"Based on input from the extension community, we also increased the number of rulesets for declarativeNetRequest, allowing extensions to bundle up to 330,000 static rules and dynamically add a further 30,000."
https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begi....
Where are you sourcing the comparison between the PS5 GPU and a 4070ti? The PS5 has 16 Gb of shared ram total and a 4070ti has 16 Gb for just the GPU. I don’t think the comparison is accurate and think that leads to an inflated value proposition in your comment. I have a PS5 and the percentage of games it can currently run at a solid 60 fps is a low percentage, but a 4070ti will consistently be at 60 fps for most cross platform games.
PS5 Pro has a much better GPU than the current PS5. It’s not fair to compare current HW with unreleased hardware, but at release PS5 Pro is going to be quite competitive for a little while.
Sony says "up to 45% faster rendering" in the PS5 Pro so, I certainly think we can compare.
That sets an upper bound for the performance increase we can expect, does it not? I certainly doubt they'd be underselling the perf gains.
45% faster rendering would get it up to about the performance of an RTX 4060 from what I'm seeing.
If that's true, this is certainly a solid upgrade. I don't play a lot of AAA games but my RTX 4060 can do 1080p @ 60-144fps at mostly maxed settings. Whereas stock PS5 certainly seems to struggle to hit that. (If I understand correctly, I could use the magic upscaling crap to get similar results at 4K but haven't had the inclination to mess with it)
They also say with individual rays calculated at "double or even triple the speeds of PlayStation 5. “67 percent more compute units and 28 percent faster video RAM” and the images are with a PS5 @ 30FPS and a PS5 Pro at 60FPS.
So, it’s a different architecture not just a speed bump. That said, I agree in general it’s going to be worse than a 4070ti but every architecture has its quirks.
Thanks for the downvotes for pointing out that, as part of the target market for this product, I scratch my head a bit as it touches more in the PC territory than cheaper consoles did in the past. If you bought both this and the PS5 you're already at ~$1200, and a great PC build can be had for close to that. I think it's totally legitimate to point out this starts to encroach on the pc's territory.
>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
reminder.
>If you bought both this and the PS5 you're already at ~$1200
why would I buy both? PS5 probably still sells for more than launch price in the US. I'd basically break even selling it and then proceed to spend $130 on a dang disc drive. So we're still 600-700 dollars in after 4 years.
>I scratch my head a bit as it touches more in the PC territory than cheaper consoles did in the past.
Mostly because PC's stopped enroaching in console territory some 7 years ago or so, when mining became popular. There was a time where you could build a PC for $400 with the equivalent specs of a PS4/XBO. Any premium was to get better performance.
PS5 Pro does start to enroach, but PC components (mostly the GPU, but a few other components as well) have inflated faster than the consoles. Feels like one of the worst times to buy a PC if your argument is price matching a console.
Don't patronize me, you seem to think you're the authority when it comes to how people react to a $700 console when a great gaming PC is in reach, price wise. And you'd buy both because the target for this probably is already on the playstation upgrade path so very likely already owns the PS5. Looking at Twitter I'm hardly the only one that feels this way.
Yeah, additionally it seems really weird that most PC stores in shopping malls don't sell ready made desktops with anything beyond i5 as CPU, one has to go into custom desktops increasing the whole price.
It is no longer the case that buying a regular mid-range desktop PC was good enough for gaming purposes.
> I think Microsoft has put Sony in an impossible spot and, with the Activision merger about to go through
MS is being accused that they cant innovate themselves and have to buy other companies for their innovative product. This acquisition is just supporting that claim.
Like all those outraged Indian nationalists that pop up in flocks anywhere and every time there is a news outlet that goes against Indian nationalist propaganda and big boss Modi?
Well its bound to happens when the said news outlet forgets to show the other side of the story, selectively missing on the nuance. I'm no fan of Modi, No fan of half truths either.
It seems that "these days" every criticism is propaganda. It doesn't matter if the points are valid or not or if they're describing something that it's happening. "Propaganda!"
It's very sad to see people everywhere turning off their brains just because their government was criticised.
What's the other side of the story here? Are they being raided or not? Does the Indian state likes to start investigations after someone criticises them or not? And was the documentary so wrong to the point where it had to be censored?
