That is definitely a problem with laptop-class ARM CPUs that are available rather than Windows on ARM (compared to Windows on x86/x64). There are plenty of reports that Windows on ARM runs really well under virtualization on Mx series Macs. And Qualcomm is making the same mistake of just trying to make a phone SoC into a laptop SoC without any major changes.

Two-track audio editing takes now CPU power at all. With on-board encode/decode of common video codecs, a basic video editing task is no different than audio. That really isn't mentioning much - it's not a claim that it can run multi-layered compositing or anything.

Tell that to Qualcomm. Of course, this is why they are having so many problems with their new chip.

Good benchmarks are based around a mix of standard use cases packaged up in a way that is perfectly repeatable.

You can definitely tweak performance to favor higher benchmark scores but that can only go so far without actually improving real world use.

The OEMs built prototypes with these chips and got terrible performance. I would believe that the sources are good. The problem is that the lead in to the article (and the summary) focuses on how the benchmarks were cooked, but gives no other details than the real world performance doesn't match. It was a very long article that says "these run slower than they said they would but we don't know what happened."

I thought about that. It would be hard to call it anything else. You don't really want wheels on something this short on rough terrain because if it overturns, you lose the thing in a wildfire. And generic quadruped just doesn't have quite the same sound to it.

According to their site, the fuel tank is 0.4 gallons. For that same flamethrower without the dog, there is an accessory 3.5 gallon fuel tank backpack. Their marketing says that the 3.5 gallons gives you 5 extra minutes of fire. So it sounds like this dog can shoot fire for a little over 30 seconds on a full tank.

Reading books with ADHD is a challenge. I do it at bed time, when my brain is too tired to wander and it also helps me get to sleep. It may take 6 months sometimes to get through a longer book, but that's OK. Though if you're reading an ebook, you can also zoom in even if you have no trouble with your eyesight. The large print means that when your mind wanders, you can very quickly get back to re-reading the last thing you tried to read.

Which doesn't really do much to explain why you can often get a new paperback for less than the ebook. The paperback can even be resold. I often look to used books in good condition. I only read in one place and it's just as convenient to read an ebook as it is to read paper.

It would be if it weren't for the streaming royalties that Spotify pays being so unrealistically low. Somewhere between a 1/3 of a cent to half a cent. If 10,000 people hear your song in a year, you get $50 at best. A million streams, $5,000. And then remember that some artists are a group rather than solo, so divide that multiple ways.

There are more low-quality books on the market now. Not even including the ones written by AI. It's hard to sell many copies when you're one of an ever-increasing pool of low-quality talent. Between self-publishing and print-on-demand (and ebooks), there's a much lower barrier to entry.

*And an even higher percentage of consumers.

A hydrogen powered peaking generator would work well. But H2 is only cheap if you need to ship it somewhere. Just about all grid energy storage options are cheaper because Hydrogen has to be stored pressurized.

I'm talking about your own quote:

Yeah, demanding that I retain messages. And then I wouldn't be sending any more.