Nope, Intel has made ARM chips before, remember StrongARM? It just couldn't sell them.

Right now Intel is making its variant of an AMD CPU design after trying for several years to make variants of an HP design while reluctantly selling a 32 bit chip based on an 8 bit chip (the 8008) it built for a terminal manufacturer in the 1970s, in much greater quantities. I think you severely overestimate how enthusiastic Intel is about the CPUs it sells. Intel has repeatedly tried to come up with better designs than its popular products and the market has consistently rejected them, from the iAPX 432 in the 1980s to Itanium.

It's more than happy to rent fab space to Apple if Apple ponies up. Especially right now when RAM prices are killing the market for new PCs.

"These days"

They've all been engineered since Heaven's Gate bombed, and certain franchises have always been engineered. There was even a book on how to write generic blockbuster, called Save The Cat!, that became an industry bible in the early 2000s, with scripts being rejected if they didn't follow the formula, which gave a page by page description of what needed to be there.

But... complaining they're engineered is like complaining that rollercoasters are engineered. Nobody goes into a MCU or Bond or even a John Wick movie expecting some amazing piece of meaningful artistry. Hell, if they did, the number of people interested in them would reduce dramatically, because the last thing most of us want to do after writing Java for 5 days and trying to relax on a Friday evening is to think. People want fun escapism sometimes, because life right now sucks more than it's done in 30 years for most people.

"Are they worth saving?" So you're telling me that you feel that giving a group of billionaires more control over what you watch and what information you get because you don't see any cultural or entertainment value in The Beekeeper? That's your argument?

Really?

We shouldn't care about a desktop environment because you have a spiffy window manager configuration you like? Really?

What about Netflix? Leaving aside the fact that Paramount is obviously worse than Netflix - the former is a giant empire that owns studios, cable and broadcast TV stations, news outlets, and so on, while the latter owns a single streaming service that commissions third parties to make content for it, there's no evidence that these people would be in favor of Netflix owning WB either.

But if they were in favor, it'd be understandable. Netflix is definitely the lesser evil here, even without getting into what Skydance has done to CBS.

That's exactly it. Why would you even post to social media if you come to it expecting news or celebrity updates? It's no longer for your content, it's for whatever the algorithm is serving up, which is never people like you.

No it isn't. Accounting isn't going to be improved using a glorified autocomplete. I think you're confusing "AI" with "computerization in general", and you're also failing to learn the lesson of the last 30-40 years that shows that, actually, no you can't automate away all of accounting. You can reduce the number of people involved, sure, but someone has to understand the logic.

AI isn't about logic, it isn't about reason, therefore it cannot replace people whose jobs are 100% logic and reasoning. And it's not going to ever be about logic and reason, because it's about pattern matching. That's not the same thing at all.

Accounting isn't going to be automated by AI any more than it is Bresenham's algorithm or word processors. That's not its field.

And now we just give up and find ways to reword everything.

Google was better than Altavista when AV was a thing. Once the effective competition disappeared and the term "Google" became synonymous with searching, they broke their product in the name of "engagement".

The really weird part to me is why none of the modern alternatives (DDG, Startpage, etc) are better. How hard could it be to implement a hard "include only these words, exactly as I spelled them"?

> It can handle Multimedia as well as OSX

Found the Slackware user. The 32-bit Slackware user. The 32-bit Slackware 3.x user.

Have you used GNU/Linux since, say, 9/11?

Apple Hardware before 2012 cannot run operating systems other than those branded OS X or Mac OS X. While, technically, anyone who bought hardware before 2016 or so could be sticking with the OS that came with their machine, anyone with such a machine will get nagged and will not be getting updates to Safari.

The more likely explanation is this is bot traffic using older UA strings and SC's figures are BS.

