Damn, this is a sad day for the homelab.

The article says Intel is working with partners to “continue NUC innovation and growth”, so we will see what that manifests as.

    • roofuskit
      link
      fedilink
      31
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Only two kinds of people believe in infinite growth; economists and psychopaths.

      • TooTallSol
        link
        fedilink
        211 year ago

        Only two kinds of people believe in infinite growth; economists and psychopaths.

        But you repeat yourself :)

      • @InformalTrifle
        link
        41 year ago

        When the money supply grows infinitely then everything priced in it has to grow infinitely

        • @amniote
          link
          11 year ago

          It’s called taxes, don’t worry.

        • Shurimal
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          Capitalists are behind the most prelavent economic school (neoliberalism) today—just look at the history of the “Chicago school”. I doubt the capitalists themselves believe that BS, but it’s profitable for them to make the rest of the world to believe it.

          I highly recommend evonomics.com, some rally good essays on there about the cult-like economic beliefs of today. Written by economists who’ve seen through the BS.

        • @dangblingus
          link
          111 year ago

          Pretending like capitalism is this new concept that needs to be fully explored and debated before we understand that it’s bad is a pretty bad faith framing of the issue. Infinite economic growth is literally impossible because Earth has finite resources and there is a finite number of humans. There is no necessity or imperative behind infinite economic growth other than to make the ruling class richer at everyone else’s expense.

          • @ZodiacSF1969
            link
            11 year ago

            I would say just generalizing capitalism as ‘bad’ is also not in good faith. It is not without issues, and letting it be completely unrestrained would probably be disastrous. But no other economic system has lifted more people out of abject poverty or driven technological innovation as hard. There are benefits.

            • @dangblingus
              link
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There’s the old “more people were in poverty before capitalism” argument.

              Did capitalism bring people out of poverty? Or did access to education, healthcare, social safety nets, and proper food bring people out of poverty? Where I live, capitalism is what’s driving people into tent cities.

              How does one person controlling the capital in an area, help other people if they’re gatekeeping the economic prosperity from by forcing them to perform labour, at a disproportionately low rate of recompense, to help them (the capital owner) increase their net worth? Don’t even say trickle down economics or I’ll deck you.

    • key
      link
      fedilink
      221 year ago

      That article is utterly unconvincing. It just handwaves the finite nature of our material reality with a very weak appeal to “infinite” human creativity. And then the conclusion is that infinite growth is necessary because there’s no way to change the status quo of wealth hoarding. It’s just apologism for the very worst aspects of capitalism without a single iota of serious thought.

        • key
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          No I won’t because it’s irrelevant if it is the only factor or not. It’s the limiting factor. Please don’t engage in red herrings.

          • @Aux
            link
            -91 year ago

            You won’t because you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

    • @SheeEttin
      link
      91 year ago

      In a finite system, infinite anything is an impossibility.

        • ThrowawayOnLemmy
          link
          61 year ago

          If the last 300 years are anything to go by, we clearly do need resources if we are to maintain growth at a rate high enough to barely keep pace with the needs of the market. Coal, steal, oil, cement, water, food, etc.

          The reality is, we can’t replace the current demand on renewable energy sources alone. You seem to believe the system can pivot and adapt fast enough to fix itself. While I’m of the mindset the system will follow the path of least resistance even if that means killing itself.

          • @AA5B
            link
            41 year ago

            People used to say this about energy as well, yet in the past 5-10 years, I’ve read several articles demonstrating that we appear to have decoupled energy growth from economic growth

            • ThrowawayOnLemmy
              link
              11 year ago

              Do you have the text of that article you linked? I’ll confess I hit a login wall nearly immediately into the discussion and I never log in to any of that stuff. But I am curious to read more.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Who is Oliver Waters and why should I listen to them regarding economic theory? I read the post, and it reads more like a philosophical thought experiment than any applicable economics theory.

      While I don’t believe someone needs a higher education degree to speak on complex topics, I’m not going to take a Medium blog post from someone who lists no demonstrable experience in theoretical or practical economics as a central source for discussions, sorry.