Readit NewsIt’s not that it’s worse than a “real” desktop chip. In a way it’s better you get almost comparable performance with way lower power usage.
Also the M4 Max has worse MT performance than e.g. the 14900k which is architecture ancient in relative terms and also costs a fraction
This shows how immature the field of software engineering is. Imagine bridges or houses were built like that. Or your surgeon was trained like that.
Over time, we hopefully develop estblished norms, but at the moment, things are too much in flux. Put 5 sw engineers in a room, pose a problem and you will get not just 5 different solution proposals, but there will likely be strong disagreements on which approach is a good one.
"I recognize a good solution when I see it" is just not good enough for a serious engineering discipline.
If they could afford experimenting and have a few bridges collapse before they get it right with no significant negative consequences IMHO it wouldn’t be the worst way to learn.
Maybe even more so for surgeons, being able to experiment and fail in a risk free environment seems like a good thing.
> Unlike the costly bleeding edge 2 and 3 nanometer chips made by giants like TSMC, TI’s chips are made on cheaper, legacy nodes: 45 to 130 nanometers.
What's worse:
> Making chips takes an immense amount of water, and about a quarter of Texas is in drought. Luckily, Sherman has water rights to nearby Lake Texoma.
Indeed lucky for TI, but probably not so for area residents.
Aren’t there plenty of areas where water is ample and land prices relatively cheap.
They did not have the precursors to it, such as a lathe. Steam engine technology evolved out of cannon technology, which was developing for centuries before the steam engine. (The lathe also came about from cannon improvements.)
Early engines were used to pump water out of coal mines because they were very inefficient and transportation was very expensive.
Of course Romans actually had coal mines in Britain and the Rhineland so it wouldn’t have been entirely fat fetched.
One standard for chargers is the only acceptable outcome and it wouldn't have gotten there without regulation.
What need is there to experiment with chargers? Wire go in, power go through - it's really not that complicated, the only important thing is standardization.
That’s the point, I have no clue. But we might still be stuck with floppy drives with a mindset like that.
Although as a physical connector usb-c is far from perfect. IMHO lighting seemed nicer in some ways.
Maybe that’s an AMD (or even Intel) thing, but doesn’t hold for Apple silicon.
I wonder if it holds for ARM in general?
For AMD/Intel laptop, desktop and server CPUs usually are based on different architectures and don’t have that much overlap.
It's like they saw how annoying the existing "cookie laws" were and said "we can make it worse!"
GDPR might have had good ideas, but the implementation is so botched it's not even funny. Everything related to cookie consent should have been standardized and delegated to browser settings.
It had a very significant impact privacy, worker rights and such.
But clearly there is a price for the standardisation, it makes progress slower. On the other hand it makes everyone's lifes easier. Just as with e.g electrical outlets in the house there is a time for exploration and innovation, and there is a time for standardisation. And we are ready for standardisation now, USB-c is good enough.
Which is a fine? The industry eventually converged to just a handful of common standards on its own.
You can’t innovate without being able to experiment. Which is only possible if there are actual people using your product. Thinking that a committee of bureaucrats can replace that is silly.
If someone comes up with a better method for charging, they can get all the big device manufacturers in the room, convince most of them that the new method is better, and then the commission will likely adopt a new standard.
This is not far-fetched. All the players relevant to internet, for example, collaborate to determine how web standards should evolve. It works pretty well. It's more or less the same companies who need to collaborate to build something better than USB-C.
Only way they could actually prove that is by demonstrating it empirically. i.e. by implementing the technology in products which consumers use.
Any government commission is inherently incapable of making a legitimate proactive decision is such case. You might as well use some sort of a lottery system at that point..
My entire point it's not just about plastic straws. I don't know why you need to reduce this to just plastic straws.
Poor and unregulated waste management is. Of course the fact that a lot of western countries were and still are exporting their plastic waste to poorer countries where they somehow end up in rivers and oceans.
However there is no inherent reason why plastic straws or anything else inherently have to be dumped into oceans.
Of course silly token measures are much easier than actually regulating the global fishing industry..