From what I’ve heard Intel on top of doing more of the work ready to go, they also tend to pay for more development expense associated with products based on their stuff.

With AMD, less work is done for you and you are kind of on your own. This is why partners tend to be more enthusiastic about Intel offerings.

I think every industry strives to be able to not deliver something after being paid, they usually just can’t get away with it.

In the WWI scenario, Russia was able to have a reprieve because the central powers had other things to do. So “appeasement” worked at least in the scenario where the opposition has multiple other fronts to contend with, and also when that would-be opponent ultimately lost. WWI was a lot more “gray area” so it’s hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.

For the opposite experience for Russia, see WWII where they started off with appeasing Germany and then got invaded two years later.

But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn’t actually have a horse in the race doesn’t apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace. We don’t have US military being ordered to go in to fight and die in that conflict.

Because the US is frequently not justified and has the history of being the warmonger, so they are often unjustified. That says nothing about the Ukrainian situation though, where a well established independent nation was subject to a military invasion. There isn’t significant “gray area” to find in this scenario.

There are justified US military operations in more recent history but those aren’t useful as an example either. Because the prospect of someone actually “caving” to invasion is a rare situation, and we do have to go back 70 years to cite an example of what happens when major powers try the “let the dictator win without resistance” strategy. The major powers learned something in the 1930s and have not repeated that behavior.

I’d say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly “pro-war”, as they went in without provocation and the justification of “WMD” was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.

If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it’s weird to characterize self-defense as “pro-war” or “being a war hawk”. One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it’s wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as “pro-war”.

For example, I haven’t thrown a punch in decades, I don’t want to throw a punch and I’ll avoid doing so if there’s a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.

I remember when Russia did go in, briefly Fox News was full of editorializing that Russia should get to have Ukraine. They at least tried to got full on pro-Russia when they thought the narrative might fly and Ukraine was going to just get conquered in a week or so. Clearly they were trying to set things up for blithe acceptance for what Russia had done and for the world to move on (until next time).

I think that between the prolonged conflict and the fact that their boomer audience actually may still be inclined to remember their cold war feelings that this won’t fly, that they backed off to less aggressively calling for complete Russian victory. But as seen here, there’s still a theme of making it clear that you’re ok with whatever outcome, leaning toward “but should we spend our money?” to undermine things rather than calling for a pro-russia outcome outright.

This was a reply to your stance, not a rejection of your definition of pacifism. Your comment didn’t claim anything about the definition of pacifism, and neither did mine.

Now maybe you meant my other comment, where you responded to someone asserting being a pacifist is actually “pro-war”. In which case I also did not speak one way or another on your definition of pacifism, but your characterization of people supporting self-defense as being “pro-war”.

you’re pro-war, actually.

Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I’m sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I’m not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn’t want any punches thrown in the first place.

To be unwavering anti-war including defensive wars, is appeasement, and WWII is a demonstration of exactly where that leads. Even if you ignore all the combat related deaths, millions were still just butchered by the nazis in non-combat situations, and that number would have been even more if no one stood up to counter. The reluctance to forceful resistance resulted in more deaths including innocent non-combatants. Problem is in reality, if all the ‘good’ folks are anti-war, then the one asshole who is pro-offensive war conquers all. Being highly skeptical of war, especially offensive war I can see, but to stand aside as evil just takes and takes is too far.

Further, it’s not our blood to commit, it’s the Ukrainians. We are supplying but it’s their skin in the game, not our forces. It’s their choice to make and we are supporting that decision in the face of a completely unjustified invasion. This is distinct from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we went in with our own forces to unilaterally try to force our desired reality on a sovereign nation. If Ukraine decided to give in, we would not stand in the way, even if we were disappointed in the result.

Also, the only reason the goalposts moved to ‘a couple of provinces’ is that Russia was stopped when they tried to just take the whole thing. If Russia had just rolled in to easy three day victory, then the goalposts would have moved to have even more Russian expansion (as happened in WWII with Germany).

Generally accurate, but need to address ways they get money whole avoiding realization of taxable capital gains (e.g. borrowing).

