Fair enough - it is easy to forget just how much real functionality there actually is in these stacks. It is nice to live in a world where a handful of lines of glue code yield a rich application.

However, there is a lot of stuff that does not *need* all that and generally isnt worth the trade off for many/most users. There is also the reality that all that to frequently gets delivered in the laziest way possible. Rather than a few shared libs that the OS could map into multiple virtual address spaces, we get everything having its own copy, because its 'easier' if less efficent. It is a question of what you optimize around.

Look at an older house, every single door with be hung/framed and all the jointing will have been done on site. Look at new house, every door will be a pre-hung door. We incur the costs of packaging, shipping, stocking an array of sizes, to de-skill the install and save time. Its different optimization.

Software is not different, if RAM is expensive people will find ways to use less of it. What is special and uniquely good about software is we get to keep using it as long as we want. If expensive RAM drives development of memory efficent stacks, well when RAM gets cheap again (it will eventually) we still have the more efficent software, and we can pile even more debatable features on top...

I don't know how their structured sounds more like a parent holding company with subsidiaries that are their own legal entities not just divisions/departments.

So they probably independently have their own CEOs. The folks running the holding company though might very well be asking, well why would we not want each sub to make itself as profitable as it can be.

They only reason to step in is if/when Samsung Electronics is actually endangered in terms of market share. If they have to design around cheaper slower memory sourced outside while we make bank selling top drawer chips at a premium, so what? If they have to redesign devices around shipping with less memory, again so what as long as all our competitors are in the same positions.

Maybe this will me be good. If the software people had to start caring about resource consumption again, instead of just thinking "hey lets use Electron" no reason my stupid IM can't have 4gigs of resident memory, after users will just buy more RAM!

I question how much of an issue this is. CPUs have got fast - real fast.

Most of the time the CPU isn't the bottle neck in a "gaming rig." You limited on GPU which will still be doing native shader code. You are often limited on memory bandwidth, which translation of executable code probably has negligible impact on. Modern games are finally starting to parallelize more but again that pressures memory bandwidth and cache efficacy, leading to a lot idling anyway.

A few more MIPS is probably about the most affordable thing in consumer gaming machine right now. Apple pretty well showed with their move to arm and support for x86_64 translation that the performance can be pretty darn good. If you're an e-sports person, sure you're going to want either native or more realistically you're going to build yourself a Zen4/5 beast with a GPU that costs more than your car, for people that just want access to more titles to play with 'enjoyable' performance on the hardware they already have or a handheld or whatever, this is probably going to open up a lot more choices for a lot of people.

Affordability is important. No matter how much fantasy some want to engage in there is a huge segment of the American public and industry alike that is NOT ready to electrify.

Meanwhile we have huge new grid demands from the tech industry, a place where America remains a leader. Asking the transpiration and tech sectors to compete for electric power would be horrible policy.

We also know the writing is on the wall for ICE; in most respects electrification of cars looks like a clear winner. So why force American automakers into a horrible corner of:
1) Spending mountains of cash to try to eek out another couple % efficiencies form legacy engine tech
2) Going bust selling cars to few can afford to buy

Electric cars are not hard - battery tech is; if you can build an ICE car you can slap some pancake motors onto some wheel hubs and build an electric. Its hardly rocket science. By all accounts we already lost the battery tech race too. China, Japan, SE Asia own it. So were back to no real risk of falling behind on anything where we stood a shot at leading in the first place.

In short higher fuel economy standards achieve nothing but hurting the American public, and industry alike. They stand only to increase capital costs beyond what the fuel savings will amount to. Saving $1000 a year on gasoline so you can pay an extra $1500 in bank interest does nothing for a family. What the US economy needs at this time are cheap autos that run on existing infrastructure!

True in general but there are only so many players capable of manufacturing top draw DRAM. Most of those places have other products that are also in demand and fully leveraging those manufacturing resources.

The market will absolutely 'fix' the glitch but this is a sector where it could take years.

Nope the

AdTech - guys asked for it
The AI - guys asked for it
The cloak and dagger - guys probably asked for it ...

Microsoft has a serious culture problem, they'd better address right now or they are going to become Boeing.

