That was Thursday. This is Sunday.

A computer that's half the speed of another and also has half the memory is not one quarter the speed of the other. It's half the speed for certain tasks, and either can't do other tasks or it's half the speed plus (not multiplied by) the speed of swapping, based on how much swapping needs to be done and how often.

ieee.org should know better.

It's a really poorly written article filled with speculation, easily researched untruths, and just plain silliness.

Screenshots are for the wrong things (Windows 2, not Windows 1). WorldWideWeb.app was not created in 1987. Color NeXT were available in 1990. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 had nothing to do with it - their hyperlinks were green. And Gopher was designed to be green on black? No, silly - terminals were commonly green on black.

Seriously, Mozilla?

Most of these companies are too big to do anything correctly. Even if you're a paying customer, something bad happens, nobody is accountable, and nothing can be done.

While self hosting email and other services is outside of the wheelhouse of most people, tech companies really should be running their own services, unless those services don't really matter. If they don't matter, then who cares when Google locks your accounts without explanation?

Intel NEVER had a chance of getting x86 in to phones. Their "if only we did this" speculation is their fantasy.

Good luck talking to an actual human at Google. Every now and then you'll get to talk to a human who works for Google, but even that human will have no clue how to talk to someone who can actually do any real thing at Google.

Do their email servers use HELO / EHLO names which don't exist in DNS? Nobody blames Google - it HAS to be the fault of everyone but Google. Trying to tell them? Impossible.

The only reasonably certain way to get any response from Google is to get something spread widely in the media, or to sue their dumb asses.

If anyone else has any other suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

The interface isn't why SD cards are slow. The storage is why they're slow. This is just marketing fluff.

Back in then late '80s and '90s, many people's computing resources were stratified. You had the haves and the have-nots, and if you didn't have the memory, CPU, Internet or other resources, you couldn't do what other people could do. This, obviously, included programming.

As free and open OSes became prevalent, and as computing has become ubiquitous, pretty much anyone can attain enough computing power to participate, even on a first gen Raspberry Pi or a decade old, recycled x86.

Rust changes all of that. Rust is so ridiculously computing resource hungry that you can't even compile Rust itself on a 32 bit architecture, because there isn't enough address space. This is just ridiculous. So now we're supposed to go BACK in time and go BACK to where only certain people have the resources to compile, and everyone else is supposed to simply accept this?

Also, if Rust is so memory safe, then why aren't people taking advantage of that memory safety to be MUCH more aggressive with deallocating / reallocating memory in, say, Firefox? Why does Firefox now seem to require gigabytes of memory for basic browsing?

Rust has some good ideas, but the lock-ins to resource expense aren't exactly helping the planet.

If they can't even make an audio player and audio files that are future proof, how are we supposed to believe they can do this with graphics?

Oops. I meant the opposite. Managers think they don't need to be technical and don't need to understand the projects they manage. People who are actually doing the work would love it if the managers knew something about what's going on. There are too many decisions made for the wrong reasons.

Surprising? Not at all. Managers who don't know what the hell they're doing are a huge problem.