Intel CPU Temperature Monitoring Driver For Linux Now Unmaintained After Layoffs
Technology
107
Beiträge
50
Kommentatoren
81
Aufrufe
-
When I read your message, I get the impression that you think of "The Government" as this independent actor. I see it as a system that is primarily controlled by wealthy people. Either directly or through their funding advertisements (including astroturfing/bot-farms) to promote what they want.
So the larger companies do get government assistance... because they are the government. And this isn't some kind of weird coincidence. It's fundamental to capitalism's operation. You can't have a system that's based on capital and then have it be unbiased towards entities who have vastly more capital!
It's odd that you think it's fundamental to capitalism when it's exactly the opposite. True capitalism is an unfettered marketplace.
What we have now is a system here the profits are private, but the losses are socialized.
You may think that's an effect of capitalism, but it most definitely is not.
You are conflating a system of governance with a system of economics. And I get it, because in a controlled economy, the government is usually the one doing the controlling.
What we have is something in the middle, taking the worst aspects of truly free-market capitalism, and marrying it with the worst aspects of a controlled economy.
Our government the picks winners in this setup we have. Instead of letting the market decide.
Your issue is that you see all the things this half-breed, partially-socialist economy gives us, and you blame it on the market. But the market didn't get us here.
History tells me what will happen if we finally give in, and give total control of the economy over to the politicians. And I do not want that for my children, or their children.
-
Coretemp and Ethernet. Also a few years ago the guy that maintained meshcentral (the only reason to pay extra $$$ for having Intel vPro compatibile computers in the workspace)
Basically this tells their biggest customers "next server needs to be based on AMD epyc"
How much money they could possibly "save" with those THREE salaries? Just cut one week of travel with private jet for the C class and the same savings are served
Mass layoffs are never done in a thoughtful way. It's often the C-suite telling each division "cut x number of staff underneath you". That order is filtered down through layers of management until it gets to the people who do actual work. If they're lucky, they can negotiate some room on their team with one or two layers of management above them, but it just means another team underneath the same management layer is getting hit that much more.
Remember that when a CEO says "we had to make the hard but necessary decision". All that asshole had to do was say "cut 10,000 people" and filter that order down the stack. All the actual hard decisions were made far, far away from the board of directors.
-
Imagine if x86-64 got blown open because of it? Might literally be the best thing to happen to computing in like 40 years.
Really fuckin' doubt it'll happen, but a girl can dream XP
The base x86-64 patents expired in 2021. Also, it was held by AMD, not Intel.
However, there are a lot of extensions that are still under patent. You can make an x86-64 processor the way it was when Opteron was released in 2003, but it won't be competitive with current offerings. Those extensions are patented by a mix of both Intel and AMD. Intel failing isn't going to fully open x86-64.
Edit: also, it's not just the patents, it's the people. Via is still technically out there and could theoretically make its own x86-64 to modern standards. However, x86-64 is a very difficult architecture to optimize, and all the people who know how to do it already work for either Intel or AMD. Actually, they might only work for AMD, even before the layoffs.
-
When I got a new desktop PC this year I specifically avoided anything with Intel in it because of how bad they dropped the ball with their GPUs basically disintegrating.
This is just a small glimpse into how Intel is breaking down from the inside. It may take a few years but if the US government doesn't intervene somehow on their behalf I truly think Intel might be done for in the next 5 years.
Arent their dGPU supposed to be pretty good?
-
Monopolies are good for the consumer as it makes purchasing decisions easier. Some tech markets such as the GPU one show how well a monopoly can work for shareholders.
Worst bot?
-
It's odd that you think it's fundamental to capitalism when it's exactly the opposite. True capitalism is an unfettered marketplace.
What we have now is a system here the profits are private, but the losses are socialized.
You may think that's an effect of capitalism, but it most definitely is not.
You are conflating a system of governance with a system of economics. And I get it, because in a controlled economy, the government is usually the one doing the controlling.
What we have is something in the middle, taking the worst aspects of truly free-market capitalism, and marrying it with the worst aspects of a controlled economy.
Our government the picks winners in this setup we have. Instead of letting the market decide.
Your issue is that you see all the things this half-breed, partially-socialist economy gives us, and you blame it on the market. But the market didn't get us here.
History tells me what will happen if we finally give in, and give total control of the economy over to the politicians. And I do not want that for my children, or their children.
In an unfettered marketplace, what stops a dominant player from introducing fetters?
-
In an unfettered marketplace, what stops a dominant player from introducing fetters?
Competition.
Without force, how can they stop a small player from offering a competitive option?
-
Competition.
Without force, how can they stop a small player from offering a competitive option?
Without force
Whoah, whoah. Why'd you rule that out?
Your business plan: quality goods at reasonable prices.
My business plan: hire some goons to kill you and take your stuff.Historically, this has a lot of precedence.
-
Without force
Whoah, whoah. Why'd you rule that out?
Your business plan: quality goods at reasonable prices.
My business plan: hire some goons to kill you and take your stuff.Historically, this has a lot of precedence.
Because I'm not an anarchist. There is a role for government in maintaining its monopoly on the use of force.
But nothing else.
-
Because I'm not an anarchist. There is a role for government in maintaining its monopoly on the use of force.
But nothing else.
OK, cool. That definitely helps things.
I think where we're disagreeing is that I think in a capitalist society the promise of money will inevitably corrupt the government (because it's made of people). Maybe it can be avoided if the government performs additional regulatory action to stop anyone from getting too wealthy, but that sounds like beyond the limits that you want to set for government.
-
OK, cool. That definitely helps things.
I think where we're disagreeing is that I think in a capitalist society the promise of money will inevitably corrupt the government (because it's made of people). Maybe it can be avoided if the government performs additional regulatory action to stop anyone from getting too wealthy, but that sounds like beyond the limits that you want to set for government.
There's no need for the government to prevent people from becoming wealthy.
The only ways to become that wealthy all involve monopolies.
But every single monopoly that has ever existed, has only managed to become a monopoly due to help from allies in government. AKA Regulatory Capture.
When governments are large, and filled with bureaucrats that aren't answerable to the public, monopolies are far more likely to emerge, as those same bureaucrats enact more and more regulations that make entering the market more and more difficult for those of modest to little means.
