Well, this is going to depend a whole lot on how you define workstation.

There have been multiprocessor PCs going back at least to 486s. SunOS 4 for x86 (which has been a thing for a lot of years) and SCO Unix would both run on a machine with 8x 486DX processors. That was pretty much intended as a server so far as I know, though.

A Sun SS10 (1992) has 2x SBus slots, each of which can be loaded with a 2x hyperSPARC module, available at up to 200 MHz. We had a SS10 and SS20 at Silicon Engineering called seismic and something else starting with sei (we had seine and seidel and seizure and so on, back then on pretty much any UNIX system you could grep the words file) and the SS10 had dual-dual 85 MHz modules, the SS20 dual-dual 125 MHz. Those speeds might be estimates. These machines were both workstations and servers; we used DQS to distribute Verilog and similar jobs to machines with lots of CPU. But people sat at those machines at the same time.

There were also definitely dual Pentium Pro boards from pretty early on, but that was too rich for my blood. I thought about doing a dual celery when that came around, but then Athlon came out and solved my need for more CPU without more Intel.

The same people can be right and wrong, because there's a lot of different aspects to most situations.

Prompt:

Hey ChatGPT, who is being reasonable in this argument?

---
Rei: " ... We think of bees as mindless drones (literally, we took the very word!), but they're all individuals each acting on their own.... "

Synonymous Homonym: "Drones are specifically the male bees. Most bees are not drones."

Rei: "That's not what I said. I said that the word "drone", as in a mindless unthinking being, is derived from drones, as in male bees. I did not say "all bees are drone bees"."

Synonymous Homonym: "What you actually said:

We think of bees as mindless drones (literally, we took the very word!)

Suggesting that the word "drone" means "mindless bee.""

Response:

Rei is being more reasonable here.

The key issue is whether Rei's original sentence implied that all bees are drones or that "drone" as a metaphor comes from bees.

Rei wrote:

"We think of bees as mindless drones (literally, we took the very word!)"

The parenthetical "literally, we took the very word!" naturally reads as:

The figurative word drone (meaning a repetitive, unthinking worker) comes from the bee term drone.
Therefore, our cultural association of bees with "dronelike" behavior is reflected in language.

That is a claim about etymology, not about bee taxonomy.

Synonymous Homonym's first correction:

"Drones are specifically the male bees. Most bees are not drones."

is technically true, but it doesn't actually address what Rei was saying. Rei wasn't claiming that all bees are male drones.

Then Synonymous Homonym shifts to:

"Suggesting that the word 'drone' means 'mindless bee.'"

This doesn't accurately paraphrase Rei either. Rei never said the word means "mindless bee." The sentence only suggests that the metaphorical sense of "drone" is derived from the bee term.

If I were judging the exchange, I'd say:

Synonymous Homonym's factual statement is correct: drones are male bees.
But it's responding to a claim Rei didn't make, making it a misreading.
Rei's clarification directly matches the ordinary reading of the original sentence.

So the stronger interpretation is that Synonymous Homonym misunderstood the original remark, and Rei's correction is justified.

Or to put it more simply: you're attacking a straw man (a claim I never made) because you cannot defend your actual scientifically inaccurate comments about bees having half-hour memories.

You are confusing "forgetting" with "disruption".

I am not.

Your entire argument was that bees have short-term memories. The example you cited demonstrates precisely the opposite - that bee memory is if anything too durable>/i>, such that bees will refuse won't even bother searching for their hive if it has been moved, that they always go back to the spot where they remember it being last.

However, what you are choosing to ignore is that, once a bee has been accepted into a different hive, it becomes part of that hive

That's like claiming that if you move to a different city, you've "forgotten" where you used to live.

When a bee, due to a navigation error or its previous hive being gone, enters a different hive (drifting), it absorbs the pheromones of the new hive. It is now chemically marked as belonging to that hive. Chemicals are communication to bees, just as much as vocal commands are to you. Bees do not learn all of the other bees in their hive, they don't have some sort of rolodex. If you smell like hive A, you're allowed into hive A. If you smell like hive B, you're allowed into hive B. Bees don't particularly "care" which hive they're in; they have their own individual motives and drives, which simply involve being in "a" hive. Once they're marked as belonging to hive B, they can no longer enter hive A (at least not safely).

