> My feeling is that the engineers and OEMs understand these tradeoffs better than the hobby market. All of those boring pastes that came in OEM configurations but underperformed the latest $20 tube you could buy in the aftermarket were just making different tradeoffs
For example, if a consumer is going to periodically (or ever) replace / upgrade their thermal paste, they can get a bump in performance. The consumer that's never going to do that is better server by paste that has slightly lower performance, but lasts much longer.
Peak performance alone will not imbue something with a soul, and adding (or adding additional) computers frequently seems to overlap with something becoming more soulless.
An SSD is faster, but a hard drive ticking away is a language its own, and an amorphous white-by-default Tesla Plaid may be one of the fastest cars on any road, but odds are the only feeling it evokes is "This is faster than any reasonable person needs, and likely more than is safe for any standard American motorist to be able to just go out and buy"
> The country's farmers produce far in excess of what's needed to feed the population
World-wide, accounting for every person vs every calorie, starvation has been a pricing and distribution problem for decades, not a "We don't have enough calories world-wide to feed everyone" problem. I agree with your overall point, but I don't believe "US farmers grow enough to feed the American people" the best supporting evidence.
The US doesn't have a distribution problem either. It's an advanced economy with well-developed transportation and logistics networks.
Every city and town has food banks, community kitchens, places of worship with free meals for those in need. They'll need a lot more funding, and hopefully they get it. It'll be rough. But actual starvation, as in dying due to not enough calories, is highly unlikely.
This is exactly my point: while we agree that starvation is extremely unlikely, the problem is not raw caloric output. Stating in your earlier comment, "the country's farmers produce far in excess of what's needed to feed the population", is like saying the sun outputs enough energy to grow the crops, in that neither was really the problem in the first place. A major weak point though is funding, and financial support from, for example, the government.
Starvation in the US is beyond rare. "American farmers produce enough to keep everyone fed" is weak supporting evidence of that statement.
I said that because the person I responded to claimed higher fertilizer prices would result in starvation. Presumably because there would be less food grown.
> Starvation in the US is beyond rare
Any sources? I'd love to learn.
I don't mean malnutrition, or food deserts, or food insecurity, all of which exist.
I never claimed higher fertilizer prices alone would result in starvation. I’m claiming higher diesel prices higher fertilizer. Prices in combination will probably cause starvation. It might not be in the US, but it will be in other places. You don’t seem to care about.
There's a range of just how much activity one puts in the term "activist", but examples run from glueing themselves to the road [0] to advocating for better transit to gently push the local population away from cars
> There should be a rule that any assertion of conspiracy must at least have some evidence.
Broadly, I agree, and good grief do I wish people would follow this more often. But Google specifically has acted incredibly anti-competitively for several years now [0], especially regarding Android. This has gone on for such a long time that they have, in my mind, lost the benefit of any doubt.
As they continue to lock down Android [1], things that would have once been met with a "Wait and see" approach are instead met with suspicion and a default assumption that it's primarily (though not typically exclusively) done to serve their own interests.
So generally, yes! That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. However, Google's history is all the evidence I need to assume their actions are not done in good faith.
> the blue collar worker and the immigrant should beat the CEO to death
> Do we somehow think the blue collar guy and the immigrant are dumb?
The country that's so loud about their second amendment that the average English-speaking person, not citizen, knows what it is, still hasn't executed Jeff Bezos; one of the richest men in the world who treats his employees so inhumanely that they have to pee in bottles.
Let me know when Americans as a whole boycott Amazon instead of buying from them, and maybe we can move on to "beat[ing] the CEO to death" from there. I've heard the country might be going back to live executions, but I hesitate to call that a step in the right direction.
The 2nd amendment is about protecting citizens from government overreach. It’s not about executing people you don’t like.
Eg to carry out the holocaust, the Nazis first instituted gun control so that the local population couldn’t fight back.
Amazon pays considerably more than other warehouses and Amazon has been absolutely revolutionary to both retail and computing. You’re insane to suggest we should just shoot people.
> While a mobile client could do the same, it's not really something that you want to do on a battery-powered device
Doesn't this feel like a perfect example of work done at 3AM when plugged in and (importantly) after the battery is fully charged? It won't be perfect, searching for an email in the afternoon that you received in the morning won't be in the index, but I generally don't need search for emails I received so recently anyways
For example, if a consumer is going to periodically (or ever) replace / upgrade their thermal paste, they can get a bump in performance. The consumer that's never going to do that is better server by paste that has slightly lower performance, but lasts much longer.
reply