Yup. The Ampere Altra Max can run unmodified Windows 11 Pro out of the box. So presumably the unmodified Ubuntu UEFI/SBBR builds will run on it, too. Unfortunately, that support tends to mostly be limited to ARM server hardware.

That's probably because you've only dealt with consumer-grade ARM hardware built using silicon from CPU manufacturers that either don't support UEFI/SBBR or don't support it properly (e.g. Raspberry Pi and every clone thereof).

I wouldn't say it soared. I would say that it recovered a bit, because the market had previously overcorrected. It is still below its highest March 2024 close, and barely half of its peak price.

As I understand it, most ARM devices don't have anything like BIOS/EFI/UEFI/Open Firmware to provide information about what hardware is present, so you configure the OS with a custom device tree file that provides that info instead. Some server hardware actually does have UEFI (SBBR), so presumably could support a truly generic boot image, I think, but someone more familiar with it may correct me on that point.

Sure they do. Ampere Altra Max has 128 cores of ARM goodness. The benchmarks show it mostly running about half the speed of recent AMD and Intel offerings, and actually beating the Xeon in some tests, but using significantly less power to do it (resulting in better performance per watt).

And with more and more server workloads depending on outboard GPUs and TPUs for most of the interesting workload, raw server CPU performance is likely to take a back seat to power consumption anyway at some point.

They *are* making them. The dealers are not *selling* them. And if the dealers aren't selling them, they're not going to make larger quantities of them. And as I said, the dealers have every reason to *not* want to sell them. They don't make nearly as much money off of EVs on an ongoing basis, because they require far less service (fewer major malfunctions, no oil changes, fewer brake jobs, etc.).

Also, unionized car companies are under heavy pressure from the unions to drag their heels on EVs because there are fewer parts to put together, and the cars require less human labor to build, which means fewer workers. (Pedantically, they don't require significantly less human labor, but a big chunk of the labor shifts to the battery manufacturers.)

No conspiracy is needed. The car manufacturers have unions pushing them on one side to not make EVs and their dealer network pushing them on the other side to not make EVs. What possible incentive, other than being compelled to do so by law, could possibly get them to build more EVs that cost more (and by extension, will sell fewer units even in an ideal world) under those circumstances?

War doesn't always start with a clear-headed, cold-blooded weighing of national interests. In fact I'd say that's the more the exception than the rule. Historically it's quite common for a country to start a war that in retrospect looks stupid from the standpoint of national interests.

Of course peaceful initiatives can be just as badly thought ought. We quite *deliberately* chose to tie our economy to China; I remember this quite distinctly. Although nobody anticipated the speed or completeness of the interdependency that would folow, everybody understood that we were choosing to head that way. The argument was a purely ideological one, whether interdependency per se was a *good* thing. And, as far as it goes, the argument was sound. If you don't nitpick too much, it worked out just as planned.

The thing that we really didn't put much thought into was *who it was we were choosing to become interdependent with*. China is, not to put too fine a point on it, an unstable and very dangerous powder keg. There is no rule of law; laws are enforced selectively by officials tied to an unaccountable and unrestrainable political party. There is no freedom of information, which means among other things you don't get economic data you can trust. The system is prone to sudden, opaque power shifts and the emergence of strong men who are legally, and sometimes politically unrestrained with respect to policy and military affairs.

And now we'd really like a little more distance from that powder keg, but our interdependence is the main thing that's stabilizing the situation. At least in the short term, until somebody does something that, in restrospect, will look really stupid. Which is inevitable, eventually.

Presumably critters evolved to deal with noises that naturally and regularly occur in their native habitats.

This doesn't mean that natural noises that aren't regularly part of their normal habitat can't harm them. It's possible that animals whose range naturally overlaps the periodical cicadas do get harmed by that noise, but the harm is not significant enough to exert selective evolutionary pressure.

So natural isn't necessarily benign. Nor, do I think, is *unnatural* necessarily harmful. But dose does makes the poison, and cars do make a *lot* of noise. It's pretty well established that humans overexposed to car noise can develop health problems like cardiovascular disease. Since CVD mainly kills and disables people after their reproductive years, don't expect populations to evolve a biological tolerance for car noise though.

He's moving some assets into US companies because they're innovative. Fair enough.

He thinks they're innovative because they've got more hustle. OK. That's almost circular.

He thinks they've got more hustle because Americans work longer hours. That doesn't follow at all.

Sometimes you work longer hours because the boss forces you to, and you are giving him as little for the time as possible. Sometimes you work longer hours because you're disorganized, bad at planning and managing your time. I've seen that often enough. If hours worked equals hustle equal innovation, he should be putting his money into Cambodia, where workers put in 40% more hours per year than Americans. Sweden and Switzerland rank higher than the US in the Global Innovation Index, even though people in those countries work a *lot* less.

Innovation for a country is multifactorial. Wealth and education matter. Attractiveness to foreign investment; rule of law; those are really important things where America excels. Even sheer size makes a difference; being part of a massive integrated market is a huge boost to both the US and the EU. Sure, work ethic matters, but work *hours* is a lousy proxy for that. In some countries people put in six hours of honest hard toil each day then go home. Do they have less work ethic than a country where people spend ten hours a day at work but much of that "lying flat"?

