Nope. When the term was created the Personal Computer was not affordable for the average man. Not for years, not with the first clones, only a bit later than that.

I suspect otherwise. The CPUs will be no more AI than Intel's and Apple's latest CPUs. What we are seeing is Windows trying to deliver a non-Intel Windows to the general PC population. Something we have not really seen since WinNT 4.

My company has a large Windows app. For fun I built it for Windows 11 ARM on a Mac M4 using Parallels. This is running Windows 11 ARM, Visual Studio ARM, and the existing Windows source code built normally. The app ran fine. If an app is just making Windows API calls it will probably be fine too.

Normally candidates are chosen by all the party's voters. The insiders cannot stop determined voters. That is how we got Barack Obama. He was introduced by the Clintons at a previous convention as a young up and comer. In a later election cycle, Hillary was supposed to be the next candidate. She had the backing of the insiders, the establishment, inserting Bill's political machine. Obama was an upset candidate chosen by the voters, defeating the establishment insider Hillary despite Bill's machine backing her. He jumped the line, he did not wait his turn, he beat the party establishment.

In our system both the people and the states get say. The house proportionately represents the people, the senate the states. The electoral college is basically representatives plus senators. What can you do about the small states? Only give them one senatorial elector?

That is fundamentally contrary to the intentional design of the US gov't. States and less populous regions were given a say too, so they could not be dominated by the large and densely populated. That was the compromise, the contract. It was the only way to form a national government. And it does a damn good job at protecting the minority from the majority, an intentional check and balance.

Our founding fathers wrestled students of Ancient Greece. They were quite familiar with the problems and failures of early experiments with democracy. The ancient greeks learned of the tyranny of the mob is their experimentation.

Which has nothing to do with the utility of the electoral college system and the checks and balances it provides. It is not the elector that is important, it is the fact that power is distributed in a way that gives both the individual people and the states themselves a say.

Regions, states, counties, have very different cultures and backgrounds. The electoral college is designed so these disparate groups have a say.

It is far more than that. The colonies had very different cultures and backgrounds. Compromise was essential to get anything done, a high degree of local control was necessary. A republic addresses these concerns very well.

Actually in the two cases where we did not have real primaries where voters had a choice of candidates for their party, both of those candidates lost. 2016 and 2024.

I'm only familiar with the one in the oldest democracy on earth, i.e. the most enduring to date.

Our founding fathers were students of Ancient Greece and learned from their early experiments with democracy.

Our system does what it was designed to do, force compromise. Extremism is minimized.

I loved see the perspective of a few Imperial home worlds. Its one of the reasons I so enjoyed the X-Wing/Tie Fighter game, getting a look at things from the imperial side.

As I previously said, 1 senator in some small states.

Well, you missed something else I wrote. The problem is not the electoral college itself. It is the all or nothing allocation by the STATES. 2 states do proportional, 48 do not.

Plus you ignore the who checks and balance thing, that states get a say too not just individuals, and that the high population areas cannot treat the less populous areas as serfs.

That's not the point, the point is you are absolutely incorrect that the electoral college is not part of the checks and blanches system

You are missing a fundamental check and balance here. Our gov't is founded on the notion that the people's interests and the state's interests both count, that both have a say. The electoral college provides both.

Yes, WW1 was famous for sub warfare, even to us in the USA :-) However I was thinking the tech is closer to WW2, or early postwar period, for the two propulsion systems at least.

That's odd, Business Schools specifically teach that organizations tend not to last forever, or at least not dominate forever. That loss of institutional knowledge is one of the classic contributing factors to self destruction.

You know what else Business School's teach? That you get what you reward, even if people know it's the wrong thing. This happens at the CEO level too. Most CEOs are not founders, they are just temporary job holders. They are rewarded for maximizing rewards to investors, to having a very short term perspective. They know some decisions are bad in the long run, but it's what will get them big bonuses. So by the time it falls apart as a result, they'll be long gone and it will be someone else's problem.

Specifically focusing on checks and balances, rrom google:

"The Electoral College is directly tied to constitutional checks and balances by preventing Congress from choosing the president and protecting small states from being dominated by large states.

1. Independence from Congress (Separation of Powers)The Danger: The framers feared that if Congress chose the president, the executive branch would become a puppet of the legislature.The Check: By creating an independent, temporary body of electors, the Electoral College ensures the president does not owe their job to Congress, preserving the separation of powers.

2. State-by-State Voting (Federalism)The Danger: The framers wanted to prevent a few highly populated states or cities from completely controlling the executive branch.The Check: Giving each state electoral votes based on its total congressional representation forces presidential candidates to build a broad national coalition, rather than just appealing to dense population centers.

3. Immediate Dissolution (Anti-Corruption Check)The Danger: A permanent voting body would be highly vulnerable to foreign bribery, inside deals, and political trade-offs over time.The Check: Electors meet only once in their own states and immediately disband, making it nearly impossible for a single faction or branch of government to corrupt the system in advance.

You may find the Federalist Papers interesting. From google:

"In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton argues that the Electoral College is an "excellent" system that balances democratic representation with necessary security. He outlines four main defenses of the system:

Informed Deliberation: The system ensures the president is chosen by capable, deliberative citizens rather than a general public susceptible to temporary passions or "mob rule".

Prevention of Corruption: By having electors vote in their respective states rather than in one national convention, the framers minimized the risk of foreign interference, bribery, and mob violence.

Independence of Electors: Electors are chosen specifically for this single purpose and cannot hold federal office, ensuring they are independent and not beholden to existing power structures.

Broad National Support: The system requires a candidate to gain broad, nationwide consent rather than just winning a concentrated plurality of the population

Federalist No. 10 (James Madison)

Fear of Factions: Madison warns against "factions," which are groups of citizens united by a common passion detrimental to the rights of others.

Filter for Passion: He argues that a representative republic, rather than a direct democracy, is needed to "refine and enlarge the public views" through a chosen body of citizens.

Large Republic Advantage: He states that a larger territory with more representatives makes it harder for a single, malicious faction to gain a majority.

Federalist No. 51 (James Madison)

Checks and Balances: Madison explains that the government must be structured so that its various parts keep each other in check.

Ambition Countering Ambition: The Electoral College aligns with this by preventing the legislative branch from choosing the president, keeping the executive completely independent.

Federalist No. 39 (James Madison)

The "Compound" Republic: Madison defines the U.S. Constitution as neither strictly national (focused on the people as a whole) nor strictly federal (focused on the states as individual units), but a mixture of both.

State Representation: The Electoral College reflects this compound structure by giving states a distinct, sovereign voice in choosing the executive leader.