Note in the above what has nothing to do with any of this? Memory. It's just about smell. Memory is about where the hive can be found after foraging (which is also about memory) - and it remains, even after drifting (they'll continue to return to the same spot - again, even if the new hive is moved). Smell is about which hive you can enter. Or for a summary version:

1) A bee leaves the hive to go foraging

2) It remembers where the best spot to visit is (usually from having gone there before, but occasionally from having seen a waggle dance) and what flowers (shapes, smells, sizes, etc) will be yielding best there at what times of day, and what areas to NOT go to, where there may be threats. This information persists for days, weeks, or even the bee's entire life. It can target an area to an accuracy of a couple hundred meters, and then begins a search.

3) When done, it returns back to where it remembers that the hive should be (this memory is highly persistent, and can only be reset by an orientation flight.

4) The bee starts by using the sun and broad navigational features as with outbound flights to get to within a couple hundred to a few dozen meters (the "visual catchment area"), then gradually switches to small-scale features and searching. This is all based on memory.

5) For the final approach, the bee relies on a mix of sight (remembered), sound (generic), and smell. The latter is not a learned trait, it's "whatever you happen to smell like". While it's usually described as recognizing the smell of their sisters, that's not exactly right. The actual underlying mechanism not so much learning what something does smell like as it being unable to detect what they do smell like

The mechanism the same as how humans become unable to notice their own body odour or perfume: sensory adaptation. Because they're constantly smelling themselves, their brain learns to tune out their own smell. However, it doesn't tune out the smells of others. When they return to their own hive, the scent is something that they're adapted to tune out. But when they arrive at a different hive, they're hit with a scent that they're not adapted to, and that they can detect.

If you want to put it in human terms, the underlying mechanism is "this hive thinks you're stinky, that one doesn't smell you because you've all been around each other for so long".

If you want to call sensory adaptation "forgetting", then you're going to need to call human sensory adaptation "forgetting" as well. And again, none of this has anything to do with actual memory tasks, such as navigation and how to find the best flowers. Bee memory is exceptional with them.

Have you ever punctured a lipo cell? I have. Nothing happened. Then I put it in water. There were a few little bubbles. Over the next two years the pack gradually grew until it was about three times its prior size, and hard. At no time did it emit flames. (I kept it in a coffee can.)

I think NCM batteries in particular are fucking terrible and I don't want to downplay that there is a risk of thermal runaway for all lithium cells with liquid (etc) electrolyte, but overstating the case is not a help.

When was their enterprise product solid? When it was Xenix?

Who said the word "small"?

I agree we should generally be going EV (I can't, though) but it's convenient to have a gas station in your neighborhood because you might be headed away from wherever else it might be located.

For EVs filling up is more annoying (as it takes longer) so that raises the desire to do it closer to home. And indeed, people do tend to do it there. I don't have anywhere else convenient to do it, and it's not convenient at home, which is why I can't reasonably have one.

He wanted to sell them to business as well. But then Motorola started to choke while Intel and AMD were executing, and they had to port to PC. Then there was no justification for a big price tag.

The BeBox was really a marketing stunt more than anything else. It was built around a Motorola PPC dev board. (sidebad: The "Geekport" a breakout box connector on the original hardware, and was included only because there were other needed ports on the same board that port is on.) With its dual PowerPC 603e processors at either 66 or 133 MHz, it wasn't exactly slow, but it wasn't as fast as any but the slowest Alphastations. What roped people in was the case design. Otherwise it was obvious that you'd be better off running the OS on a PC soon, because they kept getting faster and cheaper and a good one was already faster than a BeBox.

I had a 66MHz BeBox and also ran BeOS on a Pentium Pro 180. The experience was comparable on both machines, with no real leader. All of the same demos that were so impressive on the BeBox were just as smooth on the PC. But no, the BeBox was not way ahead of the NeXT Cube; it was way after it, as in, five years after. That's a long time in computing now, but it was an even longer time (so to speak) back then. The PowerPC didn't exist when they built the cube; the best processor ever in a NeXT machine was a 68040 @ 25 MHz. (another sidebar: That was an extremely respectable processor for its time, but it also represented the last time Motorola would come up with a competitive chip without help from IBM. 68060 had competitive performance, but not competitive cost.)

