11/30/2023 0 Comments Google play store will not openHere's where it gets a little complicated. The first three are frameworks that the last one-the Play Store app-needs to function, so they need to be installed first. We suggest you first check out what version is available particularly for your device (asking the person having the same device) or contact your device manufacturer.We need to download four applications to get the Google Play Store working: Google Account Manager, Google Services Framework, Google Play Service, and Google Play Store. After performing above all steps, if you’re still not getting the latest update, it is most likely that the update is still not available for your device. Hope using above workarounds you’ll be able to get the latest Google Play System Update on your Android device. Now in the power menu, tap and hold Power off until you see a message about Reboot to safe mode.Īfter restarting your Android device into safe mode, check for updates manually (Settings > Security > Security status > Google Play system update).Press and hold the power button until you see the power menu.To reboot an Android device in Safe Mode: Reboot your device in Safe Mode and check for updates. Of course, you can always configure them again. Perform the same steps for Google Play Services.Ĭaution: Be careful with this option because clearing app data will delete files, settings and databases for that app. Open Settings > Apps > tap See all apps > tap Google Play Store > Storage & cache > Clear storage You’ll find such an option for each app in the apps list in Settings on your Android device. Clear Google Play Store and Google Play Services App Data If it’s still not working, then proceed with the below further fixes. It means Google Play Services app is already up-to-date.Īfter applying the above two fixes, check for Google Play System Update manually (Settings > Security > Security status > tap Google Play system update > Check for update). If not, you’ll see the Uninstall button only. If there’s an update available, you’ll see an Update button. Click on it and you’ll be landed in the Google Play Store app screen. There you’ll see Google Play Services with Install. To check whether Google Play Services is up-to-date or not, open Google Play Services in the Play Store or you can search ‘Google Play Services’ in the Google app. Once it’s updated, you’ll see the message ‘’Google Play Store is up to date’. It will take a few minutes and then check again whether it’s successfully updated or not. If there is an update available, you’ll see the message ‘a new version will be downloaded and installed’. To update Google Play store on your device, open Google Play Store > tap profile icon on the top-right corner > Settings > About > tap Update Play Store or Play Store version. They are safe and do not involve any third-party apps or tools. Important: ‘Android Security Update’ and ‘Google Play System Update’ both are different, and they won’t necessarily have the same date.īelow are four workarounds to fix Google Play System not updating on your Android device. Check out our blog post for the full details about the latest Google Play System Update and what’s new in these updates. But availability of the update depends on your Android Device OEM and Model. We’re getting a few reports from our readers who are stuck on an older version of Google Play System Update (like August 2021 or any other) or it’s not updating on their Android devices.Īs we’ve verified on a Pixel 6 phone, the current version of Google Play System Update is January 1, 2023.
0 Comments
11/30/2023 0 Comments Shearson lehman smith barneyThat claim was correct 32 years ago, when Don made it, and it will be correct for the next 32 years, as well. Organizations that stand by the funds that they offered, year after year, decade after decade, will do their shareholders proud. In summary, although predicting individual fund performances is very difficult, forecasting the fortunes of fund companies is not. (Well, at least among traditional mutual fund providers the advisors might also mention ETF managers BlackRock BLK, Schwab SCHW, or State Street STT, which failed to make the obsolete-rate cut.) Were one to survey veteran financial advisors, asking them to name the five best fund companies, this would likely be their very list. None of the other families should surprise, either. The top finisher is familiar, eh? Thirty-two years later, the obvious choice from 1990 continues to excel. Not all good organizations are abstemious, but those organizations that are abstemious are good. That forbearance remains a sign of quality. Several leading fund providers rarely liquidate their creations. The good news: While today's marketplace possesses no equivalent of Dean Witter (hurrah!), it does contain companies that behave at least somewhat in the spirit of American Funds, including (duh) American Funds itself. More recently, high shutdown rates have tended to come from firms rationalizing their lineups after acquisitions. However, most such businesses have since exited the industry. In 1990, fund liquidations consistently signaled trouble because providers closed funds that they themselves had created. Nor is a high termination rate always bad. Companies that expand into additional marketplaces often have no choice but to launch fresh funds. That holds particularly true from a global perspective. I selected the death rate rather either the birth or overall rates because, while creating many new funds can be a sign of desperation, with marketers throwing new products against the wall to see what sticks, the effort can also be justifiable. (Those who wish to learn more should turn either to the paper itself, or await a summary of its findings, which will be published next week on .) My interest for this article consists solely of one column in the paper's Exhibit 12, which shows how frequently each of the major companies has folded its funds over the past decade. That's far too much material for me to cover. Similarly, actively run funds have higher ratios than do passive funds. This tendency, regrettably, echoes the peripatetic habits of alternative-fund shareholders, who tend to chase recent performance. For