Where are you getting your numbers?
i5 with 8/128 is 999
keyboard is 199
pen is 99
for a grand total of 1297

I'm geting my $US from here:
https://store.google.com/produ...

It's not like that middle finger from Linus influenced nvidia that much. They still use completely proprietary binary blobs in their drivers, they still have driver based firmware blobs that are a pain in the ass for alot of users and distributions, Their optimus hybrid support on linux is still pretty shitty (iirc that's the question that prompted the middle finger) and they still aren't contributing significantly to nouveau.

I wonder what artist pay looks like in this same timeframe. Both mode and median values.

Technically, that's not an android problem. It's a problem with crappy manufacturers. Android itself absolutely allows updates. I get them at least once a month on my Pixel devices.

So gamers aren't consumers?
The difference between these cards are targetted toward end users. Sure it's targetted toward a specific sub-set of end users, but it's still meant to be sold in individual quantities to end users.

The Vega Frontier edition was meant to be targetted towards science and research, and maybe crypto-miners(?). Those are generally not consumer. I don't disagree that this is a gaming enthusiast line right now, but it's still meant for consumers and not institutions/professionals.

Keep in mind this is a $399 "low end" graphics card. We're not talking a maintsream card here, but still a card targetted toward enthusiasts and gamers. Big big difference compared to a truly "low end" mainstream card.

Exactly. The nihilistic view of honest people is that they are simply an opportunity away from being a dishonest person :).

That's not really an accurate analogy. One wouldn't need to hack the lock of a jeep to get access to the contents of the jeep.

I go by the notion that locks are for honest people and things like smartlocks and connected locks are primarily for the convenience of the owner. Realistically, for most consumer applications of locks, if someone wanted to get in, the lock isn't keeping them out. So while I'm disappointed at the overall non-concern for real security by the manufacturers, I'm not incredibly surprised and I'd be really surprised, outside of a handful of specific targetted cases, that any real thief would even bother with hacking a lock.

"only provides support to their devices for 18-24 months"

The problem is, in that 18-24 month period manufacturers aren't even updating their devices. Let's solve that problem first before we start talking about paying for longer term updates. And no, paying for an update while a device is still well within it's support window is not something I would do.

I have comcast business, and I see no where on my terms of service, or anywhere on comcast businesses site that claims "a dedicated chnanel on teh coax without sharing it with my neighbors".

As far as I'm aware, comcast business cable (not business ethernet) simply uses the same residential network to deliver services.

You know what amuses me about all this systemd hate.
Fedora was the first distro to go systemd by default back in F15. There were a few growing pains, but there wasn't the coordinated systemd hatred until pretty much recently when RHEL7 went out the door and debian said we're going systemd.

I know Fedora isn't as popular a distro as some others but it still seems amusing to me.

There is a HUGE difference between Java browser plug-ins and non-browser Java development. HUGE HUGE HUGE difference. One that anyone even remotely familiar with Java development would be able to understand.

AT&Ts issue is that the ratio of inbound to outbound traffic between them and Netflix's ISP is significantly out of balance for AT&T to justify the costs of upgrading their network purely to accommodate Netflix (yes to be perfectly clear, it's to accommodate their own users' demand for netflix bandwidth) but once again, AT&T has not built out and priced their network to allow large unfettered access to a specific pipe all simultaneously and nor should a consumer ISP be required to do so. If you really wanted "dedicated" bandwidth, then consumers will need to be prepared to pay out their ass for it. So the question here is
a) is AT&T/[insert your ISP] doing enough to evenly distribute their bandwidth use across their peers.
b) if they are, who's responsibility it is to "pay" to fix the problem?

If AT&T is not doing their part to make sure their peering is properly balanced across all their points of peering and purposefully say starving Level 3 because of netflix, well yeah, that's a problem.

Peering agreements don't really handle this type of issue as they were traditionally built on cases where the ratio was much much closer to even. With large swaths of consumer ISPs that don't also host content, things have changed considerably.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the ISPs issues.
1) Internet connectivity at the end user level is oversold. AT&T (comcast, timewarner, google fiber, [insert your ISP here]) does not charge in such a way that every single user can have 100% unfettered access to your bandwidth all simultaneously. It's just the way it works
2) Netflix may pay their ISP for their bandwidth usage.

Here's the disconnect. Netflix's ISP and [insert your consumer ISP here] do not share the same network. Thus at some point, the two ISPs have to cross some barrier. Now if all of [insert your consumer ISP here]'s customers are simultaneously connecting to Netflix at the exact same time for primetime hours, who's responsibility is it to ensure that the peering arrangement is fair? Does the consumer ISP need to pay to make sure that the peering relationship is such that all their users have the ability to stream from Netflix unfettered? Considering 1) above, is this fair to the ISP? They could do so, but to maintain their existing cost structure it'd likely mean that they may have a smaller pipe to another peer. Is it fair to users using those other peers or do they also have simply make sure ALL of their peers are able to fully pass 100% of traffic unfettered at peak times?

The simple answer is, if you expect the consumer ISP to allow full bandwidth to all of these sites, it's going to significantly raise the cost of bandwidth per end user. So we're complaining that consumer ISPs are demanding money from Netflix, but the alternative is to demand more money from the end user or eat the costs. We know eat the costs is never an option in the US market system :). So where's the money coming from? If the consumer ISP started charging people more for this, people bitch about being charged more rather than bitch about crappy Netflix.

Perhaps Netflix's tier 1 should pay for a larger peering pipe to the consumer ISP. But where's that money coming from? They're going to increase Netflix's rates, but even then, the consumer ISP would have to have the proper equipment to handle the larger peering pipe.

I don't really agree with the entirety of either Netflix or the consumer ISP (AT&Ts) arguments, but peering bandwidth has always been a balancing act, especially with multiple networks you have to peer with. This is why we have CDNs to begin with, and CDNs are paid for by the content producer, and they in turn either pay the consumer ISP to host their gear, or work with the consumer ISP to come up with a mutually beneficial decision. In some cases, the reduced bandwidth flowing through the peering reduces the ISPs costs that they can justify hosting the CDN equipment without asking for any money.

I do agree that it's wrong for a consumer ISP to purposefully lopside their peering arrangements to hurt a competitor, just like I agree that there's nothing wrong with the notion of paying an ISP to host a CDN appliance. Given our lobbying system, do you really think that net neutrality legislation will even begin to address the many nuanced aspects of this issue?