Note that I refer to Windows Mobile, before Windows Phone 7. I consider Windows Phone 7 their first vaguely credible attempt at a mobile centric UI, and then Windows 8 the consequence of trying to throw desktop/laptop under the bus for the sake of trying to popularize their take on mobile UI. Admittedly, I was never interested in bothering to give Windows Phone 7+ a chance, but some others I knew at least made me think it was a credibly usable multi-touch UI for handhelds.

If there was a possible strategy for Microsoft to get into the mobile game, this would have been it.

Their first pass failed to really optimize for mobile at all, so you had mobile devices with clunky interfaces.

Then when they finally saw that a more targeted UI for mobile was needed, they went the other way, screwing up desktop by trying to make it look like their vision of a mobile OS, all while having the phones still unable to use monitors so there wasn't really any 'synergy' between the platforms despite throwing the desktop experience under the bus.

Now I've seen samsung and motorola phones drive desktops, but good luck which ones actually support displayport alt-mode on the usb-c.... However not *too* much of a loss because they both have just utterly shitty window managers with no options to swap it out for anything vaguely more capable despite a plethora of options in the space.

I think Android has at least got *some* of the message with respect to applications, carrying over from the ChromeOS support for linux applications, however it was sad that even as a pure linux person who uses desktop linux without a hint of Windows, I actually thought using Linux under ChromeOS was even worse than WSL.

Now if by some miracle, I can have an Android phone with displayport that will let me run Plasma desktop in a normal way, they can take my money so fast. Of course, realistically speaking, they'll have like 3 or 4 people excited for that and wonder why they wasted money pandering to us..

While it may certainly reduce any sympathy, 'losing money' is still an apt term.

If I intercepted one of your paychecks, I think you'd fairly say that you 'lost money', despite having, presumably, some savings.

Now if you are a billionaire bemoaning losing a few thousand, I'm not going to be terribly moved by your plight, but I would still permit the phrase 'lost money'.

But the phrasing should be about losing money, not "losing" cars.

For deaf, since one of the features is captioning a speaker.

On the one hand, I know all too well that the AI will screw it up some.

However, if you watch closed captioning, you know that the captions are already frequently messed up, long before even AI was a possible strategy. Usually the live captioned stuff had lower quality, but you'd see it in scripted shows too.

I also wonder about the converse, captioning someone using sign language for those that don't know it.

But that FOV is just so tiny....

Given his other examples were mostly containing real stuff, you seem to totally agree.

The railroads continue to be key to this day, even if they overreacted in the day.

The Internet infrastructure absolutely is critical now, despite the somewhat false start.

Doubt the schools would love them. Schools love the Google ecosystem and particularly how they can be an organization that micromanages what the students can do all while having a supremely disposable device. The price and touchscreens are nice and all, but it's really about the Google infrastructure. It's also a contributor to why a lot of businesses like Windows, the effort invested in *not* letting the user be able to do what they want at the whim of some designated third party.

Besides, the Chromebooks are generally about half even that price. Greatly helpful when there's a high chance that a device will get destroyed within a couple of years.

I certainly see the appeal as an individual, but schools would require a great deal of effort that I think Apple wouldn't see as worth it.

Have they done rack scale nvlink other than Grace? Usually I see racks of systems with GPUs, but the NVLink terminates within each server, rather than going between servers.

NVLink nowadays even in a single system (as of Blackwell) looks a lot more like infiniband, but still seeing Blackwells usually as GPUs in x86 boxes with NVLink staying inside. Multi-server fabric seems to be RDMA over ethernet as the favored selection for now. Maybe I'm missing some segment, but I can at least say externally switched NVLink is absolutely not 'just as well as GPUs'.

Intel still has a large share of the datacenter market, whether they really deserve it or not. Hence they actually have competition. Versus their flailing around accelerators which both sucked and never got traction. Just like I went looking for a new laptop and in some segments, the vendors only did Intel even as AMD also has everything better in that market too.

Well, they actually have had that available for a bit of time with Grace Hopper. I don't have hard data, but anecdotally it feels like this and rack scale NVLink haven't had the uptake nVidia presumed. So nVidia is *trying* to compete but hitting headwinds even in their darling AI segment. Given nVidia failed to wholly acquire ARM and ARM being an uphill battle in the conservative datacenter market, I could see an x86 equivalent of the 'Grace' strategy being attempted in collaboration with Intel. nVidia gets locked in integration advantage and Intel gets the scraps of the x86 half.

Quite, but AMD is *miles* closer than Intel was to being a realistic threat on this front.

I was kind of surprised too, since growing up my household would make a 600 mile round trip like 3 or 4 times a year. The last 3 years I've been in that 16% too, though for quite a few years before that I admittedly was in the 84%.

Think I've read a fair amount suggesting that the 'family road trip' has declined over the years.

It's the basis of how people get elected and promoted.

If a bunch of people are marketing a 747 as a vehicle like some alien ship that can pause in mid air, go side to side, and backwards and underwater and into space, then it's worth pointing out it's closer to being a mechanical bird than an alien ship.

Based on how I feel when I have to incur such a trip, I wouldn't be surprised if making those trips routinely would have long term bad effects on your health.

Given where the timezones are, certainly not 'most' people. Yes, you can cross a time zone in less than 25 miles if you happen to live within 25 miles, this doesn't support your stance of "most americans spend at least a day timezone shifted every year", since that's a pretty specific circumstance that doesn't apply to most people.

Even for them, I wonder what percentage of those trips introduce inconsistency in their schedule. If they work in one timezone, then they would consistently be living according to that schedule, even if they technically sleep in another.

Personally, if I am stuck with a trip that goes more than a time zone over, I just hate the shift.

Shifting the time is a PITA that is pretty jarring in a way most people don't enjoy and it seems like it may be outright unhealthy.

This is incorrect.

61 percent of the population does not take a "long distance" trip in a year.

Incidentally, this defines "long distance" as "50 miles". Of the "long trips", 58% of those are less than 125 miles away. So only 16% of people travel over 125 miles away in a given year. Less than 125 miles is relatively unlikely to cross a time zone. Growing up my family would regularly make 300 mile trips but still not cross a timezone.