Intel did it much worse than AMD, and about the same as IBM in terms of vulnerability and performance impact of mitigation.

Core 2 was pretty decent, that's fair. But by the time the i7 came around AMD was kicking their ass at everything but single thread. Even though I am a gamer that's never been the only thing I cared about, and I've also always been cheap, so to have AMD provide dramatically more ops per buck and have very competitive processors which were outright faster in many situations has had me an AMD customer solidly since Athlon. AMD never was able to keep up with Intel's process technology, but by the time that ceased to be a thing, all Intel had left was inertia and skullduggery.

My last non-netbook Intel-based system that I bought with my own money (I had an Elitebook with a Core 2 Duo for a moment) was a P2 400 because AMD has kicked Intel right in the goodies in the market segments I care about since right around then. Only Hammer has even been slightly disappointing since Athlon, and it was still an absolute value for money champ.

It turns out there's still no evidence that he was ever shot.

The best and the brightest know what a woman is. Those universities that don't know can be refunded with no loss. Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe with Nazis? Hard pass. We gave them so much and they still lost. Losers. Antisemitic bastards.

That fine is a stupid fucking joke amount. It's not even enough to make Google flinch.

"This isn't a meaningful measure of anything.
Naval wars are not won with tonnage."

They are won largely with numbers, but you ignored that part.

Anyway wars between superpowers are going to be won with drones in the future (as they are shaping up to be already) and nobody has more manufacturing than China.

There is no such thing as "the Ukraine" which is a Russian propaganda term, just Ukraine. But I guess you already knew that, Ivan.

They had good design too, though the last really good design was the 80486. After that it was a bunch of pumping watts for performance, until they got to compromising security for performance.

Solar plus battery is cheaper than a new coal plant.

Again, why don't you know any actual facts?

Sorry you only know about trolling. Maybe you could branch out and learn some other things, possibly through personal experience. Maybe your mom will let you out of her basement if you ask nicely.

It's real obvious from the public statements, unless the truth is even more cynical.

It occurs to me that this is a good use of massive solar plants. It wouldn't cost much to idle your oxygen-separation equipment when the sun isn't shining, so you wouldn't need much in the way of battery storage. Grid scale solar without battery backup in a sunny area (like south Texas) can cost as little as $0.03/kWh, which would give you a separation cost of $4.5 to $24 per ton of LOX. Obviously, if you were producing LOX at a scale needed to fuel a fleet of Starships, you'd work to get that towards the bottom of the scale -- so the LOX loadout for a ship could cost on the order of 3500 * 4.5 = $15,750. To launch 150 tons to orbit. Of course you still need methane.

Could you make "green" methane (i.e. without using fossil fuels) with a big solar farm, and what would that cost? You'd do it with the Sabatier reaction to combine CO2 and H2 to get CH4. To make a ton of CH4 you need 2.75 tons of CO2 and 0.5 tons of H2 (stochiometry, dawg). To get a ton of CO2 with direct air capture takes about 2000 kWh of electricity, so 5500 kWh for the CO2. At $0.03/kWh that's $165 for the CO2. However, producing the half-ton of H2 with electrolysis would take 25,000 kWh, so $750. This puts the raw materials cost of green CH4 at around $915. The Sabatier reaction would add a little more, call it $930 in all.

So... Starship could be entirely solar-powered at a cost of around 3500 * 4.5 + 1000 * 930 = ~$946k, assuming $.03/kWh, ignoring equipment and storage overhead. It turns out that the cost is utterly dominated by the cost of methane production; LOX is all but free. But the cost of solar will likely continue to go down so... fuel costs could indeed get really, really low, even with a zero-carbon strategy. Perhaps as low as $2/kg to LEO.

Oh for fucks sake. Trump ran on pulling back from Ukraine involvement. It was loudly and clearly part of his campaign. Average people want less involvement with foreign conflicts, not more:

I see.

It's not like the X server needs a lot of major changes, at this point. It certainly doesn't need new capabilities; it *has* all the capabilities it needs. A bit of optimization, maybe? But honestly, XFree86 ran just fine on 1990s hardware, so unless you're constructing a Russian nesting doll of multi-layered virtualization or some similarly wacky pathological case, you're not going to have user-noticeable perf problems in 2025 that are best solved by changing the X server. There are some changes I would like to see in the desktop environment that I use; but none of them would require any changes to the X server itself. Apart from any security issues that come up, most of the changes it actually needs, are related to changes in other things that it has to work with: newer video cards, newer compilers that are stricter about what they will compile, newer security systems that e.g. require the software (as well as the user) to have permission to do various things, and so on.

If he's trying to make Wayland-inspired changes to the X server to compete with Wayland, he's an idiot. *Wayland* needs changes, or better yet a complete from-the-ground-up rethink, to meaningfully compete with X11. Changing the X server to do what Wayland does to compete with Wayland, would be actively counterproductive.

MS is in no way hurting. They made a profit of $26 Billion in March, far ahead of Wall Street projections.

As other companies are also specifically targeting that mid-management layer, this is a possible sign that the Cult of the MBA may be waning.

My mom says there's a lot of white people in Poland.