I wouldn't hold my breath ...

My view is: that battle has been lost, for a long time now ...
Bloat is here to stay ...

Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right though.

By "minor", since the M1 was released, it routinely beats Intel machines even on x86 software. While the M series is handled by Rosetta, all M chips have some hardware translation. That is pretty much a fact you are unwilling to acknowledge.

Sure if your denialism wants to ignore that mobile gaming is twice as large as PC gaming in terms of revenue. In fact PC at 22% of the market would be considered "niche" compared to mobile and then consoles. Which processor does most mobile gaming support: ARM. How much of mobile gaming is x86: nearly 0%.

Only in your unwillingness to recognize a market worth $103B in 2025 compared to PC's $39.9B. But what are facts?

Only in your No True Scotsman arguments and denialism. ARM represents more than 55% of the gaming market. You however will never admit it.

Yep. CAFE-style regulation is the wrong way to attempt to reduce carbon emissions. The right way is to impose a carbon tax, then let consumers vote with their wallets and engineers work to make the right tradeoffs to meet customer demand. My guess is that consumers would choose to buy the more fuel-efficient vehicles and engineers might make the same tradeoffs... but now it would be clear that those tradeoffs are worthwhile.

"There are serious effects now"
Really?

As far as I can tell, the "current serious effects" are always handwavy either wrong or framing-dependent bullshit like:
1) "there's a drought in California" (entirely disregarding that we happen to have settled it in an extremely wet phase, while for the last 1000+ years the US SW has been much drier for *centuries* at a time), or
2) every time it rains in Charleston "global warming is making hurricanes worse" or "...more frequent" or both (both of which have been repeatedly debunked as an artifact of our North-Atlantic-Data focus, in regards to both 'severe' storms and total hurricane energy, EITHER in the NAtl or globally), or
3) the 'look at all the people that die from heat!' (invariably after a hot week in summer; again routinely and repeatedly debunked by statistics that show 6-10x more people die from cold than heat whether we're talking regionally or global scales).

So please, elaborate these 'serious effects NOW'? What did I miss? The 'sinking islands' that aren't actually sinking?

Gas is pretty much exactly at its long-term, inflation-adjusted average price, and right where it was in the 1950s. Since then, it was a little higher in the 70s, a little lower in the 90s, a little higher in the early 2000s, but we're now back at the long-term normal price.

See https://afdc.energy.gov/data/1...

Whether the normal price of gas is "cheap" or "expensive" depends on your income and lifestyle, I'd think.

There is a middle ground. Apple and Qualcomm have released ARM CPUs with some hardware x86 translation like the entire Mx line up and the new Snapdragon X series chips.

I wouldn't call ARM a niche platform considering many consumers probably own more than one ARM device and fewer of them own an X86 device these days. Gaming is one of the last strongholds of X86 only software but with efforts like this, that may change.

This is an appropriate place for tariffs. Not ridiculous, exclusionary tariffs like we have, but tariffs carefully calibrated to offset the subsidies as precisely as possible, putting BYD's cars on a level playing field against US EVs. I have great faith in free market capitalism and dislike anything that distorts the market, but sometimes you need to use regulation to correct for external market distortions.

The Bobs: "I see you worked for Mark Zuckerberg at one point."
Me: "I wouldn't say I 'worked' for him, Bob"

If Zuckerberg rolled a truck full of money to my house to change jobs, I wouldn't say no. I would however take the attitude of Peter Gibbons from Office Space though: Cleaning fish at my desk, etc.

Citation needed. While I don't doubt Intel got rid of older workers, the main reason is that newer, younger workers are cheaper. The fact they were old white men is more an artifact of the system where Intel hired mostly white men to be engineers decades ago.

Not everyone lives in a fantastically rich petrostate.

It literally says in the very first sentence of the government page on CAFE: "NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards regulate how far our vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel. NHTSA sets CAFE standards for passenger cars and for light trucks (collectively, light-duty vehicles), and separately sets fuel consumption standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and engines."

How did this blatant misinformation get marked as "Informative", I'll never know..

I remember when cars were made from STEEL, had STEEL chrome bumpers. If you bumped into someone, you might scratch the chrome. Now, bump into someone and it is a multi-thousand dollar repair! Plus, with all the electronic sensors and what not, makes it even more expensive. They increased the MPG by removing most of the steel in the vehicles, replaced it with plastic. At least the steel can be recycled.

How so? I don't see how hovering makes any difference at all... it's just a waste of fuel, increasing gravity loss. It's nicer from a controllability standpoint, but SpaceX has clearly perfected the hoverslam maneuver and once you have that down it makes more sense than to waste fuel hovering and translating. Bolting itself into the deck helps with rough seas, I suppose, but it seems unlikely you'd want to try landing in very rough conditions anyway.

Nah. They do it when it makes sense. They don't do it for Starlink launches because it's cheaper to launch a slightly lighter load and shorten turnaround time, to avoid waiting for the droneship to ferry the rocket back to land. Plus their launch cadence is so high that they'd need a big fleet of droneships. So they reserve those for paying customers who need the greater capacity. I don't think anything about New Glenn's capabilities changes those calculations.

The AI is significantly more aware of other cars around it. Unlike a human, the self-driving system has continuous 360-degree visibility.

While I agree that it *should* always be safe to hit the brakes, the truth is that when you're driving on busy roads most of the time it's not safe to brake hard. People follow too close more often than they maintain proper separation.

I also agree that drivers should always have sufficient situational awareness to know whether or not it's safe to brake, they often don't, and they often react without considering the consequences. This isn't a "man vs woman" thing, it's a human thing.