And California would be sucking pretty badly without Silicon Valley too.
Without Silicon Valley, California would still have Hollywood, which adds a lot to the state's economy. California would look pretty bad if you took out San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their surrounding areas, but most states would look pretty bad if you took away 75% of their population.
I agree, though even with the Theresa May et. al. view of accepting the referendum results there are problems they're glossing over - Leave only won by 1.8%, but it's not clear that they can show all 51.8% prioritise immigration as their reasons for leaving, when prominent Leavers like Daniel Hannan say immigration wasn't the reason he wanted to leave I think it's entirely dishonest to make the case that immigration reform has to become before all else, even if we leave there's no evidence that a majority support leaving and screwing ourselves based primarily on immigration changes.
But this is why parliamentary scrutiny is of fundamental importance, to challenge the idea that a vote to Leave in the referendum is a vote for Theresa May's cabinet to be the sole decider of what shape that takes even if that completely defies the democratic will of the populace.
Even if you ran the referendum again, and even if Leave won again, which I suspect they wouldn't, I do not for one second believe you'd ever get a majority supporting exiting the European Economic Area even if we leave the EU, and yet that's exactly what they're proposing despite there being not even remotely near a majority for it. A substantial number of even the hardest Brexit voters still support the idea of remaining in the common market.
Thus May's government simply cannot keep claiming they have a democratic mandate, they were given a mandate for one thing and one thing only - leaving the EU, they have no mandate to decide anything else beyond that regarding immigration, access to markets and so on and so forth. Democracy is also not a one time thing, so I also absolutely agree that any package should be put to the people in a second referendum with the option of rejecting it and staying in the EU - democracy is about giving people choice to decide, and people's views change. It's not democracy if you refuse to recognise that change, otherwise we could merely declare the referendum result invalid because people previously voted to join in 1972, if singular votes define things for all eternity then why not that one? The whole argument against a second referendum is fundamentally democracy denying, despite the argument they make that it's a refusal to accept the will of the people - finding out the will of the people on a rolling basis by definition cannot be classed as refusing the will of the people.
It can sometimes work that way, but there's no guarantee. If the buyer meets the sellers price, there's no one in between - the deal is done. But the moment that happens, the market is back to normal, with a gap between buyer and seller.
If the highest current outstanding bid (WTB) is $100, and the highest current outstanding ask (WTS) is $104, how's the bot going to make money - buy at 104 and sell at 100? No. The bot makes money when someone wants to sell "at market" the bot buys at 101, and the seller makes $1 more. Later, if the price hasn't moved, and someone is buying "at market", the bot may sell at 103, and the buyer saves $1.
Do you understand how this works? And why it's risky? If there's only 1 bot, it is reasonably safe, but it benefits both buyer and seller, so why complain. But there's usually more than one bot racing each other, so it's more like buy at 101.95 and sell at 102.05, which is great for the casual, small-time guy like me. I remember how it was last century, and it sucked.
If the bot goes overboard it will get stuck with an overpriced stock. That's always been the risk market makers take.
Front-running is illegal, bot or not. Without illegal front-running, bots just increase liquidity through competition with each other. Providing liquidity is the way that market makers make a profit - they buy when no one else is willing to, then later sell when no one else is willing to, and make a profit off the sporadic timing in thinner markets - but the result is a better price for "real" buyers and sellers.
Ask me how I know...
With all due respect, I'd rather you kept that to yourself.
My understanding is most server farms are connected to dedicated nuclear power plants anyway, so power consumption isn't an issue. Heat dissipation? Yeah, that might be an issue.
Heat and power are the same issue. The conservation of energy means that power in is power out, and the power out is heat that needs to be dissipated. A rule of thumb for data centres is that every dollar you pay in electricity for the computers, you need to pay another dollar in electricity for cooling. If you want high density, then you hit hard limits in the amount of heat that you can physically extract (faster fans hit diminishing returns quickly). This is why AMD's presence in the server room went from close to 100% to close to 0%: Intel was much better at low power.
Intels problem is that it cannot sell FAB time because they are vertically integrated
This is true. Intel will fab chips for other people, but they've had very few customers because everyone knows that the priority customer at Intel fabs is Intel and if yields are lower than expected it won't be Intel chips that get delayed.
Intel builds a FAB and runs its next gen chips off of it for a few years, then they are stuck looking for something to do with the FAB when it is no longer current-gen
This is simply not true. Slashdot likes to think of Intel as a a CPU vendor, but that's actually quite a small part of their business. They make a lot of other kinds of chip and a great many of these don't require the latest and greatest fab technology. This has always been a big part of their advantage over AMD: they have products that will use the fab for 10+ years, so they can amortise the construction costs over that long a period.
TSMC's revenue is now approaching Intel's, and unlike Intel they can keep all their FABs busy making money, so the outlook for Intel is grim without a serious restructuring, which they are doing (see recent massive layoffs, and bullshit marketing about their new "cloud strategy")
This is the important part and is where the ARM ecosystem has an advantage over Intel. No single processor vendor has to compete head-to-head with Intel. As long as the total size of the ecosystem is large enough, the foundries can invest in process improvements.
1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.