Here's the part of the Wikipedia article you forgot to quote:

Google ranking YouTube results ahead of competitors is not "tying". It may be legally actionable for other reasons, but it's not tying.

Personally, I think complaints about Google search results are going to have a hard time in US courts. Search results are an opinion, and Google has a first amendment right to express their opinion. It is fundamentally the job of all search engines to form an opinion about which links are more important than others, and sort the results accordingly. Completely "neutral" search results would be useless.

Any use of "Microsoft" and "force" in the same sentence always sets off alarm bells in my head. Having said that, anything that helps kill IE is a Good Thing.

Sure, most architectures eventually die. But some influence what comes after them, while others simply go extinct. CISC in general, and VAX in particular, went extinct.

VAX is a great example of CISC architecture. My point is that such architectures are now considered a Bad Idea. That doesn't mean VAX was bad idea at the time it was created -- it just means that the world has moved on. No new designs similar to VAX have been created in a very long time.

I assume you've never participated in an industry standards committee. :-)

In my personal experience, there is a big difference between a few companies working on something together (e.g. Ethernet), vs. a formal industry standards committee with dozens of participants. One or two participants with their own agenda can delay or derail the entire effort.

I enjoyed working on various vaxen, but I wouldn't use VAX as an example of success. It had a brief moment in the sun, but then it died. Completely died. If the VAX architecture is discussed today, it's usually as an example of what not to do.

I agree that (1) S/360 was a hugely successful and influential architecture, and (2) it was probably designed by a team rather than a single architect. But a "team" isn't the same as a "committee". Even assuming good faith by all participants -- which a questionable assumption -- industry standards committees are orders of magnitude slower than internal company teams. For every success, they produce are at least two camels ("A camel is a horse designed by committee").

I agree! And the good news is that it's already here -- it's called RISC-V.

To some extent, all RISC processors are "based on MIPS." So what?

Can you describe the specific "architectural limitations" in RISC-V that you are concerned about?

Because designs produced by committee have such a great track record. :-(

Actually, NVidia is already using internally developed RISC-V cores in their GPU's. These cores aren't exposed to the outside world, but they're integral to the internal functioning of the GPU. People from NVidia have publicly presented this work at RISC-V events over the last few years. Here's a recent example: https://youtu.be/7Lx3692cbAg.

I'd argue that the Windows GUI API *is* object oriented. How else would you describe window classes, WndProc's, message passing, GDI objects, etc? Windows just does it with C rather than an OO programming language. Win32 is just Win16 on steroids, and Win16 was designed in the early 1980's. IMHO, the Windows GUI API design (USER and GDI) has held up remarkably well after 35+ years.

P.S. I'm choosing my words carefully. Windows has many moving parts, of which the GUI API is just one piece. Some of the other parts turned out to be Really Bad Ideas, but that doesn't detract from the GUI API design.

HCQ is a cheap generic drug. India is a major manufacturer of generic drugs; they have the infrastructure to crank out millions of HCQ pills (they probably already do!). Nobody is going to make windfall profits on it. This is why big pharma would rather come up with something new, like Remdesivir, that they can sell for $1,000 per pill.

The study says "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine". So, like most/all prior HCQ studies, this one is worthless too. Anti-viral drugs need to be administered at the VERY START of the infection. By the time somebody realizes they have COVID-19, and become sick enough to be admitted to a hospital, it's probably too late for any anti-viral (including HCQ or Remdesivir) to have much effect.

You're missing the key point of RISC. "Advanced features" and complex instructions look good on paper, but end not being used by compiled code. Research over the last 30+ years has confirmed this time and time again. You think RISC-V is boring, and you're not wrong. Their goal was to be useful, not exiting.

If you want to see an interesting architecture, check out The Mill. Unfortunately, they're five years away from having real chips, and always will be :-(. Same with compilers that can fully exploit VLIW -- they're also five years away, and always will be.