Though if Google is setting "ninety-day countdown to full disclosure regardless", then they are essentially pressuring a group og volunteers to change focus and deal with that problem. That's the spiteful part. If Google cared about the open source it benefits from, they could set aside some devs or even provide some financial help to deal with this,

A company like Google could even contribute quality fixes, but by humans. Asking volunteers to solve a problem that the multi-million dollar company is benefiting from is cheap and spiteful, especially if said company provides no value to the project.

Maybe this is incentive to help design data centres that are less power demanding, such as using computers that use ARM and are better with how their code is implemented?

Then combine that with roof top renewables.

This is a hard problem, but if the economic incentive is there, then someone will want to address it.

You are also making an assumption that it is easy to find alternative store fronts for this content, especially when people arenâ(TM)t wanting to pay for yet another streaming platform

You forgot about the hallucinating AIs, which while they can provide useful information, are prone to making shit up.

Can you provide examples where this is the case? Right now it feels like you are discomforted by the idea of something that challenges "'straight' white male privilege"?

Please explain to us what you think DEI means and its intent? Also tell us you don’t think you should have an advantage simply because you are a white male.

Do you even understand what DEI is about and its intent? Yes it’s a terrible acronym, but it isn’t about making sure you have an equal number of people of a given skin tone or gender, rather it’s about demonstrating you haven’t discriminated someone because of it.

The ARM Macs are really impressive and even more impressive when you see how well Windows games can run in CrossOver. Unfortunately they are impacted by the same kernel level anti-cheats as Linux is, so for many multiplayer games they are a no-go.

If they just charged the advertised price, then we wouldn't need to this sort of regulation.For this reason, the problem isn't all the fees, but the fact that they are allowed to add on fees, outside of the advertised price. In addition to this, any price increase should be communicated in advance and before the minimum cancellation window.

Intel needs to improve their fabs quickly, irrespective of Trump. Apple could assign a minor chip to Intel with a three year contract, to appease Trump, but unless Intel improves, then Apple would fail to renew if Trump has left office.

Apple was once in a bad place and got money from Bill Gates, but since turned around. Maybe this is Intel’s turn, but they need more than money. They need good leadership and shareholders who aren’t looking for a short term fix.

I think the relationship is potentially more like that of Samsung where they are both competitor in one segment and supplier in another.

I’d imagine an “Intel Manufacturing” division being a supplier, while an “Intel Design” division being a competitor. If “Intel Manufacturing” got their shit together, then they could be a viable supplier. As for “Intel Design”, they’d need to accept that the writing is on the wall for the x86 architecture, unless they do something radicle. When you have ARM chips running x86 apps as if they were native, then you have something that should be sounding alarm bells.

Right now Intel feels like Boeing and just being a poor competitor due too much focus on short term profits and not enough on long term growth.

At this point, it may not matter, due the damage he’ll have caused. Also, there are a number of people who believe he’ll try to avoid an election in 2028. I don’t want to believe that, but given how much of Project 2025 is apparently being realised, I’m not sure.

I don’t think Apple would say “screw power consumption”, given its history and that it was one reason for moving from PowerPC to Intel.

Apple is a priority customer for TSMC and I believe Apple has likely been organised and signed contracts ensuring that they keep those slots.

Intel needs to work out how TSMC is able to improve its fab process at such a high pace, while Intel seems to be failing to do so. Aren’t both companies getting their lithograph machines from ASML?

Wasn’t Intel exploring splitting fab and split design parts of the business at some point? No idea what happened to that strategy?