Okay, cut one carrier group, fine. Why not two or three? Where is your line? Should the U.S. not have any carrier groups?
Let's say we cut defense spending by 80% and pour the money into infrastructure and services: roads and bridges, fiber internet, national healthcare, social security. Then DPRK nukes a bunch of people. Would you say that that money was better spent on the infrastructure and services?
No ARM CPU exists that provides performance that is comparable to an i3/i5/i7 x86 CPU. And if one did exist, it would have similar power characteristics. If the OP is willing to give up big-core CPU performance and would be willing to accept ARM-level performance, Intel's latest Atom, "Bay Trail", has as good or better performance and power characteristics to the low-power ARM stuff available today.
but I really just want to see some ARM systems put out that are comparable to modern x86 machines in terms of specs.
Why do you care if it's ARM? There are plenty of actual x86 machines that would meet your requirements available today.
He acknowledged that it is an improvement, not a solution.
And then instead of saying any of the things that you said as to why it's not a complete solution (which are reasonable rebuttals), he just complained about underpowered console GPUs and compared them to high-end PC GPUs.
What he really did was read the first line of the response, ignore the rest of it, and assume that the argument that the response was making that games written for the new consoles would be better only because they would be targetting a GPU that is more powerful than the last-gen consoles. That was not the respondant's argument.
I certainly agree that there is effort involved to make a game originally written for a console look better on more powerful PC hardware. The respondant's point (which is probably wishful thinking, but still a point nonetheless) is that instead of spending developer effort and budget on simply porting the game to work on PC CPU+GPU instruction sets, their effort can be spent in all of those things that you named since the instruction sets of the consoles already match that which you'd find in a PC.
The gripe is not that consoles are less powerful than PCs. The gripe is that many games are designed around the limitations of consoles and don't take advantage of all of the power in a PC.
If you would read the very next post in the subthread, (here it is), it has a reasonable response to that gripe. Here, I'll quote it for you:
I'm looking forward to the optimizations and the fact that they'll be the same architecture as discrete cards. Hopefully that means game developers will allow their games to scale more since it shouldn't really be much work and they don't need to port them.
If that's hard to understand, I'll explain it. The console GPU architecture is basically PC GPU architecture, even though it's not quite as powerful as the best PC graphics cards. So the effort required by the game developers to use better PC hardware is hopefully low since it should be a pretty natural extension of what they're already doing for the consoles, as opposed to something totally different like it was for the last-gen consoles.
The OP then acknowledged this point, but then again complained about the lack of GPU horsepower in the consoles and compared it to high-end PC GPUs. I didn't really understand this to be anything other than complaining about the consoles being underpowered, since it basically ignored the response. What else is there to do at that point besides acknowledging the OP's complaint at face value and offering an explanation for it?
Does that make sense now or do you want to have another try?
I could have chosen any of the other first twenty hits on Google search.
If you had done that, you would have had at least a 50% chance of discovering that the pedantic insult you were about to write was incorrect, and that that phrase has gained an "everyday" meaning that fits my definition perfectly.
You did not argue that people's constitutional rights were being violated. You argued that it is not government's job to attempt to provide public safety because that is not specified directly in the constitution. That is clearly wrong, and that's what I addressed with my post.
As I mentioned in my original post, if you want to question the manner in which the government is providing that service, i.e. that it is violating constitutional rights in doing so, that's a fine debate and argument to have. But that's not what you did.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.
