309
Dev boots a PC from Google Drive cloud storage — a storage-less laptop becomes a truly cloud-native computer
(www.tomshardware.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
309 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
59271 readers
3629 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
More being able to use cloud storage and not need a full physical secondary computer. In theory the cloud can be accessed anywhere, even if a portion is down, not the same for a single physical PC.
is the non physical cloud in the room right now?
Nope! That's the point. It's in someone else's room!
Google redundancy.
The cloud is many computers with a redundancy, you putting multiple PCs in remote locations so you can access when one goes down….?
One requires two physical computers, while one requires one and the cloud. Not a hard concept here or anything people.
The joke is about what exactly you're doing with the cloud with no physical computer in front of you.
Because you said "not need a physical computer". If there is no physical computer, with what device are you accessing the cloud?
Traditional computing involves a computer on a desk. If everything is in the cloud, and there is no physical computer, then there is nothing on the desk. How do you access the cloud with a bare desk? That is the joke. Presumably you meant that there is no singular server, and a deliberate misinterpretation like the other commenter's is a form of humor (Brône, 2008).
Sometimes deliberate misinterpretation can be used as a linguistic device (Wang, 2008). Perhaps you consider that trolling or derailing, but regardless of whether or not you appreciate the joke, to continue in the thread does not contribute to a productive discussion.
One study found that troll-like responses "deviate from expectations" and "easily capture unsuspecting users’ attention and manage to prolong futile conversations interminably" (Paakki, 2021). Perhaps it is your comments that deviate from community expectations and are prolonging futile conversations? Does it count as trolling if it's not intentional? Appendix 1 shares the author's criteria, so I suppose you can try applying them yourself.
Personally, I'm finding this interaction positively fascinating. I'm a little disappointed I couldn't easily find a more relevant analysis on linguistic humor, but that article by Henna Paakki actually looks really interesting. I highly recommend reading it, I'm only halfway through the introduction and I'm already hooked. For me, it's absolutely been productive. I'm going to print that paper out and make it some night reading. Thanks!
I specified in my original comment about a full secondary computer being a requirement already. So no, your joke is moronic considered the established context of the conversation. Using the coud doesn’t require a full secondary computer. Did you miss this key detail in my original comment or something……?
Jokes can be appreciated in conversation, but not when they miss the original context…. I was clear in my original comment, so yeah fuck off with this “joke” bullshit, I was trying to have a conversation. All you are doing is being a troll here, especially when the joke just actually doesn’t fucking work…
How is it a joke when you clearly misunderstood my original comment?
No one is arguing against its redundancy. We are saying you still need your own physical device to access the cloud. Whether its a computer, phone, or anything else. That was the joke.
Okay so you should comprehend how multiple “computers” allow a redundancy over a single one.
Yeah….?
You can’t access a remote physical computer without internet either? So what’s your point here?
I do, clearly you don’t if you need to ask the question.
So what are you doing here exactly? You’re not adding to the discussion, so that would make you a troll, no?
What is so hard to understand about one needing two full physical computers, while one needs a single full physical computer?
I did answer and the statement wasn’t nonsense. What’s hard to understand about the difference between two and one…?
One has redundancy and one doesn’t… not shockingly they are different things for this reason…..