Liz

I hold no illusions that fixing one aspect of this flawed existence will fix all the other aspects of this flawed existence.

I mean, I want to replace FPTP though. Any kind of proportional system is ideal, but Sequential Proportional Approval Voting is ideal.

It's not an overpass. A loose brick falls off a truck going in the opposite direction, bounces off the pavement once, then goes through the windshield.

Edit: oh hurray, there's two different brick videos.

Yeah that touchscreen tablet convertible machine is what has me psyched. I'm not the target for it, and already own a 16, but I could see that thing selling well. I honestly think they came out with the desktop because they just kinda felt they needed a desktop.

Go kick a window in your house right now. If you don't live in a highrise, you can almost certainly kick it out.

I got it on a Pixel 7, but I uninstalled it because I'm not trying to have Google spy on me for yet another reason.

I, in fact, do not know how the sausage is cooked. It's great!

I would assume that the post got to their feed through an intermediate instance that they are federated with, yeah?

A lot of the efficiency gains in the last few years are from better chip design in the sense that they're improving their on-chip algorithms and improving how to CPU decides to cut power to various components. The easy example is to look at how much more power efficient an ARM-based processor is compared to an equivalent x86-based processor. The fundamental set of processes designed into the chip are based on those instruction set standards (ARM vs x86) and that in and of itself contributes to power efficiency. I believe RISC-V is also supposed to be a more efficient instruction set.

Since the speed of the processor is limited by how far the electrons have to travel, miniaturization is really the key to single-core processor speed. There has still been some recent success in miniaturizing the chip's physical components, but not much. The current generation of CPUs have to deal with errors caused by quantum tunneling, and the smaller you make them, the worse it gets. It's been a while since I've learned about chip design, but I do know that we'll have to make a fundamental chip "construction" change if we want faster single-core speeds. E.G. at one point, power was delivered to the chip components on the same plane as the chip itself, but that was running into density and power (thermal?) limits, so someone invented backside power delivery and chips kept on getting smaller. These days, the smallest features on a chip are maybe 4 dozen atoms wide.

I should also say, there's not the same kind of pressure to get single-core speeds higher and higher like there used to be. These days, pretty much any chip can run fast enough to handle most users' needs without issue. There's only so many operations per second needed to run a web browser.

We reached the physical limits of silicon transistors. Speed is determined by transistor size (to a first approximation) and we just can't make them any smaller without running into problems we're essentially unable to solve thanks to physics. The next time computers get faster will involve some sort of fundamental material or architecture change. We've actually made fundamental changes to chip design a couple of times already, but they were "hidden" by the smooth improvement in speed/power/efficiency that they slotted into at the time.

I'm using GNUCash. I have no idea if it's good or not, because that's all I've ever used, but it works well enough.

Or each person has evolved in concert....