Ok, but I've never heard anyone else have so many problems and frankly, personal anecdotes don't really prove a thing. Driverless taxis don't have to be perfect to get regulatory approval.

Waymo has problems, too, they're in the news all the time. And yet they are approved in a for driverless in a few markets largely because they got started earlier.

But they can't scale, and their prices are triple because they foolishly depended on expensive sensors so I wouldn't bet on them winning longer term.

Maybe people are wising up to a fact a lot of us knew for years: you can't trust a fucking thing you see on the internet, until you confirm it through trusted sources.

But I doubt it. Hayseeds gonna hayseed.

Exactly. The fabs don't give two shits what they're etching, as long as they're etching. The last thing anyone wants to do is idle a multi-billion dollar fab - you want that thing running 3 shifts a day, racing to positive ROI before it's obsolete and needs to be retooled.

Back in the day at Intel (in the Pentium 4 days) if they had an unintended stop in a fab, they would be losing roughly $1M/minute until it's back up. With chip sizes going down, and wafer sizes and yields going up, that effect only inflates over time.

To be fair, Intel has been doing ARM for a long time. The old shitbox "PocketPC" devices used Intel PowerARM and Xscale processors, as well as the shitty Windows Smartphone.

I didn't say they were particularly good, but Intel has had an ARM license for quite some time.

The check cashes all the same. And right now Intel needs every check they can cash.

Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.

I agree, it's dumb. Elon posted over 100 times on X yesterday. He's got a problem.

But OTOH, he's surely driving traffic to his platform!

It's only "supervised" because it's waiting on regulatory approval, but the product is ready. I am not aware of anyone with any serious level of knowledge who thinks it's vaporware.

HFS+ has encryption through a bolt-on process.

APFS has encryption designed in from the core. They don't want to maintain the bolt-on that is only used for legacy / external drives any more, on the way to getting rid of HFS+ altogether.

HFS has been around since the 80s for fucks sake. It's okay for us to leave it behind when they've already done the heavy lifting of automatically converting everyone to APFS years ago.

Or, they are at the beginning of deprecating HFS+ in favor of the APFS file system they've been using for root volumes for almost 10 years now.

Why should they continue supporting a botched-together implementation when they have a file system that was designed with encryption at it's core?

Yes, because I'm sure that fucking Richard Nixon would have done anything different if he beat Kennedy in 1960. He would have invaded twice after bombing the place flat. You know, like he did illegally in Cambodia and Laos.

Holy shit some of you people are so god damn stupid.

So where does threatening to deport them all fit into that narrative?

Or are they they a politically protected set of migrants, and they just want to deport people that politically don't matter?

Explain why we need to "own" it rather than just do what we've done for 80 years since World War II - work with the country that actually "owns" it, to defend it for the sake of Democracy?

Is it just because you're a grasping selfish git?

And all he's doing is driving Russia and China closer together with his bullshit. So, like everything else he touches, he fucks it up and makes it worse.

The word "never" makes you incorrect. See: the Marshall Plan.

The US spent a lot of time, effort, and money rebuilding democracies in Europe after WW2. The USSR decided they needed to keep the spoils of war. The US, UK, and France gave it back to the people who owned it before Germany came knocking.

I agree that it's not the point of US policy now. Now it's "me and mine" which is exactly the shit we don't need.