But yes, even if he is a paper trillionaire, you won’t find people willing to actually give him a trillion dollars for his stocks. It’s still some absurdly high number, but our math does not really model exactly what the “real” wealth would be.

The big concern is the rich dodging taxes on value increase. In theory you have the “shares as income” when acquired as a restricted stock, and then capital gains/loss to cover value change between acquisition and sale. However there’s room for loopholes when using the unrealized value of the stock as basis for a loan, to defer tax and potentially all the way to death and then doing other tracks around estate taxes.

The S&P 500 is “worth” 45 trillion dollars.

The M2 money supply is less than half of that. There does not exist as money dollars to spend as the nominal value of all the stock.

The stock value is extrapolated from the shares that do move, but those extrapolations fall apart in the “cash it all out” scenario.

That being said, it just means we have to be careful about how we proceed. For example, better tax capture of loans and estates, which is a big dodge for people with high stock wealth.

Note that to some extent, this might have been a necessary step in the relative popularity of computing.

Folks remembering how flexible and open ended things were in the 90s were a tiny sliver of the population. At the time about 1% of the world were participating in the internet, now the majority of the population participates on the internet.

I would have loved for the industry to keep up the trends of the 90s (AOL/Prodigy lost out to a federated internet, centralized computing yielded to personal computing) instead of going backwards (enduser devices becoming tethered to internet hosted software, relatively few internet domains and home hosted sites being considered suspicious rather than normal), but this might have just been what it took for the wider population to be able to cope.

Gen X and older witnessed a young generation born into kind of working, but kind of janky technology. They saw kids figure out obscure VCR programming interfaces that let the kids record something they wanted, but only by navigating very obtuse interface rendered exclusively with 7 segment displays with a few extra static indicators. A teenager playing that new DOS game, but first they had to struggle with getting the conventional memory, upper memory, EMS/XMS and just the right set of TSRs running, involving mucking about with menu driven config.sys/autoexec.bat tailored for their use cases. Consumer electronics and computers of the time demanded a steep learning curve, but they could still do magic, leading to the trope in the 80s and 90s media of tech wonder kids doing awesome stuff way better than the adults. Even if you have a super advanced submarine and very smart people, you needed your teenager computer kid to outclass everyone.

By now, we’ve made high res touch screens that can be embedded in everything for cheap, and embedded systems that would be the envy of a pretty high end desktop from the year 2000, which was capable of running more friendly operating environments. The rather open ended internet has largely baked in how the participants get to play. The most common devices lock down what the user can do, because the user can’t be trusted not to break themselves with malware.

The end result is that we may have the same proportion of people with the deep technical skills, but a lot of people are now unimpressed. In the mid 90s, less than 1 percent of the population had direct internet experience, and by 2008, 25% had that experience. So even if you still have 1% of really tech savvy people, there’s over 24x as many non savvy people that don’t need to marvel at those savvy people because they are getting about what they want out of it.

It’s what plants crave

There’s a smell of it being some pet project of a big architect.

Windows 10 had a feature called ‘Timeline’. It wasn’t particlarly wanted by many people and it cluttered up an otherwise somewhat useful task overview. It was canned.

This seems to be that guy saying “Hey, I know you canned Timeline on me and called it a failure, but that’s just because we didn’t AI it up, and now we can and everyone is going to want it!”

Our three weapons are…

Babbage’s

We have one side’s unilateral description of how they perceive the existing state of things and their changes. Folks are very likely to poorly characterize things in a way that would sound crazy to disagree. However the truth is usually somewhere in between.

I have had very very vocal user that decry very deliberate design that the wider user base wanted as a “bug”. If someone read their rant without the wider context one would think my team was unreasonable and producing bad software. Even after fellow users took time to explain why they wanted his request rejected, he was quite adamant that everyone else was wrong.

McDonald’s tried to get AI to take over order taking. And gave up.

Yeah, it’s not going to be coming for programmer jobs anytime soon. Well, except maybe a certain class of folks that are mostly warming seats that at most get asked to prep a file for compatibility with a new Java version, mostly there to feed management ego about ‘number of developers’ and serve as a bragging point to clients.