 days trying to optimize the prompt to get gpt-5 to not produce gibberish, to no avail. Completions took several minutes, had an above 50% timeout rate (with a 6 minute timeout mind you), and after retrying they still would return gibberish about 15% of the time (12% on one task, 20% on another task).
I then tried multiple models, and they all failed in spectacular ways. Only Grok and Mistral had an acceptable success rate, although Grok did not follow the formatting instructions as well as Mistral.
Phrasing is a language learning application, so the formatting is very complicated, with multiple languages and multiple scripts intertwined with markdown formatting. I do include dozens of examples in the prompts, but it's something many models struggle with.
This was a few months ago, so to be fair, it's possible gpt-5.1 or gemini-3 or the new deepseek model may have caught up. I have not had the time or need to compare, as Mistral has been sufficient for my use cases.
I mean, I'd love to get that 0.1% error rate down, but there have always more pressing issues XD
With gpt5 did you try adjusting the reasoning level to "minimal"?
I tried using it for a very small and quick summarization task that needed low latency and any level above that took several seconds to get a response. Using minimal brought that down significantly.
Weirdly gpt5's reasoning levels don't map to the OpenAI api level reasoning effort levels.
Reasoning was set to minimal and low (and I think I tried medium at some point). I do not believe the timeouts were due to the reasoning taking to long, although I never streamed the results. I think the model just fails often. It stops producing tokens and eventually the request times out.
I'm not going to share the prompt because (1) it's very long (2) there were dozens of variations and (3) it seems like poor business practices to share the most indefensible part of your business online XD
reply