You might have missed that Musk made the same claim about 2016, with the 1-camera sensor system. The 2017 claim was with the newer 8-camera system, and the claim was made before Tesla even had software for the new sensors, and the Tesla then lacked adaptive cruise control, adaptive high beam, self parking, summon, and other things that the prior model did have. I'm embarrassed that I actually believed these claims.

I figure they were just trying to preserve as much information as possible. VHS will have lost a lot already.

This is what I do, at least. I haven't uploaded anything to archive.org, but when I've ripped my VHS tapes I've left them in whatever maximal format so that if some day there is a tool to algorithmically enhance them I wouldn't have lost any additional information. These are the archive copies of home made videos; I wouldn't bother with store bought stuff.

Now that being said, when I've published them to my home's media system, I do convert them down to DVD MP4 to save space and streaming bandwidth.

This is touching on the point here, IMHO. Licensing. Microsoft is in control of how much it costs for Windows and thus how much it costs for workloads to run on servers whether on-prem or in the cloud. You don't pay much for a server license on Azure but any other cloud provider is getting charged quite a bit more.

There are ways to get around this with AWS, but you need to talk to someone from Amazon. I'd imagine the reason is that these companies in the survey aren't off of Windows and thus are kind of stuck on Azure for now because Microsoft is telling them that as long as they're running Windows, they'll provide the best experience and cost. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear they have the best reliability and service set, so its a trade-off.

I am careful in all such interviews to say that Facebook is fine for anyone who likes it, for whom the plusses outweigh any minuses. I state that it's just wrong for me, myself, or others like myself. How can I not be "right" about that?

At least Tesla respects our right to die in our sleep.

Early this evening, the Council of Elders announced a planetary day of mourning and magnanimity.

K'Nord, Speaker for the Council, spoke thusly:

"Citizens and Podmates, the Council is pleased to announce that after seven and a half full years -- the longest campaign in the history of the Martian Defense Force -- the diabolical mechanized adversary from the blue world has been defeated. Our defense forces, counted in the billions, have finally surrounded and denied the invader the light and warmth it needs to survive. The blueworlders have acknowledged defeat and ceased contact. Ths invasion, at least on this front, is now over.

Let us raise our glasses to mourn the lost gelsacs of at least half our press corps, some of whose entire careers have been dedicated to coverage of this conflict -- and in a spirit of magnanimity in victory, we -- the victors of the Conflict at Endeavour Crater -- must also raise our glasses in awe and respect of our longest-lived and most challenging foe."

Shortly thereafter, a wizened old retired Councilmember, his gelsacs having long ago been ceremonially ground into a fine tartare and shared amongst the Council, wiped a perchlorate tear from his eye: "Well-done, blueworlders. Well-done."

Why are fares $2.75? I don't know if it is fair to compare it to taxi rides and bottled water, though that would be a economics 101 approach. Saying a $0.25 increase is nothing is disregarding the historical cost increase.

I think the main issue is that there are a lot of people living in the 5 boroughs who have been there all their life and are not the transient population that moved there for their 20s or even 30s who most likely are on the wealthier end of the spectrum (i.e. they appear fine to spend ridiculous amounts of money on rent and it is only increasing). The "lifers" of NYC have observed the cost of a 30-day metrocard go from $65 (circa 1998) to nearly double at $121 today. When you live in NYC, most people don't drive and completely rely on the bus/subway system MTA provides and thus is a necessity to get to work or school (yes, your high school might not be within walking distance or even the same borough and there is no school bus like the suburbs).

Subway ridership has increased over 35% in the same time frame of 1998-2018. During this time the MTA has mostly refreshed its rolling stock while doing some infrastructure improvements, which is good and obviously expensive. However, they've also reignited the 2nd Ave line work which is a major cost to the city and I suspect is the main financial drain and somewhat why it hasn't been explored in many decades. I can only imagine that it was started up again because someone ran a spreadsheet which showed that if they build this, they'll increase property values on the east side which means they can increase property taxes which means more revenue for the city. But how much of that is going back to the MTA?

I don't know the answers to this but I get the sense that budgets are somewhat getting driven by greed and the desire to further gentrify the boroughs rather than provide the best service for the people who have lived their all their lives. Simply saying "keep increasing the fare" is ignoring the needs of the majority of people that live in the city and won't move away after their few years of their "city living" experience.

(rant finished)

To pull two comments together, when Bloomberg was first mayor of NYC he was known to ride the subway at times. I don't know why though I can speculate two things:

1. Nobody is anybody in NYC; famous people can be just like everyone else as long as they avoid the tourist hotspots (e.g. Times Square).
2. During rush hours, the subway tends to be the fastest means of getting around town.

So Facebook will spend a billion to deliver what, exactly... a home internet speaker that will automatically post to Facebook pictures of my dinner, so I don't have to? Detect what TV shows I watch and give me automatic LIKEs for those? Listen to my phone calls and automatically "Friend" those people? Trick the Echo next to it into ordering random crap, so we get rid of it?

The 64-bit instruction set used in 64-bit x86 processors was originated by AMD. The ISA these days is a mix, since Intel designed most of the new instructions, SSE (AMD has a competing thing called 3D Now!), etc.

The machine architecture to run those instructions changes from processor family to processor family, and was certainly designed by Intel, when it's in an Intel chip. Both Intel and AMD use their own version of the technique first used in the NexGen's processors, the idea of converting x86 instructions on-the-fly into one or more RISC-like instructions. But just the idea (well, AMD bought NexGen and used some of their technology directly in the K6 series).

It's not really close to the same situation.

When Apple went PowerPC, they were going there for performance, to support the huge percentage of the media content creation market they had wound up with, back when PCs didn't support such things very well. Motorola wasn't competitive with Intel, in a big part because in 1996 Apple was the last standing 68K personal computer company and didn't have the market share to sustain that kind of development for Motorola/Freescale.

The idea with the AIM Alliance was to promote a standard PowerPC platform (PReP, I mean CHRP, no PPCP, ok, maybe CHRP... ) to rival the Intel/IBM Ad Hoc standard. That was not a bad idea.

The problem was that, immediately, other comapanies did this better than Apple. Power Computing won a big chunk of the market. My company at the time, PIOS AG, launched the first 300MHz Mac Clone available. And then when SJ came back, it was curtains for the gherkins... he was the original closed, appliance computer, and it had to be "mine, mine, all mine". Of course, SJ neglected one of the main points of AIM -- enough volume to keep hardware competitive with Intel. So in 1997, it was absolutely obvious that Apple would eventually leave PowerPC. The PPC970 was nice... for about two weeks. Intel pretty much invented the way all successful modern chip comapnies work, with multiple tweaks of each technology and three independent teams always working on the Next Big Thing. So there's a new thing every six months. That's how nVidia won on GPUs... doing the Intel thing.

But these days, Apple's scared off their high end media content creation people by phoning it in on the Mac Pro. A new major upgrade every five years, whether you need it or not. They have built market share mostly from iOS coattail people... like my sister Kathy. Maybe this report is nothing, but it makes perfect sense for Apple to move macOS closer to iOS. It saves on development efforts. It lets them push out more advanced ARM tech before it's possible to make that low enough power. It will win more coattail customers. The average desktop PC user today doesn't need a faster CPU than a decent ten-year-old PC, and Apple's ARM cores are already faster than that.

Not my next computer, but then again, the last Macintosh I'd even have considered using was the one I was the CHRP machine I was developing back then Jobs put the kebash on the whole thing. Apple doesn't build serious computers today, anyway.