Two industries you may be happy at: IoT and game development. The former is about functionality, and most micro controllers will be happy running C for a long time; the later it's usually C++ (or C# in case of Unity) and it's about the end product and how to best get it done for the player and games, thus programming is seen as a means to an end. But if you really want to insulate from the pace of change, the space industry might be it. It's about reliability, most processors and systems will be generations old due to radiation hardening and slow to update, with the benefits of stable language utilisation (likely C or Assembly) and relatively long project times with focus on retesting.

I wouldn't say Intel has a recent problem with GPU drivers. In my experience, Intel display drivers have historically suffered from poor implementation, ranging from 'passable' to 'awful'. Let's take the GMA500 chipset as an example, a design that was created outside of Intel. Its Intel production drivers offer to this day 10-20% the performance of tweaked drivers released by enthusiasts, such as an Italian developer (https://gma500booster.blogspot.com/). These non-Intel optimised drivers lift performance of QuakeGL from mere 5FPS to 60+FPS, and 3DMark scores go up by 3X at least. The same can be seen with all the GMA and HD series: drivers tweaked by the community deliver 20-100% performance improvements over official drivers depending on the chipset, which goes without saying is a security dumpsterfire powered by Intel's poor drivers' performance. If you have been around Slashdot recently, you may have spotted the case of the ARC GPU drivers having its raytracing performance improved 100X (!) with a single line of code changed by the community. Let's think about this for a moment... Imagine a driver development team shipping code to users that perform at 1% its intended performance, and no one in that chain noticing this, happily pushing said drives into release. Now any developer will at one point or another create code that performs horribly, it comes with the territory. But when you create code that perform two orders of magnitude lower than it should for a key feature of the hardware you're coding for, and you ship it, you either are incompetent or you don't care about what you are doing. How something so bad can reach release by Intel is beyond comprehension. So no, I don't think one can say Intel was ever 'good' on the display drivers front, at least not in the past couple of decades. I would actually go top vocabulary shelf on this one and pick 'abysmal' as my choice of descriptor of Intel's display drivers history. As long as Intel doesn't get its display drivers teams in order, no amount of hardware design will win them a place amongst AMD and NVIDIA.

You should write to them, you know? They are spending millions on lobbying every year for no good reason. People just want their stuff... No need to curb legislation!

You win the most stupid comment award, congrats. As if the food industry marketing and lobbying don't exist, right? Yeah, McDonalds don't need to advertise because people just want their burgers, sure.

It baffles me that this is still a thing: it's sugar and highly processed foods. End of. The correlation is unmistakable: the higher the intake of sugar and ultra processed in countries were these are more available, the higher the obesity index. Everything else is smoke and mirrors sponsored by the food industry aiming to cause confusion amongst consumers. Typical PR playbook: blame a ton of stuff so the real culprit gets a free pass.