Depends on the vehicle. Some cars stop doing that after a period of time, and some use a power threshold. There might even be some cars that don't do it at all, but I'm not sure.

For Tesla, as I understand it, the HV battery is used to periodically recharge the 12V battery as long as the HV battery is above 20% SoC. So for most EVs, the answer is yes, just because Teslas are... well, most EVs. :-D

To understand why, you need only look at what Tesla does with the 12V battery. When sentry mode is active, both the self-driving computer and the MCU are active (with the screen off), drawing as much as O(300) watts continuously. The 12V battery in a Tesla is a 33AH battery (around half the size of a typical ICE car's battery), which means that at 300 watts, it would completely deplete the battery in about 79 minutes.

There are, of course, various intermediate levels of consumption between deep sleep and sentry mode that have various levels of power consumption, resulting in the battery charging anywhere from frequently to rarely.

And of course, sentry mode is automatically disabled below 20% state of charge so that it won't kill your 12V battery. :-)

If it works for them, are they wrong?

Except as labor standards drop, your choice is another job that does the same thing. About 17% of American workers don't have fixed hours or guaranteed workdays, which makes planning for work/life balance a farce, and the old standby of getting a second job to make ends meet is impossible.

73% of young Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 20% of whom have no savings at all and many of them have to spend 50% of their income on housing. This means they don't really have the ability to quit their job and look for another job where working conditions exceed the minimum legally allowable standards. Which is why legally enforced minimum standards are important. We need those young people to step up and start making babies.

Fertility rates have dropped in the US from roughly replacement (2.1 children/woman) to a catstrophically low 1.6. The US population would already be contracting were it not for immigration. Now a lot of this is social changes -- women choosing to delay childbearing to start a career. But consider South Korea, which has the lowest fertility rate in the world at 0.8. They're a much more conservative society than we are so it's not changes in attitudes that's driving that. The reason their fertility rate is so low is that they take people in their prime childbearing years and work them like dogs, in return for little prospect of economic security.

Don't you think if those young Koreans would quit their job and choose a higher paying job that gives them more leisure time if they could?

When I started working in the 1980s, getting your first job was like stepping onto an escalator that would carry you up to higher economic status. It's not like that now for the youngest generation of workers; it's more like stepping onto a treadmill. When we start to look to that generation to replenish the US population, our fertility rate is going to sink like a rock. The only way to keep the country running will be to open the immigration floodgates.

"Pictures. Or it didn't happen!"

AI has ruined the joke.

To be fair, half a percent is actually only slightly below the average for tech-sector stocks right now. AAPL is paying 24 cents quarterly on $170 (.565%), and the Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index Fund (FNCMX) has a forward dividend yield of 0.64% annually.

Very little of an EV's weight comes from anything that's particularly rare.

The main components in a modern Tesla battery are lithium, iron, phosphorus, and oxygen. Lithium is the rarest, at about .002% of the Earth's crust. There's "only" about a third as much of that as there is copper. Now think about how much we use copper. Iron makes up 6.3% of the Earth's crust, making it the fourth most abundant element behind only oxygen, silicon, and aluminum. Phosphorus makes up about .1% of the Earth's crust (which is still 17x as common as copper, and only slightly behind hydrogen). And of course oxygen is the most common element in the Earth's crust.

The industry as a whole is built around a dealer network that depends on repairs and service charges to stay in business. Apart from stupid minor problems, EVs have far fewer major mechanical issues than ICE cars, so dealers don't really want to sell them. I would argue that there is every financial incentive for car dealers to ensure that EVs fail. Those dealers are the ones who help people decide what to buy, and if they're discouraging EV sales, you're not going to get any EV sales.

I believe that the word in all three cases is "won't" not "can't", for the reason stated above.

How do you figure? Tesla sold 1.8 million cars in 2023. And even in a really down quarter this year, they still made over a billion dollars in profit. That's not what I would call "struggling financially". Sales are down lately, but I think that's mostly the public's reaction to Tesla's really stupid and user-hostile design changes (e.g. no turn signal stalk, changing gears with the touchscreen, etc.) that they have made over the past few months, rather than because of anything specific to electric vehicles themselves. I love my 2017 Model X, but I wouldn't feel comfortable buying any car that Tesla is currently selling, and I doubt I'm in the minority here.

What efficiency problems? They're already vastly more efficient than ICE cars by any metric. Capacity problems? How many people routinely drive more than 300 miles without stopping? Endurance problems? Far fewer major mechanical problems than equivalent ICE cars also contradicts that theory.

EVs are already cost effective, and if Tesla would stop trying to be cute and f**king up their steering wheels in new and infuriating ways every year or two, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Also note that ICE cars also frequently fail to start when parked outside in cold temperatures. This isn't specific to EVs. If anything, EVs should be a lot less likely to fail to start, because they have a giant lithium ion battery pack with battery heaters to maintain its temperature, and that main pack periodically tops up the 12V battery when it gets low. Also, EVs tend to have active monitoring to warn you when the 12V battery is getting near the end of its life.