I think you are either trolling or you fundamentally don't understand, what you're talking about.
Nothing is obfuscated. You can download each and every code file, audit it, and build the binaries from exactly that code. You can even compare the binaries to the ones provided by major distros thanks to reproducible builds.
Just because you don't understand code, doesn't mean it's obfuscated. Following that logic, even a loaf of bread is "obfuscated" because you don't understand sour dough.
Some people have way too much time and way too disturbing world views to be allowed on the Internet.
And how many people do you think could accurately, or even ballpark, estimate their workload? I couldn't tell you, whether my workload would benefit from more e or p cores and by how much.
What you're implying here is an illusion of accuracy. You want accurate numbers for something that you can't really judge anyway. These numbers don't mean anything to you, they just give you the illusion of knowing what's going on. It's the "close door" button in an elevator.
For example being able to get a grasp of the rough performance from the have.
i5 10500 is faster than i5 10400. But is 6p4e better than 4p8e?
It's illusionary to fit everything about a CPU into its name. What you're proposing is essentially the entire value column of the spec sheet concatenated.
You really think, that is more readable?
The number behind Ultra is pretty much the same as with the i$x scheme. 3 is entry, 5 is mid range, 7 is high end, 9 is bad decision making.
The number after that kind of works like before. So higher number means more better. Probably with an extension for coming generation. Remember, the first i5s had 4 digit names as well, the fourth digit was prepended to indicate generations.
Thing is, there's no really good naming scheme, because there are so many possible variants/dimensions. Base clock, turbo clock, TDP, P core count, E core count, PCIe lanes, socket, generation ,..... How would you encode that in a readable name?
But with an actually tablet worthy screen section.
Ideally, you'd have an ARM CPU and a decent battery in the screen section, and a dedicated GPU plus proper battery in the bottom section.
... barely because they contain enough botox to wipe out a small nation?
.... And they're able to make chips good enough for their military.
Russia's military is in large parts only slightly refurbished soviet gear. For a T72 or even T90, a 90s era chip is still good enough.
Why do you think they dismantled all those washing machines? The microcontrollers in there aren't high tech at all.
I mean this subtitle right here gave me a pretty good idea what's this initiative is all about already, but that's just me I guess
But what does that mean exactly? Fairphones with long support duration? Solar powered software developers?
I get a rough direction from that, but nothing else, but it's a headline, that's ok.
What really bugs me is that the body of the text doesn't really explain it either, but needs hundreds of words for that. It's just fluff for a press statement that should have fit into a tweet.
Also, keep in mind that people from different countries work on KDE, and English is not their first language, I don't know what are your expectations.. on how the writing should be...
Well, given that I'm from Germany and English is not my first language, and also given that I'm neither very good at it nor do I have a PR team, I would expect writing at least on my level, I guess?
But here's the thing, take a look at Google or MS posts about sustainably and being green, and you'll realize, truly realize how one could say so much without saying anything... this wall of text that you're talking about is full of insights
And these companies are the benchmark? I mean, can't we expect more from a nonprofit? There are some insights, yes, but they're drowning in the wall of text.
Just as an insight for you: a news article is supposed to increase in detail level from top to bottom. The headline shows the rough topic, subtitle slightly expands on that, the first paragraphs tell the actual story, the next paragraphs provide more and more context. The idea is, that a reader can stop reading if she feels like there's been enough context.
Look at the article here and ask yourself if it fits this description.
Why would I not say that?
Clearly they can't get their point across. And I don't know, why people down vote me for that.
KDE starts a new initiative, and does so by creating a giant wall of text that says very little about the initiative itself. So little in fact, that people here obviously don't understand what they're actually trying to do. That is bad communication. Simple as that. And given that this is not a random blog post, but a press statement, I'm pretty sure a bunch of people read it before publishing it.
"Base load" is not that much. Off shore wind is almost always blowing, and all the other renewables can be stored via batteries or hydrogen (or tanks, in case of biogas). Yes, that's a whole lot of stuff, but the technology exists, can be produced on large scale and (most importantly) doesn't cause any path dependencies.
Nuclear is extremely expensive, as the article highlighted. And to be cost effective, power has to be produced more or less constantly. Having a nuclear power plant just for the few hours at night when wind and sun don't work is insane - and insanely expensive.