The Lenovo ThinkStation PX (a high-end dual-socket Intel Xeon Scalable workstation) supports up to 9 PCIe slots. The exact speeds and lane configurations depend on whether you have one or two CPUs installed, as slots are split between the two CPUs (and some require the second CPU).

This is the full configuration with both Intel Xeon processors installed:
4 × PCIe 5.0 x16 (full height, full length, up to 75W, double-width capable in some positions)
4 × PCIe 4.0 x16 (full height, full length, up to 75W)
1 × PCIe 4.0 x8 (full height, full length, 25W, open-ended)

Total: 9 slots (all full-height).

Single PSU1850WFull output at 200–240V AC input.
At 115–127V: still 1850W.
At 100–110V: limited to 1400–1500W.Dual PSUs – Redundant mode1850W (system total)One PSU acts as backup. The system is limited to the capacity of a single PSU for full redundancy. Hot-swap supported.Dual PSUs – Team mode2350WBoth PSUs actively share the load (no redundancy).
Highest power mode, ideal for heavy GPU/CPU configurations.
At lower voltages (100–110V) output is still capped accordingly.

Assuming it's remotely true (and there's good reason for thinking it isn't), it still means the FBI director was negligent in their choice of personal email provider, that the email provider had incompetent security, and that the government's failure to either have an Internet Czar (the post exists) or to enforce high standards on Internet services are a threat to the security of the nation (since we already know malware can cross airgaps through negligence, the DoD has been hit that way a few times). The FBI director could have copied unknown quantities of malware onto government machines through lax standards, any of which could have delivered classified information over the Internet (we know this because it has also happened to the DoD).

In short, the existence of the hack is a minor concern relative to every single implication that hack has.

An actual Pro machine. Just because the 2023 Pro was not a pro machine (It was a MacBook Pro in a cheese grater case), doesnt mean Apple hasn't ever had Pro machines. A Pro machine is a machine like a Lenovo PX or P8. They have dual Xeon, can go to 4TB of ram, and have 3 PCIE-16 slots. Now, some people are going to say "Who needs 4TB of RAM?" and I will reply with: If you have to ask, you aren't the target market for those, and that is kind of the point. Apple has abandoned that target market. It would rather sell iPads to 8 and 80 year olds.

local AI Models

Have you ever heard a single person, including plumbing professionals, call them "copper-phosphorus pipes"?

No. Because that's not how the English language works. You're the one who is too lazy and ignorant to figure out how people actually communicate in society.

Hint: The systematization your mind wants to apply to everything is not absolute. You need to figure out when to relax the formal logic rules when they start to result in absurd outcomes.

I don't know if it's still strictly true, but they used to say that all of the antimatter that has ever been produced by humans has had enough combined energy to warm up a cup of coffee.

You win this year's Nobel Prize for pedantry.

So according to you, I can't call the water pipes in my house "copper", since 0.05% phosphorus was added to the material to accomodate brazing.

Addiction is neurological, not chemical. Addiction is the consequence of the rewards centre of the brain becoming dependent on stimulation and that can be from anything.

Do try to make an effort.

Doesn't have to be a credit card. A class III user digital certificate requires a verification firm be certain of a person's identity through multiple proofs. If an age verification service issued such a certificate, but anonymised the name the certificate was issued to to the user's selected screen name, you now have a digital ID that proves your age and optionally can be used for encryption purposes to ensure your account is only reachable from devices you authorise.

And those come with warnings, legal penalties on vendors who sell to known addicts or children, legal penalties for abusers, financial penalties to abusers, etc. There are cars which have their own breathalisers.

So, no, society has said that the responsibility is distributed. Which is correct.

It is possible to verify age to the same degree (or better) than any "age verification service" without any sort of privacy invasion.

A six digit UID is not one that could be remotely considered "old".

*goes off grumbling and looks for anyone he can shout at to get off his lawn.

It is legitimate for any service that constitutes a "common carrier" to be free of consequences for what it carries. But Meta do not claim to be a "common carrier", and that changes the nature of the playing field substantially. As soon as a service can inspect messages and moderate, it is no longer eligible to claim that it is not responsible for what it carries.

Your counter-argument holds some merit, but runs into two problems.

First, society deems any service that monitors to be liable. That may well be unreasonable at the volumes involved, but that's irrelevant. Meta chose to monitor, knowing that this made it liable in the eyes of society. There are, of course, good reasons for that - mostly, society is sick and twisted, and criminality is encouraged as a "good thing" and "sticking it to the man". This is a very good reason to monitor. But Meta chose to have an obscenely large customer base (it didn't need to), Meta chose to monitor (it is quite capable of parking itself in a country where this isn't an obligation), and Meta chose to make the service addictive (which is a good way of encouraging criminals onto the scene, as addicts are easy prey).

Second, Meta has known there's been a problem for a very long time (depression and suicides by human moderators is a serious problem Meta has been facing for many years at this point). Meta elected to sweep the problem under the rug and create the illusion of doing something by using AI. If a serivce knows there's a problem but does nothing, and in particular a very cheap form of nothing, then one must consider the possibility said service is not solving said problem because there's more money to be made by having the abusers there than by removing them.

Can one block every criminal action? Probably not, which means that that's the wrong problem to solve. Intelligent, rational, people do not try to solve actually impossible problems. Rather, they change the problems into ones that are quite easy. This is very standard lateral thinking and anyone over the age of 10 who has not been trained in lateral thinking should sue their school for incompetence.

Yes. We should all be our own FDA, EPA, and OSHA. That worked *really well* in the past.