I don't overclock it.

I do like buying the K versions though; as they generally have all the features; are readily available when I'm doing builds, and the fact that intel is binning it as a K means that its not going to fall over if it gets a little warm on a workload.

Nothing wrong with a gen3 i7, but if you want to have a system running a modern nvme SSD, and video card etc you do actually need a newer motherboard with a current chipset (pci express version, m2 slots, current bluetooth revision, etc etc) and that isn't going to be compatible with your gen3 i7.

Now... does it need to be an i9? No. Certainly not. I could have spec'd an i5 and it would have been fine. But just like you are still running a gen3 i7 today, I fully expect this i9 based system to be perfectly serviceable for a lot of tasks 10 years from now too, and over buying the cpu a bit will likely give me a bit more headway. I've still got both an 6th and 8th gen i7 in active use in my home, and JUST recently finally retired my own i7-3700K based system.

It's a conversational construct that anticipates an unvoiced follow up to my initial question.

Me: Is this news?
Anticipated unvoiced question: What do you mean?
Me: I mean, is it news worthy, because of XYZ"

No, the most ethical way to protect yourself is to simply not purchase (and not play) games which require you to always be online even for the single-player experience. Maybe if such games stop making money publishers will give up that stupid, stupid service model. If they continue to make money they'll continue to give us the shitty product we're so clearly willing to pay for.

It's also worth noting that even objectively terrible movie treatments (for example, Soylent Green's failure to represent the actual storyline of Harry Harrison's Make Room, Make Room, while also being cheesy and stupid, and Without Remorse's failure to even remotely resemble Tom Clancy's book, while also being... well, lame) didn't hurt those books.

Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space!

Newton submissively begs scraps from Einstein's table, suh.

No. Leave the fucking books alone.

Protip: Just don't buy into new motion pictures based on books. Your problem, solved! Because as you probably will understand if you give it some thought, the existence of a first-time movie treatment of a book doesn't hurt the related book. Quite the contrary, most often.

For those of us who don't want to see yet another Roadhouse or Bladerunner or Poseidon or Total Recall — and for the authors — new motion pictures based on previously untreated stories are a good thing. At least once they're out on physical media. Movie theaters... [shudders] :)

Pretty much all tech we have today is entirely possible without burning fossile[sic] fuels

One of the apparent filters is simply that above a certain level of gravity, chemical rockets will not suffice to reach space. We're near the edge of that condition ourselves. Any number of civilizations might be out there, pinned against their planet's surfaces. The only way that's not true is if there are physics yet to be discovered that can accomplish surface-to-space in high gravity without using chemical rockets. We certainly haven't found any sign of such science/technology here. And fission or fusion powered rockets... the engineering for that is at least completely non-obvious thus far. And before anyone says "nukes against a pressure plate", yeah, a delightfully bang-y notion, but no.

The assumption made in the Fermi paradox that any civilization could reach space if they try may simply be wrong.

As there are so many wonderful books out there just begging for a motion picture treatment, Hollywood will oblige by... releasing more pointless, vapid remakes.

I mean... I built my i9 13900K series PC for xmas 2022. The 14900K has been out for 6 months now... who would be surprised that the earlier chips are being discoed?

They may not be right, but the fact that they've existed for as long as they have is evidence that they are not illegal. As for your car or any other thing which updates the T&C, I'm sure there's a clause buried in there that says you don't have to click anything, that if you reject the terms you need to discontinue use of the product. By continuing to use the product you've given your implicit consent to the T&C.

I'd love to see this kind of bullshit struck down in court someday, but I'm not holding my breath for it.

USAian here. IMHO, the bigger problem in US politics (I don't know about Canadian) is that the first-past-the-post electoral system by its nature polarizes the country. The system encourages it by penalizing anyone who votes for a moderate. Say that A and Z are the extreme candidates, and a moderate called J enters the race. J is closer to A in ideology, so will pull more voters away from A than away from Z. This splits the A vote and practically guarantees a win for Z, even if there's a sizeable majority who would have voted A if J wasn't an option. So, that's the first problem I see. We need an electoral system where you can vote for a moderate without fear of throwing the win to the candidate you like the least.

I'd go after political parties next. People here in both parties are actively demonizing the other. It's simply become cheering for your team. A lot of that is related to the problem above, but a lot is that we seem to like team sports. People are very loyal to "their" team. So, take away team membership. Demote political parties to the advisory level, no more or less powerful than any other group. Candidates wouldn't belong to a party, wouldn't have an (R) or (D) after their names. Instead, candidates would be endorsed by a party, just like candidates are currently endorsed by, say, the Teamsters or the NRA. The endorsement says "This candidate's goals currently align with ours." rather than "This candidate belongs to us." Just like the Teamsters and the NRA could (in theory) both endorse the same candidate, a middle-of-the-road candidate might actually get endorsed by both the Republicans and the Democrats. The aim here is to lessen the cheerleading section who think, "We want this guy to win because he's our guy!" without actually examining the candidate's actual positions or qualifications. I also want to stop the ridiculous "majority party is in charge" situation in Congress. That's just plain dumb. Remove the party identity, remove the disproportionate benefit of having a single person more in the majority party. Maybe congress will vote their consciences rather than voting strictly to score a win for their party or worse, voting simply to stop the other party from scoring a win.

It's probably hopelessly naive, but maybe it'll work for the next 250 years before it unravels like the current system has.

How is slinging fries, or any kitchen work for that matter, not manufacturing? At the very least it's assembly. What do you think of when you say "making things"? Do you mean creative or artistic work? If so, does the guy bolting together the same car parts all day qualify as "making things"? If so, why doesn't the guy stuffing the Happy Meal box qualify?

I'm not conservative by any measure. I just think there's a really weird distinction being made here, especially when you're discussing taking pride in one's work. And when it comes down to it, why don't you think people in the service industry take as much pride in serving others as people in manufacturing take pride in making things?

This is a law that will allow the federal government to take total control of AI forever

No. The tech is already out — this horse is so far out of the barn you'd need a passport and numerous border crossings to even find hoofprints.

Not only is such a law completely unable to regulate GPT/LLM/generative software in the USA's non-commercial software ecosphere, it can have no effect across national borders and you may be absolutely certain that other state actors will simply smile and wave at such ideas (for that matter, you may be certain that the US intelligence apparatus will do the same.)

At home or cloud-based? It is either-or.

Exactly. These marketing twerps no longer know WTF the words they use even mean. If they ever did. Also, using "secure" in the same context with "the cloud"... that's a similar bit of nonsense. When your data leaves your hands, even just crossing the Internet, it's no longer secure. One party can keep a secret. Anything else... can very quickly become not a secret. As we have seen many times. And of course, we should never forget about this.

> MacOS Sonoma 14.4.1.

Running Ventura 13.3.1 here. Perhaps that's it.

Thanks. I'll consider upgrading after I surf the "bugs in Sonoma" stuff.