That depends.
My CEO turns every initialism into an acronym.
Did you know you can pronounce PCMCIA? Hearing that *will* give you a stroke.

It *is* strange.
What does "settings" even imply in this context?
Why the weird part about them accidentally testing with x86 binaries? (assumed, since the "fix" was to use Arm native)
How on FSM's green earth do these people consider themselves qualified to evaluate what is "possible" for some set of "settings" on a new piece of silicon?

This article was a pile of shit. Even if it ends up being completely accurate- the article is still a flaming pile of shit.

Ya, it's really fucking bad.
It screams like the kind of tortured logic someone who has been personally offended would employ.
I think this person is pissed off at QC, and they decided to lash out in an article, stretching what they really had to look as bad as possible.

I think the part that irked me, is that they even mentioned the part where they were testing x86 binaries at "SUB 50%".
Well no shit. That's a your bad. Maybe you should leave that out, because now it looks like perhaps you are trying to taint perception.

I know you were. That's why I said that they have working rockets, and nuclear warheads are far simpler devices.
Russia has demonstrated current development of advanced technology (including tactically deployed hypersonics), as well as a very cool Gen4 fighter jet.
This means it's unlikely that the technology to keep the warheads working (which really comes down to one thing- replacing them once they're past their expiration date) has been lost by them. It's further unlikely that they have let their nuclear deterrent turn into a bunch of fizzle/dirty bombs (though that's still plenty terrifying)

Russia has a lot of problems related to its cronyism. Keeping its weaponry functional hasn't been one of them. Production capability is obviously greatly limited (evidenced by the fact that they don't have hundreds of Su57s) but the ones they have are stellar.

Fallacious use of the term "ad hominem" means you've lost at fucking life.

Let's go over it.
The term "ad hominem", broadly meaning, "insult", does not in any way take from or add to an argument. It's merely syntactical sugar.
Trying to imply that it does, is fallacious reasoning, and means you're stupid.

Now, an ad hominem argument is a fallacious argument that uses the personal attack as a point in the argument.
Example: You're wrong, because you're a fucking moron.
Though I'm educated enough not to use that as an argument, I do suspect it's true regardless.

Nice try, dumbshit.

Yep. Thus helping the blue states to maintain their dominance in technology work.

I find Jan 6 to be a tragedy. It's a sad thing to have happened in this country.

I'm particularly annoyed with the President at the time for fomenting it, when he knew it could grow out of control, which it did.
That being said, "no harm, no foul" should absolutely apply to those who didn't commit overt acts of violence or arguable overthrow of the government.
The people who were there with bad intentions, should be rounded up and assfucked with the law. The rest should be let off, and look at them as an example of why mobs are bad. That shit can grow out of control, and next thing you know, you've stormed Congress, and are looking for the fucking Vice President, and others involved with the function of transfer of power. For those who were there and peaceful, or even entered Congress and peaceful, just laughing like dumbshits through its halls, no harm, no foul. Enough heads are going to roll that yours don't need to as well.

I try to look at this entire thing from the perspective of, "What if I believed, no matter how stupidly, that an election had been stolen. What would be correct action be?"
And I keep coming back to: "Thinking that I'm empowered to overthrow the current fucking government is not it. That thinking does not scale. If it did, we've have an overthrown government every 4-8 fucking years."
I'm not a particularly political person. I'm a socially liberal minded person, but I don't identify with any political party. From my point of view, this entire thing is a fucking tragedy, and the politicians that fomented it are the most diseased form of human fucking filth there is.

It might make more sense to use the hydrogen to produce methane, which is considerably easier to store and manage.

Ah... there's the problem. In your initial post you said $2500 per month. It's no surprise people were freaking out about that. $208 per month is significant, but $2500 a month would be crazy.

While desalination is a great use of excess power, this is not an easy thing to do because the places where the water is needed are inland. Obviously it doesn't make sense to pump desalinated water 180 miles uphill from the Gulf of California to Phoenix, what you really want to do is to use desalinated water at the places nearer the coast so they can stop relying on the river water that comes from the mountain west, so the southwest can use more of it (and so the mountain west can keep more of it for our own use). But while you could get some benefit from getting the coastal cities using desalinated water, their use actually isn't that significant. The bulk of the water goes to California farmlands, and those are in a belt 70-100 miles from the coasts, and there are mountains in between. Not terribly tall ones, but enough to make pumping the water challenging.

None of this means what you say isn't a good idea, but it does mean that a lot of infrastructure has to be built to make it work. Big coastal desalination plants, big pipelines from those plants, fed by big pumps, and either additional reservoirs or perhaps large tanks in the mountains to buffer the water supply -- though only after peak supply rises to the point that it exceeds demand. Heh. That's exactly the same situation as with intermittent, renewable power, just shifted to water. Water is a lot easier to store, of course, but you still have to build the infrastructure to store it.

So, this is a good idea, but it's an idea that will take years, probably a decade, to realize... and we have excess power now. Of course, starting by tackling the easier problem of using desalinated water in the coastal cities while the infrastructure is built out and scaled up makes sense.

Yep. This, like many problems associated with regulated utilities, is one where the right answer is also pretty simple: Just make the prices reflect the costs, then let the market sort it out. But the "just" in that statement belies the political challenges of making such changes.

You assume. You should consider that people with an inside view who see what data is actually collected, how it's secured and managed and how it's used, may have a very different perspective on that. I mean, without an internal view you understandably have to assume the worst, but they (we) don't.

Speaking for myself, I very few concerns about Google's privacy violations today. But with respect to the future, you and I are in the same boat, neither of us can know what a future version of the company might do. And on that score I suspect you and I would find ourselves in strong agreement on the potential for serious harm. Where we might differ again is that I see the work being done to limit Google's access to user data so I'm cautiously optimistic that before all vestiges of the old corporate culture are lost and the bean counters take over completely, Google will largely have ceased collecting and using data for advertising and what remains will be easy to limit and make safe.

Re: your subject "Not true", the data doesn't lie. The fact that you're an outlier doesn't change the situation.

Me too, though usually it's audiobooks for fiction and certain types of non-fiction. Being able to "read" a book while mowing the lawn, or whatever, has made chores far less annoying and opened up big blocks of time for reading.

Of course not.

There was a diverse group of people there, intention wise.
Some were there with the intent of forcing a regime change (overturning an election they saw as fraudulent, via extralegal means).
Some were there merely to disrupt in protest that varies from peaceful, to violent.
Some were there because it was a mob, and mobs are fun for pieces of shit.

The punishments should fit the crime, all crimes are based on intent.