When NASA was developing the rocket to go to the moon (the Apollo V) they had their large shares of failures, exactly like SpaceX is having now while developing Starship (and before it, the Falcon 9) which is even more complex and bigger than the Apollo V. this is a specious comparison. NASA was racing the soviets using 1950 and 60’s tech, and it cost lives, but there was a driving motivation for the tempo (kennedy’s goal of humans on the moon first). There’s no contemporary equivalent. And no NASA director was EVER ON HORSE DRUGS. Period. Your comparison is invalid. Only if you could link the fact that Musk is on horse drugs with the fact that Starship explodes. The starting point was that I dismissed the point that Musk is ruining SpaceX (since Starship's test are not that good) and the fact that he is on drugs. Nor did any NASA director ever try to manage multiple fortune 500 companies WHILE on ketamine while DANCING AROUND WITH A CHAINSAW and fucking with our government. I don't see the problem: NASA was a state agency, SpaceX is private. What I can see from here is that Musk is doing the right thing (trying to make the government more efficient and cheaper) using a completely wrong method, to which I agree. Wait, do you really think that Musk is the one that is doing all the jobs at Tesla and SpaceX ? No, I think he’s distorting the work of thousands of talented people (Shotwell down) for EGO. If he truly cared he’d step down. I don't think it could do it anymore, at least not to the level you think. Musk represents a larger threat to SpaceX and NASA and the US than any potential benefit to those same parties. I am not sure. What I think from here (Europe) is that, as I said, Musk is doing the right thing in the wrong (very wrong) way if we speak about DOGE. If we speak about SpaceX and Tesla, well, it don't seems to do that bad after all.

I think it would be best if that's a user setting, like dark mode. It would obviously be a popular setting to adjust. If they don't do that, there will doubtless be grease monkey and other scripts to hide it.

It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.

… it was

These Tesla owners who love their cars but hate his involvement with government are a bit ridiculous because one of the biggest reasons he got in loved with shilling for the right is that the government was looking into regulations and investigations concerning how unsafe Tesla cars are.

So they.just reinvented the DVB-T tuner. Edit: I looked it up and it's literally just that. The fact they're shoving it into feature phones is interesting.