They do, sort of. ARM themselves provide the "ARM Base Boot Requirements"; along with the "ARM Base System Architecture Specification" and "Server Base System Architecture" supplement.

Those pretty much do say "use UEFI, look reasonably PC-like"(you don't need to reproduce the utter weirdness of historical x86 peripheral memory mapping under 16MB as though you had genuine parallel ports or anything; but UEFI, ACPI, SMBIOS, device tree); with the BSA and SBSA going into further detail about expected behavior, also mostly aimed at compatibility with PC industry standards along with making authoritative decisions on certain details that you could implement in multiple ways just to add confusion to try to encourage people to not do that, at least not so badly that the HAL can't cover it up.

It's just that, while claiming you do support that and not supporting that is frowned upon, supporting that is optional; unlike some of the ISA stuff where (even if you are licensing a core soft enough to modify) ARM is typically pretty humorless about a given "ARMv8" or whatnot deviating from what "ARMv8" is supposed to mean.

If only because they are working with MS on this, I assume that these Qualcomm ones will be intended for use in BBR and BSAS compliant-ish systems; thought that wouldn't necessarily preclude heavily pro-Redmond secure boot default keying or something; but there is no cavalry coming for embedded ARM stuff in general being a pain.

Why?

There's basically 3 chip fabs that are anywhere near close to the best, Intel, Samsung and TSMC. Apple are completely dependent on TSMC, presumably they don't want to be. Intel is behind, but not that far. If TSMC misstep, Intel could catch up. Or if TSMC gets booked out maybe Apple will decide to fab some of the less critical chips at Intel.

How is Intel an Apple competitor? They are just a potential second source for manufacturing. Windows is the competitor, not Intel. Intel in fact made Apple a lot of money post-PowerPC. Apple sales virtually doubled when Macs were essentially Intel based PCs that could dual boot macOS or Windows. It ended the entire MacOS or Windows question, you could have both. Running natively at full speed on the same hardware.

You are overstating things. The fact remains the process/price is an area where Intel can be competitive over time, x86-64 vs ARM is not. Even if TSMC currently has the lead, their fabs are heavily booked. A second manufacturing source for Apple could be useful. And if one year an Intel process lags behind a TSMC process, then Intel can do the Apple Silicon for TVs and Watches, not the higher performing Computer and Phone/Pad CPUs. Add to that the Apple Silicon designs from previous years used in the SE lines of Phones and Watches. Use the limited TMSC availability where it matters.

Far ahead is overstating things. The fact remains the process/price is an area where Intel can be compete over time, x86-64 vs ARM is not. Even if TSMC currently has the lead, their fabs are heavily booked. A second manufacturing source for Apple could be useful. And if one year an Intel process lags behind a TSMC process, then Intel can do the Apple Silicon for TVs and Watches, not the higher performing Computer and Phone/Pad CPUs. Use the limited TMSC availability where it matters.

Intels value is in advanced CPU manufacturing, not in the x86-64 architecture.

Think about all the miracles Intel has accomplished over the decades with x86 and keeping it competitive. That was in part due to their advanced manufacturing processes. Apple Silicon architecture on an Intel manufacturing process could actually be interesting.

I can see my Mom doing that. My Dad, standing behind her wait his turn. He won't slap me, he'll just give me the phone number of the Navy recruiter and say good luck.

Its about manufacturing Apple Silicon chips, not returning to the x86-64 architecture.

Face it, Microsoft is working with Qualcomm to move Windows to ARM as well.

It varies greatly with degree. STEM may consistently be above trades, liberal arts no so much. Those with liberal art degrees making big money are working outside their degree. They got into some sort of management trainee position and worked their way up the corporate ladder. My former History department points this out during orientation.

IFF you are self motivated and do a lot of self-study along side that coursework. Your average grad, not so much.

Also, keep in mind that community colleges often include vocational training. Depending on your state it's probably is a big part of your community college system. A cousin is in a one year certification program for working on industrial grade diesel engines.

I've never seen a cookie banner ask for consent to collect and store my IP address. If that is their reason, they completely failed to obtain consent in a manner that meets the law.

The reason for the banners are simple - a court case ruled that cookies are covered by GDRP, but they haven't explicitly ruled on other tracking mechanisms. So ad companies pushed the minimum and most annoying method of conforming with that ruling without changing their practices, and continue to ignore the fact that all the other tracking they are doing without consent is blatantly illegal.

I don't buy that argument, and here's why: They knew political parties were a problem but they didn't spend literally any time writing rules for them. What I think is that they wanted problems they thought they would be the only ones smart enough to exploit.

The founding fathers claimed all men were created equal, then gave the vote only to landed white males. They were not all the same, but they all colluded to preserve their power.

When you participate in capitalism you are seeking some level of efficiency. Your specific goals may differ, but you're trying to get a service at a price point. I like to treat people like people, I don't expect to push a button and have them vend, but that includes taking what they want into account. Politeness exists in the intersection of that and what I want. If you're bartering goods that's one thing, if you're trading money for products or services it's another. Putting a song and dance in front of it so you can pretend it isn't happening and everyone is having a good time is delusion, to which I am opposed mostly because it retards progress.

I don't know TRS' story so I can't comment on it.

Commodore flattened itself with a shitty CEO. They also published schematics for their computers. There was nothing closed about the Amiga platform except the source code, and the chip designs. Both the accelerator slot and the expansion slots were well-documented. And on Amigas with bridgecards you can have ISA cards... or now you can even get a PCI bridgecard. And there are PowerPC accelerators, '060 accelerators with FPGA, ARM accelerators...

Your rebuttal is that you're intellectually lazy? Tell me something I don't already know, friend.

Some of them *use* robots.txt to find out what to scrape.

You can put tripwires in there and feed logs to fail2ban, for instance.