We are sitting in this weird spot that business-class desktop machines that are a decade old can still perform adequately to meet the needs of the user short of things like gaming.

I suspect that the biggest issues are in enterprise computing on virtual machine platforms where both CPU density (and associated heat) and GPU density have become core elements.

Industry leaders that are conducting basic research should be developing their own manufacturing equipment to produce chips using those revolutionary processes/scales that are supposed to be a major component of being industry leaders.

That they're buying machines for their flagship products indicates that they're no longer the leaders they used to be. It would be one thing if they ended up buying machines for expanding their legacy products offerings simply because their own in-house machines are worn out or otherwise require lifecycle, or because they've upgraded the oldest products to a new process to make them more cost effective while still producing something that on-paper meets the legacy product specifications, but this doesn't sound like doing that.

And I hate to see this/say this; Intel is a major employer in the metro area that I live in and I've been personally acquainted with people that worked as manufacturing technicians on the factory line, but it sounds like Intel continues to make compounding mistakes in their business. I don't know how a company that has managed to lose nine billion dollars over two years can continue to operate.

Probably because while Verizon owns Yahoo, it's not been wholly integrated into Verizon as simply another unit?

Yahoo News was a halfway decent competitor to Google News as far as aggregators go, but I now expect it to take a sharp quality turn down into wharrgarbl.

I think that we're going to need a citation on that.

The only professionally-mastered CD that I've had that failed was a Monty Python rerelease branded as "The Final Ripoff" that suffered from bronzing due to manufacturing problems at a PDO plant in Lancashire, UK.

Vinyl records will degrade as they're played due to friction, on even the best record players, and due to their sheer size it's fairly likely that they'll be mishandled when simply stored compared to smaller CDs with sturdier cases.

I won't deny that it's possible to play vinyl records with only the most minimal of technology, as a kid I took a record player whose electronics were fried, made a paper cone out of some newsprint, wedged the end of the cone in at the stylus, and managed to get an audible signal.

I've infinitely had more blu-ray players fail than blu-ray discs fail.

ie, I've had two blu-ray players fail and I've never had a disc that stopped working.

I didn't get into vinyl but I did get into Laserdisc, and I use them for wall-art both at home and in my cubicle at work. I was able to buy replacement jackets meant for vinyl to put the actual discs into back on the shelf with the rest of the collection while the empty jackets are inserted into picture frames sized for 12" LPs, Laserdiscs happen to be the same size.

The only real headache with using Laserdiscs this way is that many widescreen releases saw the disc jackets branded as such. Those aren't quite as nice for the artwork on account of having the artwork itself letterboxed.

A safety engineer isn't the right person for that task. The person for that role will take input from the safety engineer along with the rest, and needs to be smart enough to understand what's being said and to provide a path forward.

The project engineer and the safety engineer are at-loggerheads. It's the program manager's job to work with them to find a way forward.

That's what I was thinking too.

I've known engineers that were good at business, that were great at business, and that were absolutely terrible at business.

I've known business-types that were reasonably good at managing their departments/organizations, that were great at it, and that were terrible at it, very easily taken-in by suckups and the nature of workplace socialization.

And the problem is that it can be very difficult to know exactly how someone will behave in a role. It sounds like the legacy of the McDonnell-Douglas capture-merger was that the aircraft equivalent of tech-bros got to be in charge. The damn-the-consequences-it'll-get-fixed-later mentality only really works for the short term. The revolution into jet passenger liners has showed us that these products last for decades and the engineering behind them and thus the corporate mindset behind the development and manufacturing process needs to be similarly long-term.

The top brass at Boeing don't themselves absolutely need to have been engineers designing product or working quality or doing floor work with the assemblers, but they need to be able to understand when they're being lied-to, or when there are lies of omission, or when the arguably guilty parties are deflecting rather than doing their jobs properly.

Unfortunately the Boeing shareholders are also partly to blame, because they are looking for short-term profits in a business whose profits are based on product development cycles that require basic research and years of development just to bring designs to maturity, plus the manufacturing time and order fulfillment schedules for individual units that take months to assemble and deliver. When a company in this sort of market sees its owners switch to an eye on short-term profit, that short-term profit only really happens once before the whole thing starts coming apart at the seams.

The new upper management needs to work the stockholders as much as working the departments, suppliers, and employee groups.

What, to you, makes a PC exciting?

Last time I found computer hardware exciting I was buying surplus-before-their-time high-end dual Xeon workstations from the local college surplus when school programs were closed down prematurely or unexpectedly and the equipment sent for disposal. That was the better part of fifteen years ago now.

I'm using a seven year old laptop at home and it's still more computer than I actually need. What I do need are physical page-up and page-down keys, SD-card readers, and copious numbers of USB ports, but fewer and fewer manufacturers are catering to that in their laptop lineups unless I want to go with a monstrously-huge device.

Mercedes and Porsche weren't illuminating indicator lamps denigrating other vehicles on the road as one drove around.

I started with the HTC Dream badged as the T-Mobile G1. I miss the physical keyboard. I was a Palm Pilot user and the biggest advantage Android and Google's services offered were OTA synchronization and the ability to use any device with a web interface to perform updates to my phone's content, like calendars, contacts, maps, e-mail, etc.

The rest of this stuff is largely a matter of style to me, not of substance.

If it was limited to "an old Android phone" that would be one thing, but they're doing this to any Android interaction regardless of how new it is.

And that's why it's stupid. They are relying on their own proprietary protocols and then denigrating anyone that isn't using their proprietary protocols.

Spirit Areosystems is one of Airbus' subcontractors too. So of course the problems within the Boeing supply-chain could affect the Airbus supply-chain.

As was commonly the case during the DOS/Windows and MacOS era, many applications will only come to the Apple platform after the DOS or Windows platform proves successful. It didn't matter how slick or easy the Apple product was, the risks were higher and in that era of small teams or individual software developers it didn't make sense to pursue the higher-risk platform before the lower-risk one.

Frankly I'm surprised with these walled-garden models that this hasn't happened even sooner.

Being Classified is an actual... classification.

Being proprietary has no actual classification, and could refer to any of a number of classifications.