Good news, we are there. Actually we have been there for a little while. Of course I am excluding software that includes assembly language source code (that would include various intel intrinsics in C/C++).

Most likely. Sort of like once upon a time AMD had an Intel license and was a second source manufacturer, but today we have wildly different designs from both.

So we might be moving from an Intel v AMD type of world to an Apple v NVIDIA sort of world. Purely speculation but fun to think about. Nothing like competition to get us cooler "stuff". :-)

My understanding is that Apple has a perpetual license. I do not know if that covers only the ARM designs at the time of the signing or anything in the future.

At worst it would seem to be something like Apple has a perpetual license to the arm32 and arm64 instruction sets. They would seem have a license to whatever reference designs ARM was offering at the time. So on day zero they have working hardware. However for every day since then they have been able to update or replace elements of that design, while maintaining instruction set compatibility. The M1 is the results of that process after many years.

Various other companies have done similar things. For example we have the Broadcom ARM cpus in the Raspberry Pi and the Qualcomm ARM cpus in various non-Apple phones and tablets. Apple seems to have quite a lead over these two.

Now enter NVIDIA, a company that may be more competitive with Apple than the others with respect to design due to relevant experience and money.

This is no surprise, its entirely expected given NVIDIA. Its the best path for ARM cpus that will compete with Apple's.

Haven't you people been paying attention? He's just having fun with the press. He is really referring to the dog from dogecoin.

Unless one makes a rookie mistake :-), like failing to check the diff to make sure debugging code or other unwanted changes are present.

A 75% drop after big runs is normal for Bitcoin. It happened the last 4 (5 ?) times. Of course today is different in the sense that techie speculators have been joined by Wall Street speculators and ordinary people speculating. It will be interesting to see how the non-techie crowd reacts.

Often when there is a new game that would be in the same "genre", style game of play, etc. And unless too much time has passed.

I believe id has made source to real world games public for those interested in learning.

It probably won't. The code will likely wind up in some other EA game. This happens all the time with canceled games.

Perhaps things are not as simple as you think. Economic metrics may seem healthy but if the federal government is massively stimulating the economy then such stimulus suggests otherwise. A truly healthy economy would not need such massive stimulus. Now is the the GP attempting to make such a point, I have no idea, possibly not. However you might want to reconsider the notion of our economy not being healthy since 2008. Notice the massive stimulus 2008-15, the beginning of a recovery 2016-19, and the nascent recovery that began in Dec 2015 was erased.
https://www.macrotrends.net/20...

Yes, pre-covid was pretty much bare locally. Cables and adapters and very little else. It was just after Christmas and it was like they had not been replacing anything sold for months. I'm surprised the company was still operating until now.

They are not favoring gamers because some gamers mined when their computer was idle. Similar story for some people used their GPUs for work. Mining allowed many games to "upgrade" their purchase to the next tier GPU, the mining subsidized things. Got that xx60 on a xx50 budget.

Plus its not like modding firmware and installing mining friendly drivers is something alien to the "pro" miners.

The problem is some people that use their GPUs for "legitimate" reasons also mine when the computer is idle. It sort of subsidizes the cost of the GPU. It can make a xx60 affordable on a xx50 budget. Oh well, guess I'll get the 3050 rather than the 3060.

Typically in a "source license" the only restriction is keeping the source proprietary, you may only distribute binaries and you may not sublicense access to the source. So you have access to it in your project forever. Like I mentioned before, it keeps your fate in your hands since you have a perpetual license to the source.

Sort of, but I'm also addressing the misconception of open source being required to get the rights to source code; that source access can happen with proprietary code too. All that open source adds is that the licensee's customers would get source access too.
Another old concept related to all this is "eating your own dog food". Getting the company to use a product internally, and letting any company developers view the source is hardly anything new. Although generally there was often a courtesy of letting someone on the dev team know what you found before updating the source. So maybe this courtesy not being required adds a little novelty (and risk).

Visual Studio Code source code is on GitHub.

"This repository ("Code - OSS") is where we (Microsoft) develop the Visual Studio Code product. Not only do we work on code and issues here, we also publish our roadmap, monthly iteration plans, and our endgame plans. This source code is available to everyone under the standard MIT license."
https://github.com/microsoft/v...