They see to think nobody can live without them a jaw dropping bugs in commercial products they charge enterprises a lot of money for licenses are ok to go live with.

where is the QA - I mean goodness the 'password' entry button was missing on Windows 11 last week, and the advice was "just click where it should be"

WTF? - Where is the QA testing? Just because all the Tests pass in the CI/CD pipe does not mean you are ready to ship without someone actually trying to 'use the software'

The point is if you want to know the real risk, you already do; if insurance quotes are sky high, the reason is because they have to be for the underwriting to make sense. So if you know are looking at the property as an investment; maybe its going to be an airb&b that you will fill with cheap wallmart furniture and junk-art you don't care about. Then you ask if the numbers make sense.

If your kids are going to sleep there every night, and you are going to store the family heirlooms you maybe move on...

All I am saying is you already have the information. You don't need a scare-number, especially one that is ASSUREDLY not as well researched and considered as the causality companies underwriting is. Trust the insurance quotes - its the most accurate story you will get.

The flip side is the data was double reported.

Realistically most home owners are pushing the risk off onto a mixture of private insurance (in terms of loss coverage) and federal/state/local in terms mitigation and flood insurance, doing things upgrading the city sewer to handle more storm water or enhance flood walls.

The cost of getting someone else to take on these risks shows up in the price of insurance and local taxes / levies.

These are published, or mostly otherwise discover-able. As a buy/investor those are numbers worth looking at, they are the ones that matter (or if you cant get insurance - tells you something too). You won't be getting mortgage either in that instance. There is zero value in some big scary climate risk number also being disclosed, because A that risk accounted for if you are studying the details anyway and does not help you make a rational decision, because it literally does not affect you beyond the places where it is already baked into the numbers.

Well it was super useful if you wanted to say put on some cartoon the kids like while you are over at your friends place. Being able to just 'air play' or cast means you did not have login to any accounts, or search for something in a different profile etc.

It maybe did not look as good, but little tommy does not care as long as his aquanaughts are singing and dancing.

'some' is a really funny way to spell 'most'

This is going to be one hell of shit show for Wall Street (probably not Main Street) but hoo boy is this going to pull down valuations of some big NASDAQ components... When OpenAI goes tits up, or as likely gets parted up and sold off in pieces.

As I said; I can default. A bankruptcy would let me even keep quite a lot of the property. Government printing is the same as that default, or at least the opposite side the coin. They get to keep their spending, your savings get devalued.

inflation isn't free, and it is not magic - (there are other reasons it might be better for growth than deflation) but in terms of government purchasing power, a growing economy without and increase in money supply would just mean the existing money buys more, so government budgets could just stay 'static' and effectively they'd be increased year-over-year in terms of real value/spend.

I come back to; for all intents my home budget really isn't so different than a sovereigns budget. The notion that maco and micro economics are different in terms of deficit and liability accumulation, is an article of faith, and that is all. Its not backed by anything but orthadoxy and wishful thinking.

1) - Entirely correct; a block chain currency is stupid
2) - Also correct and the reality is governments need these things, which is why I think it would be about the dumbest move in history but..

lets again say your goals are
* Dodge the legislature and the existing body of law
* Get people to continue participating in your economy, while also doing something that will completely destroy any faith and trust in your ability to control a currency for generations because you're effectively going to swipe their life savings.

lets also assume you don't really care about (2) because you have the view, however misguided that you have the biggest guns and enough well-armed law enforcement and military assets that you can just go bust skulls and shatter hands or regime change any entity that won't comply with your edicts.

My engineering hat very much tells me that this had bad idea written all over it but; I don't know if many of the leading plutocrats and elected officials alike even have engineering hats.

People keep saying this but where is the real evidence for it?

We have been doing this pure fiat experiment for less half a century. It seems to me it works only as long as people are willing buy government bonds and that is only as long as they think the interest paid outweighs the time depreciation + whatever value they place on the 'security in terms of capital preservation'

This is exactly the same as my home budget, I can spend more than I make as long as people will continue to extend me credit ...

Once that stops working the government has to rely on balance sheet expansion to meet its obligations. the 2020s have proven deficits DO matter because if you pump the money supply, when there is any supply/production constraint the people that do have money take it off the side lines a buy the things they want by out bidding everyone else for it. Inflation skyrockets! In the market economy distribution of goods then becomes even more wildly unequal.

This too is actually pretty similar to my home budget in that I can default, file for bankruptcy and my creditors will be forced to take a lot of write downs, and I'll get to keep a lot my stuff. I can do this at least once.. (maybe some governments can get away with it more than once, maybe we don't know)