Grok is an LLM, it's just as likely to make shit up as to actually pull real data, regardless of where it claims to be sourcing from.

RussiaMatters (part of Harvard university), in their July update (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.russiamatters.org%2Fnews%2Frussia-ukraine-war-report-card%2Frussia-ukraine-war-report-card-july-9-2025), has a bar chart with total Russian territorial control broken down by month since the February invasion, including up to June 2025. It's in square miles instead of square kilometers, but the conversion isn't hard: multiply by 2.59. It shows long periods of stagnation with some periods of gains. It does not paint a picture of there being any significant changes in years.

I don't think that unlimited western aid is realistic. Or rather, the aid itself could be unlimited, because it's a very small amount to western economies (the aggregate GDP of NATO countries is ~9x that of Russia, whose economy is smaller than Canada), but it depends on the political will to continue that aid, which is not unlimited. Unlimited Russian endurance is also unrealistic, their economy can't sustain this pace forever, especially as they've almost burned through the Soviet legacy stockpile.

I can't speak for a UK taxpayer. As a Canadian taxpayer, I want to see more of my tax dollars go to help defend Ukraine. I don't think we're helping enough. However, public opinion polling in Canada is that 48% say the current level of support is about right, 14% says it's not enough, and 17% says it's too much. So I don't expect it to change.

As for the money that Ukraine is getting from seized Russian assets, what they're getting is all derived from interest on the seized assets, with the original assets themselves still remaining intact. This skirts around the issue about the legal ability to do anything with the assets themselves. I don't think that Russia will ever be in any position to demand the seized assets back, as most of the world sees Russia as the aggressor (Russia is generally perceived to be equivalent to WW2 Germany) who will be expected to pay reparations, and Russia doesn't have any leverage over the countries that have seized the assets. Europe's economy is not currently in crisis. Their economic outlook is "mixed" at worst.

Russia's progress has not been speeding up. It's been slowing down. They are not currently capturing 500 square kilometers per month and growing. Between December 31st, 2024, and June 11th, 2025, a period of slightly more than half a year (192 days), Russia captured 1,845 square kilometers. This is an average of 292 square kilometers per month. With their progress slowing, there is no reason to believe that they will double their rate of advance in the next ten months.

Russia has indeed significantly increased their Shahed production capacity, and will expand it even farther in the future. Ukraine, on the other hand, has been ramping up their interceptor drone production capacity in response.

Ukraine's economy is (and has been) kept on life support via funding from allied countries. This is sustainable indefinitely as long as the allied countries are willing to do so. Russia's economy is beginning to show signs of severe strain. Eventually, if the war doesn't end, and allied support to Ukraine doesn't stop, Russia will be forced to significantly reduce their military expenditures. Which I don't think would result in Russia capitulating, but simply result in overall lower operational tempos. We've already seen this in specific areas. Russia ran out of missiles. That didn't result in the end Russian use of missiles, it simply resulted in their consumption rate matching their production rate. The same thing will soon happen (if it hasn't already) in a number of armoured vehicle categories, as Russia has largely burned through the soviet-era stockpiles that can be reactivated.

Russia has gained less than 5,000 square kilometers since January 2024. If we are generous and assume 5,000 square kilometers gained in 18 months, this equates to Russia capturing roughly 0.6% of Ukraine per year. That's not enough to matter in terms of determining the outcome of the war, since Russia's economy can't sustain this long enough to accumulate meaningful territorial gains at that pace. The war will end, however it ends, based on other factors.

It's not just market cap. nVidia's net income (profit) is higher than Intel's entire revenue. nVidia's revenue is rising year on year, while Intel's is shrinking. And Intel had massive losses last year, unsustainably large losses.

There are benefits to higher refresh rates beyond just reducing latency or reaction times. It improves motion clarity, that is, it reduces motion blur. There are other ways to do that, like black frame insertion or backlight strobing, but those have severe negative impacts on brightness, and framegen is a way to improve motion clarity without reducing brightness. Framegen shouldn't be about improving low framerates. It should be about taking something like 60 FPS and turning it into 240 FPS for better motion clarity. Or higher, 120 FPS into 480 FPS, where the latency penalty will be minimal. Taking advantage of those high refresh rate monitors to improve motion clarity.

4K is probably the limit of what we'll ever need on TVs, because that's well past the "retina" resolution even for TVs much larger than we have now at couch distances. There's a reason why 8K televisions failed and were mostly abandoned. There's a case to be made for monitors going higher than 4K, though. You're much closer to those. They fill much more of your field of view.

I'd dispute that. First because the first GPU to support full bandwidth DisplayPort 2.X didn't come out until 2025, and second because DisplayPort 2.X can't support uncompressed 4K 240 Hz with a 12-bit colour depth. It can do it with compression, or it can do 10-bit colour depth, but not uncompressed 12bpc. That's not a big loss, I'd bet you that nobody in practice could tell the difference between 10bpc with temporal (or even spatial) dithering (which GPUs do automatically) and 12bpc. And the consumer HDR formats that use 12bpc (like Dolby Vision) use chroma subsampling.

So your argument is that technological advancement is pointless because only high-end products can benefit today?

Multi-monitor is not a feature that HDMI has ever offered. That's always been a DisplayPort thing, and I don't see anything in this article about adding multi-monitor support. However, we do need more bandwidth for higher refresh rates. Many monitors on the market today exceed the 48 Gbps that HDMI 2.1 provides, and fall back on DSC or DisplayPort to do it.

It will become useful yesterday. Monitors that exceed the bandwidth of HDMI 2.1 have been on the market for some time now. They currently either rely on DSC or DisplayPort (or both).

Current 4K240 monitors require around 129% of the available bandwidth that HDMI currently provides. When operating in 10bpp HDR, they require 161%.

Considering that lower resolution monitors on the market today go up to 540 Hz, the appetite for increased connection bandwidth is insatiable.

That's great for the hypothetical future where they implement backcompat and never release another console-exclusive. But that backcompat doesn't exist right now, and they do still occasionally release console exclusives.

That's Microsoft's strategy for first-party titles. They don't have control over third-party developers. And even then there are some exceptions. Halo 5 never got a PC release, and for something more recent, the 2023 remaster of Goldeneye didn't either.

If there aren't that many third-party xbox exclusives, that says more about the viability of the xbox platform than any specific strategy on Microsoft's part.

If Microsoft had managed to produce a usable game streaming service, I might agree, but nobody but nVidia has pulled that off (with GeForce Now).

By the same logic, you could call this a Playstation handheld, since you can run Sony's streaming service on it.

Besides, you can't really use a game streaming service unless you're tethered to a good home Internet connection, which renders a mobile gaming device somewhat useless.

If they're on PC Game Pass, then they're not Xbox games, they're PC games that happen to also have an Xbox port. Not every Xbox game has a PC port. Halo 5, for example. You can play it on your Xbox console, but not on the ROG XBOX ALLY X, because it's a PC, not an Xbox console.

The term "xbox game" does not appear at all on the page that you linked to (outside of the fine print and navigation), let alone the phrase "Play all your PC and XBOX games."

The closest this thing gets to letting you play Xbox Games is "Stream with Xbox Cloud Gaming (Beta)" which is just super laggy cloud streaming, and "Xbox remote play", which is just streaming it from a local Xbox console.

It's a Windows handheld with some tweaks/improvements rom the Xbox team. It doesn't currently play Xbox games. It only plays Windows games.

I'm not sure how it will let me "hold the power of the Xbox experience in [my] hands" if I can't play Xbox games on it.