example, funds that invest in alternatives have notably high lineup turnover ratios. The paper outlines the differences among organizations, countries, and investment categories. The sum of those numbers becomes, to use the authors' terms, the company's "fund lineup turnover ratio." Specifically, it provides the rates at which providers: start new funds and shutter old ones. Published this week, the white paper " As the Fund World Turns-Fund Lineup Turnover Globally," by Gabriel Denis, Bridget Hughes, Maciej Kowara, and Matias Möttölä, exhaustively measures the fund industry's product-development practices. Three decades later, Morningstar has at long last collected the data to support the anecdotes. They would switch to organizations that fulfilled their promises. Eventually, investors would realize which fund companies sold investments that did not last. There is sometimes an advantage to observing through a window.) The approach could only succeed for so long. (That said, most corporate executives failed to recognize the danger. Even at the time, the weakness of the whack-a-mole marketing strategy was obvious. The above analysis benefits little from hindsight. Speaking of which: Smith Barney is gone, too.Īs Don himself will tell you, he whacked a slow-pitch softball. Gone are Kemper, and Dean Witter, and Keystone, and PaineWebber, and Shearson Lehman Hutton … I mean Shearson Lehman Brothers … I mean Smith Barney Shearson. Meanwhile, not only have most of its competitors' offerings disappeared, but so have those rivals themselves. Every one of those funds continues to operate today. The conspicuous example was American Funds, which in 1990 managed a modest 21 funds. Firms that churned through their lineups, constantly launching and terminating funds, generated the headlines. In the early 1990s, my boss, Don Phillips, openly praised fund companies that dared to be dull. Morningstar was not the first researcher to appreciate the virtue of investment monotony, but it was the first to publicize that belief. But for some odd reason, when I only select the two front channels, the resulting stereo file combines all the 6 channels into two channels (oh, and I'd like to precise it's not specific to that one 5.1 audio file I'm using. I've tried every other combination (Left front channel and center channel, Left rear channel and LFE channel, etc.), and everytime, the resulting stereo file does only contain the two channels I selected. The problem is they are swapped and this is what I would like to avoid. See picture below), I do get a stereo audio file with only the left and right front channels. Now you can listen to your favorite songs and watch videos on phones and players, converting them to the necessary format. XMedia Recode is a program designed to convert various audio and video files. The funny thing I noticed is that if I swap the channels (basically attributing channel 1 to channel 2 and channel 2 to channel 1. XMedia Recode is a freeware video and audio transcoding program for Microsoft Windows developed by Sebastian Dörfler. Now, the thing is, technically, the various channels are as follow:īut the problem I encounter is that when I attribute channel 1 (left front channel) to channel 1 and channel 2 (right front channel) to channel 2 in the channel order mode (see picture above), the resulting audio file is a stereo file that combines ALL the channels of the 5.1 file, and not just the left and right front channels. 3.3.7.4) to do some channel mapping, more specifically I'd like to create a stereo file using only the left and right front channels of a 5.1 audio track. The problem, I think, is that I am converting videos using CRF, which gives really good results otherwise, and I think is WAY too complicated for me to try doing using the command line - I am guaranteed to f(k) that upįor background, my output videos come out with the following settings:Įncoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=2 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x1:0x131 / me=hex / subme=7 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=0 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=12 / lookahead_threads=2 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=0 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=3 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=2 / keyint=50 / keyint_min=5 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=crf / mbtree=1 / crf=20.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / vbv_maxrate=24000 / vbv_bufsize=24000 / crf_max=0.0 / nal_hrd=none / filler=0 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=3:1.So, I'm trying to use XMedia Recode (ver. Is anyone aware of a way of forcing Recode to add a dropdown option in Recode? Or is there some setting I am using that prevents me using any other color mode? Or is Recode just poorly coded and doesn't offer all the options I could have? Problem is the only option Recode offers me against the "Color Mode" option is one simple "YUV 4:2:0 Planar 12bpp" and there does not seem to be any other option or setting anywhere else in the program to change that. So, I run "ffmpeg -pix_fmts" I get a looooooooong list of options including "yuvj420p". I know I should instead be using "pix_fmt yuvj420p" says someone random. This only provides 8 bits of colour, according to the output. I've done some digging around and found that the reason is the color mode being used: yuv420p. (Notably the "Shangri-La" in FC4 where the reds are turned into very grey "reds".) I successfully converted the container and the audio stream, but the subtitles will not hardcode. Using XMedia Recode, I am converting the container to MP4, converting the audio stream to AAC and trying to hardcode the subs. Most of the time this doesn't bother me, but sometimes it is so ridiculously obvious it positively hurts my eyes with vibrant colours reduced to absolute grey garbage. The other two streams are AC3 audio and of course video. I am converting fraps AVI videos to MP4s and I've been using a program called Xmedia Recode - which is just a shell around FFMPEG for the grunt work - but I am finding my output videos are "washed out". |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |