You’ve got this! 🔥

Honestly you’re spoiled for choice when it comes to cpus, anything you’re looking at should for the most part “just work” as long as it’s within the last 3-8 generations of cpus (I’d recommend the last 2, since they significantly improved power efficiency and you’re going for a laptop). What you’ll mainly want to consider is linux support for the system devices (wifi, etc, etc) which you can Google per model and robustness of the device (which is slightly subjective, but a 1.1lbs 5mm thick whatever is generally less robust than say a ThinkPad).

It’s abstraction all the way down?!

🙇

Ah, that makes sense. The ol’ Google plus gambit.

This was only active if you signed up for their local guide program iirc.

// To-Do

Not to defend nvidia entirely, but there are physical cost savings that used to occur with actual die wafer shrinkage back in the day since process node improvements allowed such a substantial increase in transistor density. Improvements in recent years have been lesser and now they have to use larger and larger dies to increase performance despite the process improvements. This leads to things like the 400w 4090 despite it being significantly more efficient per watt and causes them to get less gpus per silicon wafer since the dies are all industry standardized for the extremely specialized chip manufacturering equipment. Less dies per wafer means higher chip costs by a pretty big factor. That being said they’re certainly… “Proud of their work”.

😎 profit, synergy, enterprise, buzzword.

Doubt it’ll ever catch on with anything except maybe the largest of orgs. You can just procure office task ready machines so cheaply these days, and Windows 365 is like $45/user/month. Far more than what we pay for windows licensing, user Cals, and office licensing all combined.

I think the problem with the two movies (Pro. & Sequel) was mainly that it didn’t give enough. So much lore was left unsaid or in 15-30 second scenes which while extremely carefully laid out and awesome, felt too divorced from the plot for the average viewer.

You’re not the asshole, you’re playing with the wrong group. Find people that want to play the same style of game as you, don’t play with people just because they’re who you’re familiar with. Recipe for a bad time.

Imagine you want to store your iPhone backups on Dropbox, Google drive, or whatever. They’re just files, should be simple right? Well, since they lack the access/apis necessary to facilitate this, you’re required to have icloud storage if you want phone backups. These include far more than just photos/etc. Idk how I feel about it other than the obvious “I think choice is healthy, apple is capable of designing system compatibility, and I would like to have more choice even if I’m not inclined to leverage it.”

Yes.

Also, anything that isn’t ranked choice voting that allows people to specify an order of preference at time of vote is not good politics and is not going to, and shouldn’t, sit well with progressives. Tit-for-tat is additionally an issue that many voters and progressives consider objectionable (source: exit polls). You can call it basic politics if you want, but if you’re progressive you’ll need to accept that it’s going to continuously cause us to lose elections and bleed voter support. People are clearly tired of establishment politics. Trump has proven that twice. Running as an anti-establishment candidate both times and winning, both times.

That is simply not true. Stop spreading misinformation. In addition I did not claim they made the decision for each candidate. What they did was run a first-past-the-post cacus that allowed candidates with conflicting interests to allocate their political weight against a clearly popular candidate. If they’d done ranked choice voting from the start, it would not be an issue, instead they allowed candidates (like Bloomberg) to spend millions, gather significant support, and then cast that support to a vastly unpopular candidate. You’re literally trying to argue Hillary was a good candidate with the best chance of winning but both polls, exit polls, and the caucus itself showed that not to be the case. Without the collaborative actions against Bernie by the other candidates allowed by the DNC Hillary would’ve never headlined the 2016 ticket.

Then you don’t understand US politics.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the 2016 DNC cacus run. Absolutely ignorant.

Did they change the vote totals?:

Yes. Every running candidate next to Bernie pulled out, dedicating their votes to Clinton instead. It was blatant and out in the open. Hell, Bloomberg even “entered” the race late in caucusing and pulled out shortly after an insane ad spend dedicating his votes to Clinton as well. That’s “putting their 👍 on the scale”.

That would be every running primary candidate shifting their votes towards Hillary instead of distributing them evenly. In addition there was the Bloomberg run “out of nowhere” when Bernie was looking to be the headline candidate.

Is this the right time to tell you those metal spring clips are for raising the fan above the ram easily?