pragmaOnce

It's weird, but not as exciting as you might think. It's been a while since I looked into it, but the gist is: This sign is from a taco bell in a high-crime area where robberies are common. People wait for the door to open then force their way in and rob the place at night. If you google the words on the sign you can find out where exactly.

Literally same. Changed my daily driver from windows a year or so ago and its been night and day. Having to be intentional about acquiring games and getting them running with proton/lutris (not too much work these days thanks to Valve and GloriousEggroll) made me less of a collector and much more focused on what I want to play. Which means I play a lot more. Also this year has had some phenominal titles for indie and AAA.

I'm lucky to have a high paying job and a wonderful community around me where most of my needs are met, so my cost of living is low even with two children.

Ive been working on early retirement wince the day I started my career and Im a little over halfway there :) If I could double even one of my accounts I'd be set.

I'd retire.

Ah, yes - exactly! The article is also fully unrelated from OPs title - really weird post all around.

I work on networking for distributed rendering for a major cloud provider- very familiar with gpu architecture and use-cases :)

Saying they do more math is a bit tricky. The CPU does crazy types of very complicated math and accomplishes tasks we still have a hard time offloading to GPUs.

I agree with the rest of your statement as a good explanation for why GPUs can do faster and more efficient batch processing of the workloads that can be fit to the SIMD set up we use for most modern GPUs (ignoring general purpose gpu and fancier compute options)

1. GPUs predate 1995
2. They solve a set of problems different from those handled by cpu's
3. The existence of GPUs wouldnt 'curb the growth' of the other processors
4. The government would be best positioned to benefit from that rapid growth, since it is a state level actor that can regulate the use and acquisition of technologies
5. GPUs have also developed very quickly since their advent.

So like the previous comment mentions - No.

Yeah thats a pretty good summary of what I was trying to convey. If this didn't levitate, no one would've blinked twice. But since it did, its being investigated more thoroughly to check if its one of those other things that levitate (or actually a superconductor)

What I've gathered from many of the discussions around this topic is that the levitation is a notable feature of superconductors due to th Meissner(?) Effect. So if it couldnt levitate, there would be no reason to suspect that it is a superconductor. Because it does levitate, superconductivity is one of a few possibilities.

There have been indicators it may be a semiconductor instead, but apparently the conditions to accurately produce the material are vague/not fully understood - so attempts at reproduction have failed to rule it in or out 100%

Is this catppuccin themed? Looks great :)

1. Being an Ally of the US doesn't make a nation or regime less of a dictatorship. The United States is responsible for more than a few dictatorships around the world and certainly has no qualms about shaking hands with preexisting dictatorships when oil, currency, etc. are involved.
2. Saying Lindsey Graham endorsed someone with money is a worthless statement. If anything, it just makes people like Saudi Arabia less. Lindsey Graham is widely reviled and believed by many to be a key example of the worst of what American politics have to offer
3. I was a member of the United States military, and can confidently state that despite funding 'counter-terrorism' efforts in that region, there is no love between the US military and KSA. Our government is capable of compartmentalization and is more than willing to send money to less-than-ideal allies to secure other key geo-political objectives.

I have plenty of problems with Israel, including their interactions with Palestine, and am definitely not employed by them either. They have more than their own fair share of atrocities - but those atrocities do not in any way detract from the fact that KSA is a dictatorship that the US props up to maintain its interest in that region. Still 'fuck them'. Done engaging here.

Regarding your first paragraph, I think that's exactly what's happening here. Companies don't make decisions for the benefit of the populations that consume their product - public companies make decisions to benefit their share holders. Dictators don't make decisions for the benefit of their oppressed citizens - they make decisions to benefit the small number of people that keep them in power and aid in their reign. So a dictatorship making large value deals with a company seems reaaallyy unlikely to lead to any net positive for any of the relevant populations.

Additionally, your phrasing here sounds like you're writing for an AP exam - Saudi Arabia hasn't 'faced challenges' with upholding human rights and more than the Unabomber 'faced challenges' with not killing people with explosives. The nation has consistently and repeatedly (and continues to) flagrantly violate the most basic tenants of human rights and has yet to be held accountable owing entirely to their vast wealth and geopolitical control of the world's primary energy source.

One can not reasonably argue in good faith that making a nation with a long history of intentional human rights violations, slavery, political and apolitical assassinations, etc - will suddenly (or gradually) improve by acquiring more of the same wealth that has historically enabled them to commit these acts.

There are no nuances or complexities that justify these actions and no tangible benefits associated with 'a thoughtful dialogue and critique'. Any further communication here just gives you more of a platform to shill for your employers.

So yep, 'fuck them' and probably you.