The issue is, as it is here, is that the CO2 goal is being gamed.

So Microsoft claims '100% Green'. But it does so on the back of energy credits, which at *best* just means someone else 'uses more' non-green energy, it's just an accounting trick so long as you have enough "don't care" to take up the load. So if MS needs 30% more energy, then 30% of MS energy of non-MS consumers are moved to natural gas plants from renewable (in reality no one is 'moved', it's just accounting). To make matters worse, they've also found that a lot of these credits are outright fraudulent, with no particular real world implications, or very dubious rationalization as to why it 'counts'.

Microsoft even admits the energy credits are kind of bogus, but ultimately says they might just do that to meet their goals on paper.

The energy consumption is really what needs to be accountable on the consumer side, and the producers are the ones held accountable for the blend of energy production sources. As it stands companies are "greenwashing" in ways that don't seem to adequately move the needle in getting to the overall real targets.

Devs need to buy two computers, the ipad and the macbook.

Skips over the reason why windows rt sucked kind of and the reason why apple doesn't want you to have an os on the ipad that sidesteps the appstore. Maybe personal reasons. Maybe.

Problem being is that there's likely no provision for switching. So your cluster can be two nodes. And you can already do this today, you have networking. It might or might not support RDMA, I don't know as I've only used it to transfer files between laptops when migrating because it's much faster than waiting to sync up from my network backups.

I suggest you take a cable and connect your Linux laptop to another laptop with USB-C and enjoy the network interface that will probably pop up already today without any additional software.

Because *you already can*. Try plugging in your thunderbolt port with a cable to another system similarly equipped. In my case, a nice and fast NIC pops up.

This is cool and exciting for occasional use. However, I don't see the benefit of making more "locked into thunderbolt" schemes when you already get IP over thunderbolt today.

I do however, get worried about security risks.

Well, there is:
https://github.com/input-leap/...

Which is a fork of barrier which was a fork of synergy from the open source days.

I'm not holding out hope for this being a synergy alternative. I'm guessing they are more thinking more like using a laptop as a 'crash cart' rather than a usb-c monitor, at least for 'desktop grade' headless systems it seems plausible, though rackmount systems tend to be still enamored of Dsub15 only for whatever reason.

I'd go for the fork input leap, still open source.

Though that doesn't share screen, that is about sharing keyboard and mouse only.

Also, you can connect two systems with a usb-c cable and they'll just bring up a really network interface already.

Seems a bit superfluous once you have that going, then you can use normal file sharing facilities, with more well known and well tested security strategies.

I have no idea who insists on "screen sharing" over a local cable, versus just using the displayport alt mode and usb keyboard and mouse, which already exist and can run faster than what was described.

I would say that the use case could be cool for a phone. It's a portable device in the pocket, and then you dock it to have your desktop. Dex and Motorola's are... fine. Unfortunately all the android and chrome window management are kind of crappy. Android apps further shy away from being *entirely* awesome with keyboard, mouse, and multiwindow.

I mean, he cited it right there in the summary. It boils down to "it sucked when Microsoft did it, therefore it would suck no matter what who tries".

Robots taking over the world is pretty much *the* AI trope dating back to the very first robot story, Karl Capek's R.U.R. in 1920 (that, along with Fritz Lang's Metropolis created the modern concept of a dystopian future). Heck, push even further back and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein envisioned pretty much the same trope in 1818. It's probably not even much of a stretch to see ancient myths like Prometheus, Pandora's Box, the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel as antecedents; in that creators see their creations rise up and challenge their authority.

It suggests that the fear of our creations supplanting us is a very ancient archetype, and every advance from the carucca (the heavy plow) onward has portended massive social changes that could supplant the existing societal order. Killer robots and god-like AIs are simply the latest way to express that ancient anxiety.

And honestly, I don't think there's an answer. HAL 9000 is such an extraordinary character because it really does sum up the potential risks of AI; not in capability, but in what role we ultimately choose for this technology. But the one thing I think history does tell us is that once a technology is developed, it's already too late to prevent what happens next. Someone at some point is going to make a fully autonomous system for some specific purpose, and a failsafe will fail, as they always do. We can try to regulate it, but it feels to me like another ancient story is apropos at this point; Canute demonstrating that even he, as a King, had no power to stop the tide.

Nothing is unambiguously good. The Industrial Revolution led to a period of destabilization that did cause large-scale social problems, and forced governments to create labor laws to protect workers, not to mention that the need for raw materials fueled colonial expansion and all the abuses that went along with that. And the Industrial Revolution is where pollution and anthropomorphic GHG emissions began to seriously ramp up as the world transitioned into using fossil fuels to produce the ever-increasing amount of energy needed. In the long run, this latter effect threatens the very standards of living that the Industrial Revolution created.

I've used ChatGPT to do a merge of two reports that would have been an absolute pain in the ass, taken at least a day or two, and still required a final edit at the end. I managed to create a draft in an hour, which could then be edited with new information and a few fixes here and there. It likely cut the work by at least 2/3s.

It's a tool that can be abused, just like a hammer or nuclear fission, but if used appropriately and sensibly, can aid productivity.

My personal favorite, a very common shortcut in terminals is "Ctrl-Shift-C" for copy (because Ctrl-C is taken). While that isn't universal in meaning, it's generally doing something innocuous in other applications.

Except Microsoft Teams, where it is "Immediately call everyone on the active chat no matter what without confirmation". I've had *so* many surprise "voice meetings" started by people accidentally hitting ctrl-shift-c.

Are they putting forth some sort of idea that microsoft providing these services would put out more co2 than some other provider?

How high up their buttocks are their heads anyway thinking that microsoft is in position to provide truly unique services for databases and analyzing?