1. BBC was sent a notice for tax evasion 2 months before this documentary was released - the fact that they are being raided now could be a reaction to the doc or maybe just a coincidence. No org is above the law, so being raided for tax evasion is business as usual.
2. The documentary doesn't cover the reason as to why the riots happened, it'll take nuance and understanding of the past 800 years history of islamic invasions to realise that it was not a one off incident.
1. The problem is not being raided for tax evasion. The problem is them and others being investigated/raided after criticising the government. It's the usual "we'll ignore things if you keep things quiet and make your life hard if you don't". No one is above the law, but the application of the law is very selective... Any journalist or org will get the message.
2. You want a 2 hour documentary that covers who did what, who did it first, back it all with believable proof, and also cover 800 years of nuance, interpretations, opinions... yeah, good luck with that. It's not going to happen.
There are indications of what happened and how some didn't do anything to stop it from happening. Pointing this out isn't an attack on India or Indians (there's a difference between you and the government/politicians). It is what it is, no need to be so defensive.
The funny thing is that no one really cared about this until the Indian government decided to censor it (why?) and presented it as an external attack (well, now I'm interested!). They decided to make a big deal out of something than only they actually cared. Now apparently the BBC is the "most corrupt organisation in the world" (to quote a BJP spokesperson) and raids are needed because, of course, "no one is above the law".
Be it India or another country, this is bad and shouldn't be defended or encouraged.
Its absurd to claim that nothing was done to stop it from happening, if that was the case then thing would have been much worse. It was brought under control as effectively as it is possible when the riots are happening at communal level.
Have you not seen riots happen in London few years ago, or the black lives matter, or so many others in the past. To use you own argument, why did they not stop it immediately? Because it takes some time and effort to control it when large populations are involved.
And nobody is asking to cover all the history, Nuance can be covered with small hints and by giving little bit of background. Otherwise People who dont know India's history only see what they see in the documentary and go on making up their mind.
Plus BBC is funded by UK government's so its essentially a mouthpiece for them. So Independent journalism is not really expected from them anyways.
I didn't claim that nothing was done to stop it from happening. Please re-read my comment.
I was living in London in 2011 when the riots happened. There was no parties/movements inciting anyone to kill/expel/hate a different group. The police killed one guy and that was the outcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Mark_Duggan . Of course you can't stop this immediately, but you can stop people from spreading hate and stop yourself from associating with said people.
The documentary... honestly, no one cared about it. Maybe many Indians did care, but Indians should know that background. No one made a big deal outside India because usually people don't care that much about happened on the other part of the world (do you?). Anyway, how do you go from this to censor the content?
Now, I'm not going to say that they're the most independent and serious source in the world, but they went after the Tony Blair government (centre-left) in the 2000s, criticised the following conservative governments, and as you can see, the government doesn't like them that much: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/17/governments-at...
In any case, I really don't like media censorship or governments that go after people who criticise them or selectively apply laws. For me it's wrong.
Surely the British arrived in India well after 0 AD. Not sure how an empire that disolved long before then would matter to what the British saw when they first reached India.
I'm just citing one example from the many. India as an entity has been dissolved and established multiples times in the history. British came at the weak period of India, essentially during a long civil war that was going on across the whole subcontinent.
The Maurya Empire? Yeah right. You should thank the British for the Maurya empire. The so-called Maurya Empire was cooked up by a pseudo historian by the name of James Prinsep to instill a sense of one people for political purpose. The British at the time assumed the British empire in South Asia was forever and it was hard to rule a place when the people practically hate each other historically. This Maurya Empire thing is a way for the British to create some glue for their subjects. Called it a British duplicity if you will.
Yeah, a pillar here and a coin dug up there and you can weave a whole story. It this is true I would assume the British would learn this history from the native people in the subcontinent instead of the other way. It would be like the Europeans have never heard of the Roman Empire or Julius Caesar until they learned it from Japan.
I dont think you understand anything about what you just said.
Are you Indian, NRI or Someone from west learning about India from the western press?
Edit: You also mentioned that Dalit experience worse discrimination in US than in India! Where did you get that from? I'd just like to understand your overall point of view.