OS X has been macOS for a while, and Apple, alas, makes its hardware obsolete after about 5 years (say one thing for Microsoft, they usually - recent TPM/Win 11 stuff aside - allow much older hardware run its latest OSes), so I'm wondering what's going on there. Are there really a lot of users of Macs from 5 years before whenever the rebranding started in 2016? That means a lot of people using Macs from before 2011. A huge number. Which genuinely surprises me. I have a Mac mini from 2014 and it crawls to the point of being borderline useless

So... maybe "OS X" is referring to something else? Maybe this is bot traffic using older user agent strings? I've never trusted StatCounter, I used to manage a set of websites that had millions of users across a relatively broad set of demographics, and what we were seeing via Google Analytics didn't remotely match what they were claiming. And by not remotely, I mean not even in the same ballpark.

The idea that they're not even checking whether the traffic is bot generated wouldn't surprise me.

Yes, but the itemized labels are not going away.

- The headline is wrong
- The first sentence is misleading. The labels will be still there, they're just going to not necessarily be on the main page advertising the product but will be linked to in that instance.

And in the end, as you point out,the fees making up the final price are bullshit, so you're interested in the final price. And ISPs are now required to publish the highest possible price you may be charged, even if you might be charged less.

They can itemize all they want, but they still have to give a final figure that includes all the pre-Biden-era "itemizations" when advertising the product, which is ultimately what we want.

If you read the summary, it contradicts the headline:

> Under Chairman Brendan Carr, the Trump FCC has steadily whittled away at requirements imposed under Democrats. An order (PDF) released in draft form last week would eliminate the requirement to itemize passthrough fees and let ISPs list them in a single "up to" amount. The "up to" amount can include both government fees and fees charged by non-government entities such as owners of utility poles.

> ISPs will be allowed to provide links to price labels instead of displaying the full labels prominently on ordering pages and account portals, and will be allowed to stop making the price-label information available in machine-readable spreadsheets.

So the labels aren't going away. The ISPs will be required to advertise the highest amount they could possibly charge the customer, including all taxes and fees. And they'll be required to have those labels. The only thing going away is the requirement the label (not the price) be on the same page as the offering, and the ability to download the information in spreadsheet form.

I hate Carr as much as the next guy, but this is a tweak of the Biden regulations, not an "end to", and it's completely 100% reasonable.

Well you'd be wrong. They've always regulated this kind of thing, even back when they were regulating telephones and radios (no feeds for the latter, obviously.) This is under their jurisdiction, and because of that the FTC, which would normally regulate this kind of thing, doesn't.

Also I don't plan to bitch about this if it's what the summary is claiming: requiring they publish the most it could cost a victi... uh customer, and then link to a breakout, seems fairly reasonable to me.

I'd like them to go further and brand different classes of Internet service: ie:

Gold tier: Ports either unfiltered, or filtered but user can turn off filter via a web portal, no restrictions on usage beyond bans on "commercial" usage for residential users. IPv6. IPv4. No traffic limits or per-byte billing outside of an AUP that allows only temporary throttling during periods of high congestion.

Silver tier: As Gold but CGNAT allowed given difficultly of getting IPv4 addresses.

Bronze tier: As silver, but some ports permanently blocked.

Brown tier: arbitrary restrictions on "servers", or no IPv6, or lobotomized IPv6 (no DHCP-PD, or IPv6 range changes more than once a month), traffic limits.

If you're going to describe something as "Internet", you should be clear about what it is you're selling. Tiers like the above would improve things dramatically.

It's one of those things that "This is a type of X, people are familiar with the concept, we will only do it when we make X" type thing.

It's like frozen Indian meal makers tend to focus on Butter Chicken. You can get Butter Chicken in a Walmart in Alaska. Interested in something that's not Butter Chicken? You're asking too much! They might have a couple of other types, but even those are things you've tried a million times before.

I used to like IPAs, but have gone off them simply because it's the same old thing every time.

You've never heard of mail merge? Really?

Maybe should you ask Gemini to explain it to you.