It seems like a few NeXT machines were in fact sold into higher education. I knew one guy who had a turbo slab as a CS grad student. He really loved Objective C.

Absent his RDF, yes, he would have been. But he was an effective marketing tool. He was also intelligent enough to see that the Newton was overwrought as a portable device and demand something simpler. The market was moving in that direction anyway, and he charged out in front of it successfully.

Yes in fact they are, or at least, any persistent particulates are dangerous. That's what makes automobiles so bad, and why DPFs actually make diesels worse. We've discussed here on Slashdot before that gassers actually make just as much soot as diesels, it's just far finer so it's much harder to detect, which is why this fact went unknown for decades. The reason it's hard to detect is that the particulate sizes are very small. When they get very small (PM2.5 and below in particular) cilia have a hard time removing them from the lungs and they tend to persist. The soot particles are very stable since they are made out of carbon. All persistent irritants are potential carcinogens.

Some of the additives in tires are very carcinogenic.

It's both infeasible and impractical. Even the carbon black and silicates in tires can cause cancer for the reasons explained in the first paragraph. At best you can mitigate risk, you'll never make them non-carcinogenic. It would be better to also reduce the number of vehicles and also make tire compounds harder to reduce wear. This does reduce safe effective speed around corners and such, but most vehicles have a lot of excess in that department these days, and the ones that don't usually aren't going very fast. I like hard cornering, it's where the fun is in my opinion, but I do consider it to be more important to improve health.

(My personal hot take is that, both for copyright reasons ("Purpose and Character of the Use", aka for-profit, is a critical factor in determining copyright violation, such as from scraping), and general moral reciprocity argument (closed commercial models extracts profit from the commons without giving back), closed source trainers should fundamentally be required to give back to the commons in some meaningful way)

... some public ownership of compute, to offer out for grants to Open Source development, so that the commons can better keep up with the closed source providers?

I'm sorry that the genitals of people you neither know nor are dating bother you so much, dude.

Do you also spend this much time thinking about the genitals of children, like so many of your ilk?

Bluesky knows full well it's not operating a real federated service

Better tell that to Blacksky, Eurosky, etc.

The vast majority of people stay on the primary PDS, relay, etc namely because Bluesky hasn't proven itself to be some evil overlord pursuing insidious goals. If that were to ever occur, people would just migrate. Unlike with ActivityPub (Mastodon), ATProto allows for true migration. Your content isn't tied and linked to a specific server - it's more like a URL on an arbitrary domain, and you can just change the "domain" (the PDS). Everything is timestamped and cryptographically signed, so if you download a backup of your content, you can just reupload it somewhere else and it continues to remain linked into the whole ecosystem.

More to the point, primary Bluesky servers have gone down and third parties like Blacksky remained operational, very much demonstrating that the network is federated.

Also, re: this from the header:

" and by the end of October last year, it had reportedly seen a 40% drop in daily mobile active users over the past 12 months."

... is cherry picking. If you graph users, you'll see that - like most sites - new users tend to arrive in big "spikes", triggered either by events at other social media platforms, or major news cycles (such as elections). Most new users to a site are not "sticky". Some drop off in days, some in weeks, some in months, etc, but this slowly levels out, and the rest are "sticky". With Bluesky, usually half or so of new users stick around, which is an unusually high percentage. If you measure from a new-arrivals spike, of course you see a "dropoff", but you see that for any site. The question is, how is the long-term trend of users that stick around? If you cancel out the spike pattern, Bluesky has a long-term population of around 600k daily posters / 1M daily likers / 300k daily followers.

What you can say is there haven't been any big new user spikes since late 2024 / early 2025. That said, there kinda was some serious news going on in late 2024 / early 2025....

Switching facilities are expensive, but you can design grids such that they are able to break into smaller grids, and that does get continually cheaper. Restarting and synchronizing grids can be difficult, but the more battery storage you've got, the easier that gets. So what we'll more likely wind up with is a grid with more compartmentalization, with a lot of people left in weird and unreliable sectors of the network with unreliable power because nobody will force the providers to actually provide them with power reliably.