Not really. The industrial field isnt trying to use the latest kernels or software. They are trying to run some LTS release that does support their hardware and they don't want software changes other than fixes for all the same reasons they don't want to implement hardware changes.

I am not suggesting still supported LTS releases should dump old hardware. However there is no reason anyone realistically should be spending time trying to get first gen althon64s supported on Linux 7.0. There may be no-reason not support them because it does not require an serious special effort but if it did, I'd say those users should stay on 6.x.

This there decision needs to reflect the actual support costs. Right now x86-64v2 is probably the least common denominator in terms of not requiring a lot of special hoops to support. Maybe you could argue x86-64v1 stuff is still viable but I'd counter you have a lot of instruction set inconsistency there in those products and from a performance and efficiency perspective it probably does not make sense to be using them as daily drivers of contemporary software.

Don't be to sure. History does not repeat but it often rhymes.

Look at the 80s, the Japanese imports (small cars) were eating Ford and GMs lunch. GM invested while Ford for the most part cut cut cut and cut some more. Chrysler also when the cut cut route (but they really did not have any choice other bankruptcy).

GMs technological investments and what not buying EDS never really made them able to beat the imports on cost. Ultimately some protectionist policy came along to save them as did shrinking of wage cost disparities between the US and Japan. Ford mind you benefited from those things too, and without having to set giant piles of money on fire. Then we get to the 90s, Ford has a hit Taurus, Explorer and 150 series pickups is able to start modernizing manufacturer processes again, this time with the all the expensive lessons learn at GM and technological improvements. That left the them the one of member of the big three was able to weather 2008 without tax payer help...

I think it is actually still early in the EV game. Most of America still does not have the charging infrastructure, at least to truly making operating as friction-less as sliding thru the filling station once a week and being in and out in 10min.

You still have majority of car owners who have never owned and EV, you likely even still have a market where the majority of new car buys are at most equally likely to pick an EV for their next purchase.

Not setting yourself up to be supporting a huge body of legacy vehicles with Gen2-3 EV drive trains and battery tech, might prove very smart.

Ford has a lot of existing brand loyalty that will most likely still be there in say 2035.

I really do think the future of most autos is probably electric. At least as far as the American market goes however I think the likes of Ford could very well do themselves some big favors pulling back now, as long as they keep the engineers doing the R&D and plant management people clear about the future, and have them prepared to go all-in again sometime around 2033-5, my guess is they get a lot more bang for their manufacturing investment and marketing dollar alike at that time. There will still be enough first-time-ev market to get a strong foothold and then they can start to take share from competitors with older inferior platforms, and less ideal cost structures.

The K5 was a fantastic budget CPU. It slid rather neatly between 486 and P5 performance, outperforming the highest end 486 units while being cheaper, and for most non multimedia home/desktop PC use of the day did not offer an experience that suffered much vs Pentium machines.

IMHO it was good chip it was not marked to the right segment by AMD, and the Wintel cartel also was in place that kept it out of the market segment where it needed to be anyway.

CopyFail only affects kernels from 2017 on, nothing that new is running CPanel

and a license for established bands to milk/bilk listeners by generating a bunch of AI slop, they can hide behind their green checkmark.

They do but this is CA; They will be instructed to harass ebike riders while they ignore serious property and violent crime because ...demographics.

You could make all the same criticisms of most common English.

For instance if someone says that they are ambivalent about a decision?

What do they mean. About half the people you ask would say, he does not care either-way. The other half would probably say he is torn, or of two minds about it. Of that latter group some might conclude this also implies grave concern about this issue, while others don't.

So how much clearer a communication was it than writing -\_o_/- ?

and none of that information was availible at the time.

So as usual you're arguments are nonsensical

I am sorry I must have missed where people have been using mRNA vaccines recreationally for centuries and all the experience we collectively had with them anecdotally and in terms of actual data.

but go on COVID-vax skeptics are the idiots...

This will really become the problem for selling commercial access to frontier models, if it proves to be true. (I tend to believe it will ).

If the models get thousand-fold cheaper to run, than the hardware needed to do it will be something anyone interested in more than very occasional use will be able to justify. Even if it ends up not looking exactly like consumer GPU/NPU offerings today, it will land in PC and likely even SBCs soon enough.

So now the pure AI companies will have big problem, how to charge enough to pay to build and train their next model while not pricing people out of their cloud offerings in favor of a $200 expansion card - or even a $2000 expansion card - and some maybe not as good but very good free-as-in-beer models, which both academia, non-profits, and hobby groups probably can produce.

Which is why I don't companies like OpenAI and Anthropic being able to continue with an inferences as the product business-model. They are going to have to be acquired by the Alphabets and Microsoft's of the world who can eat the costs of leading edge model development and fund them with margin from other lines of business, and want to do so because they offer "better" inference as a feature in their other proprietary software tools and platform offerings.

Setting VC money on fire has never been a sustainable business-model, eventually the activity has pay for itself or it has be vertically integrated into something that does.

It is very hard to prove a negative. However when it comes to stuff like this, proving it does not happen under likely conditions.

Proving you can use infra-sound to make people more prone to certain kinds of imagination under very controlled conditions is interesting but does not explain why people often think old buildings are haunted, even when some infra-sound is present.

Once you get to 'and all the stars are aligned' territory what have shown is maybe that one guy that had some sudden psychic break onetime could be explained this way, but that does not make "people think old buildings are haunted because radiator pipes vibrate" - "Plausible" in mythbusters parlance.

Which is exactly why we need to create some kind of 'concerned citizen' or 'public interest speculative' type of standing.

Obviously it can't and should not be just anyone can sue the government or challenge a law for any reason. That would making legislating anything successfully extremely difficult because anyone with with very different real reasons can come a long an challenge every law with some corner case, and it would also burden the courts excessively deliberating over issues that are not really issues.

On the flip side the can't sue anyone over warrant-less wiretapping is ridiculous. Nobody can sue because they can't show evidence they were personally spied on without due process, even when there is abundant public evidence unauthorized spying did occur, is travesty of justice and startlingly unnecessary barrier to accountability.

I don't have a great answer or real policy here, just the vague idea that we need to lower the barrier that is legal standing to something were you don't need to show a personal harm, but also not throw the doors to the court room open entirely.

Not at all. We are just smart enough to recognize that contemporary Democrats have more in common with the old Soviet Union than modern Russia.

It is still better dead than red, except red happens to be blue now, and we have to adapt to our so called neighbors representing a more clear and present danger to our nationals welfare than an evil empire on the other side of the world ever was...

The real problem is 401ks and more specifically 401ks using mutual funds as their primary assets.

The reality the public should have a lot of influence in terms of share holder action, given how much of their capital represents the ownership. However thanks Wall Street engineering a system where a large portion of the investment comes from people who will not own the shares directly, they escape public accountability.

Instead the shares and the votes are controlled by Wall Street insiders who can be relied upon to either not vote or vote as requested by the board members. To an extent that is how it was working.

Lately an even more frightening pattern has developed, where radical leftist elements in the banking cartel have captured big fund management firms and are leveraging the voting rights that come with holding the shares against the interests of the actual investors! Literally using your own retirement savings to ESG you right of a job!

There really isn't a good fix, but at the very least fund managers need to be prohibited from exercising voting rights attached shares held in their funds. We should also explore ways to encourage broader ownership by the public of publicly traded companies over institutional ownership. Perhaps there should be tax incentives, ie a lower capital gains rate on appreciation for voting stock held in an organization that reports less than 20% of its book value as shares in other organizations at both the time of purchase and time of sale. - yes there would need to be additional rules to prevent gaming of that.