Define "a lot". Those are 0.9 GHz Cortex A7 cores. How much faster is a 4GHz latest-gen i7, considering the i7 is much faster clock-for-clock, and also has a much-higher clockspeed? And what about when you've got eight of those cores?

If we assume (and I'm pulling a number out of thin air here) that the Intel chip has four times the clock-for-clock performance, you'd get a dual-processor 8-core system having the performance of 284 RPi 2 cores, which is pretty close. Now, I pulled my numbers out of my ass, but it's probably not that far off...

Can you really call something with the performance of a high-end desktop PC (or maybe a dual-processor workstation) a "super computer cluster"?

Most people who follow space stuff already know that Mars One is either a scam or simply delusional... although I suppose it's nice that other people are starting to notice this too.

I think you mean "Here, here."

It's still money on the table, and the effort to port a game from OS X to Linux is very small compared to the effort to port from Windows to OS X. Humble Bundle's statistics also put Linux users at a 3.7% revenue share. Not huge, but for developers already porting to OS X, or who use some middleware like Unity that pretty much does all the work for you, it's a nice little boost to your revenue.

I'm not going to argue that every one of those games is fantastic, there is certainly a lot of questionable quality in there, but the problem isn't nearly so bad as you make it out to be.

Steam lists 1001 games that run on Linux and have enough user ratings to give it a score, and 791 of them have good user ratings (defined by 70% or more of user reviews being positive for the title). 168 have mixed reviews (40%-70%). 42 have bad reviews (0%-40%.

Well, 2011 was the year of the Linux Smartphone, since that was the year where Linux smartphone marketshare passed 50%...

Steam makes it easy for developers to publish cross-platform. It does nothing to make it easy to get your game running on multiple platforms. That's up to your (and your middleware vendor's) developers.

Fair enough, but that won't change the functionality much. You're still going to get more speed than most consumers need today, and you're going to get electrical DP 1.2 that can be easily converted to other things as required.

The main issue with the thing is the single port, which makes the adapter situation much more complex...

Some points there, it's not clear that there are that many consumer devices that would really benefit from a jump from 10 Gbps to 20 Gbps. Consumers might hook up a portable hard disk, and that one might be an SSD, but even then, the extra bandwidth isn't going to help much. In the future, sure, but they'll likely have a newer version of the USB spec by then anyhow.

It's also worth noting that there's nothing stopping you from running Thunderbolt 2 over a USB-C cable: it has enough lanes to do that. If you can do a ~30 Gbps DisplayPort 1.3 connection over USB-C, then Thunderbolt 2 shouldn't be impossible.

Finally, Thunderbolt 3 will probably be dead on arrival, or perhaps relegated to the enterprise and professional niche. It introduces a new connector, and I really doubt that you're going to see TB3 on any consumer notebook or desktop. TB1 and TB2 are already pretty niche in the consumer space (not really used by most people apart from maybe some cheap adapter that could just as easily be done on USB, such as a GigE adapter), due to the huge price premium for TB devices. And I say that as somebody who owns a laptop with a TB1 port :)

Netflix on OS X uses hardware accelerated HTML 5 video, so it's pretty good for battery life. When you combine the fact that you can turn off your laptop's display (or backlight anyhow) while streaming Netflix, you should actually be able to get a bunch longer than the 10 hours the notebook is rated at.

That's not to say that a single USB-C connector isn't dumb. If they just put a second one, you wouldn't need the fancy adapter for that scenario.

Many ultrabooks require adapters to do that. They tend to have things like mini HDMI or micro HDMI or mini displayport, requiring adapters. If you've never seen a laptop with one of those ports as their only video output, then you've not seen many laptops.

Most of those wireless technologies like WiDi are gimmicks, because only a very small percentage of people are going to have the hardware that supports it. We do use wireless projection both in my main job and my volunteer job, but in the first case we're using wireless transmitters that you connect to via HDMI or VGA, and in the second case we're using the projector's built-in network projection support (via our wireless network) which works on any laptop that has the software installed. Downside is that it sucks for anything with motion. Which is fine, because that means it works for us for 90% of the use cases, and we just run an HDMI cable from the table to the HDMI socket we installed in the wall when we need more than that.

I've never seen an enterprise environment that used Barco projectors. That's large-venue stuff... Most of what I see in enterprise is Epson or Dell office-grade projectors.

Then again, most of our meeting rooms at work just use wall-mounted big-screen TVs, although they do use wireless... but you've still got to connect your laptop to the wireless transmitter under the table via VGA or HDMI.

For our convention, in our office, we are using wireless, via the built-in software in the projector. The upside is that the laptops don't need any special hardware to connect, the downside is that it's useless for anything with lots of motion, like video.

And for our convention itself, well, we've dozens of projectors ranging in brightness from ~2k lumen lumen to ~28k lumen per setup, and none of those are doing wireless, it's all HDMI or VGA or HD-SDI...

OK, you should realize that I wasn't arguing that the extra speed that USB 3.1 affords isn't desirable, I was arguing against the absurdity of claiming that running SSDs in RAID-0 was one of the main marketing or design goals for USB 3.1...