Neil Druckmann is an Israeli–American writer, creative director, designer, and programmer. He is the studio head and head of creative of the video game developer Naughty Dog, and is best known for his work on the game franchises Uncharted and The Last of Us, having co-created the latter as well as its television adaptation.
It's important to know that he has a full-time job that is a leading role which explains why shifting focus has an impact.
While it's good for the company to open their high-end manufacturing to clients rather than than merely making their own CPUs, it's bad to completely scrap the newer development process without an alternative route forward. This will definitely boost profits in the short-term but without investing in a new fab process then those profits will wane.
This does not appear to be a sustainable strategy but rather an approach to cash out. It seems to me that the best way forward would be to decouple their fabrication from their CPU development, much the same way that AMD did.
They use coded language because there are a lot of people who aren't savvy enough to recognize it's about money. Anyway, openness would be welcome. If anything, I think using coded language to be a sign of dishonesty and thus obnoxious, contemptible, and meriting punishment.
A lack of restrictions results in companies being sloppy and "expanding filing the container" much like a lack of resource restrictions has resulted in a lot people writing complex beasts in very high level languages. Take Microsoft's VSCode IDE for example, it's easy to write and extend because it's written in typescript but it is an obese monster of a program.
Google is basically whining that they cannot consume an excessive amount of resources in the tech market because it's quick and easy. Time cost money to businesses and anything costing money is heresy to a public traded company like Google. "Innovation" is just code for "it will cost use money".
The reason this is an absurd overgeneralization is a huge number of products kill people. Knives, ladders, cars, ovens, electrical sockets, baseball bats, wood chippers, hammers, log splitters, screwdrivers, surge suppressors, power supplies, toasters, lighters, chainsaws.etc.
This is a false equivalence because none of what you listed are intrinsically harmful. They can all be used safely without hurting anyone. The same is not true for fossil fuels.
What I intended by saying look in the mirror is the accountability is ours. We should all face the climate death lawsuit. If you burn less hydrocarbons or cause less hydrocarbons to be burnt then it stands to reason the amount you would be compelled to pay for your transgressions would be lower than someone who is less careful.
I'm 100% in favor of a carbon tax!
What I intended was to convey political support for policymaking. A consensus view where a majority of policy makers are able to agree on a course of action.
If it weren't for gerrymandering and other efforts to minimize representation then I'd be on board with that. The consensus of the public is in favor taking action but the will of the people is not being represented.
Not only do I not support it...
Your opinion on the matter is not relevant.
so what we need to do to send up rockets (which aren't cheap) and fly them towards the dangerous orbiting items, then somehow grab them, attach a sort of 'space anchor' to them to eith cause them to drop out of orbit or be pushed out of orbit to be incinerated upon re-entry into our atmosphere... right?
Why would you assume any of that? Are you so incapable of orthogonal thought that you can only see one way of solving a problem? With such a limited approach to problems, the Voyager missions would still be on their way to Jupiter.
You need to invent propellentless drives, either solar or zero-point first so you can afford the Delta-V necessary to afford this.
LOL! Insisting on specific constraints because you lack the creativity to identify a sound solution is hilariously silly.
It's clear that it's time for humanity to clean up the mess it's made. It's time to pick up the toys we've simply forgotten about that are drifting about in space.
It doesn't matter if you like X11 or not, this is the correct way to improve an open-source project that refuses additions: fork it.
Or, and I'm just spitballing here, not require people to take one last name when married.
The idea is good but there are realistic issues here. Consider the following situation: two children take both of their parents surnames and in turn they have a child. Does the child then take four surnames? Is there is there any limit to the number or length of a surname?
Without limits, in 10 generations you will have children with 1024 surnames. If you think nobody would do that then you don't know people. There are people who would declare it a point of heritage and keep every single surname forever. This creates a serious issue in information systems and would unduly burden children with a stupid number of surnames.
Everyone got on board with standardized naming for APTs but Palo Alto decided they were too cool for that. As a result, you can call this APT, "Muddled Libra", "UNC3944", or "Scattered Spider".
Assholes.
Intel has NO business having ANY of their products being integrated with automobiles in anyway. Hell, the only thing that could have possibly been relevant was their GPUs and they have effectively killed the only thing ensuring they were trustworthy, an opensource driver. Naturally, even good drivers couldn't prevent them from being insecure.
grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines.
