Bajarin said Apple is most likely to wait to make chips on Intel’s next node, called 18A-P, which could scale as soon as next year. He called Intel’s current 18A node “a little bit rough” and said 18A-P “cleans a lot of stuff up.”

Sounds like a lot depends on 18A-P cleaning a lot of stuff up. Not just the deal with Apple, but Intel as a competitor to TSMC.

Elon Musk said last month that he plans to rely on Intel’s future 14A chip node at his $119 billion Terafab planned for Austin, Texas, which is meant to make chips for Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI. Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan said in February that 14A will be in volume production in 2029.

Yeah, more Elon Musk BS. He makes the most outlandish, ridiculous promises and claims and investors with more money than brains clap like trained seals.

The Terafab AIN’T HAPPENING. That $119 billion Terafab those idiots at CNBC mentioned in this paragraph? Yeah, that would just be a PROTOTYPE fab. $119 billion for basically just a proof of concept. An actual full scale Terafab facility is estimated to cost as much as $13 trillion. It’s not happening, it’s BS. Please, will the business and investing media stop regurgitating Elon Musk’s horse shit like it’s actual, valid information. It’s nonsense, he’s full of crap, period.

This is where I got the data..

It varies from state to state. Most states are well above the global average literacy rate. 13 states are below the global average. Some are well below. The states with the four lowest average literacy rates are the four most populous states: California, Texas, Florida and New York. It’s likely that there is significant variance within each of these states, likely correlated with socioeconomic status.

I don’t know what propaganda you think I’m regurgitating. Do you mean when I said “The theoretical world the left seeks to create will likely never exist?” I said that because that’s what I think. Not because Fox News or CNN or BBC told me to think that. Honestly, I couldn’t care less what those news networks think or say.

I could be wrong. Obviously. Maybe the world the left wants to create will exist some day. I don’t think so, but what I think doesn’t determine the future.

Frankly, I don’t think anyone knows the future. I think it’s impossible to predict the future. Who knows what the future will be. I don’t think it will be what the left thinks it will be, but who knows.

the alpha versions of it are already a reality for approximately 2 billion people on this planet

I think you overestimate your ability to predict the future. Unless you have a crystal ball or a time machine.

if you’re going to do the epstein oligarchy’s work of spreading misinformation, you should atleast be getting paid for it

I said the status quo was failing. Is the “epstein oligarchy” not the status quo? If I were trying to tow the line for that status quo, why would I say it was failing?

The theoretical world the left seeks to create will likely never exist. However, the traditional world the right wants to return to will also likely never come back (and really it never existed in the first place). In a lot of ways, both the left and right are reactions to a failing status quo. What alternative to the status quo will actually emerge? Who the hell knows.

First, we’re comparing a candid photo to one that looks like it was taken at a film premier. Cruise knew he was going to be photographed, so he was probably assisted by a makeup artist, hair stylist, and likely a wardrobe consultant. A fair comparison would be between two photographs where each subject has equal opportunity to prepare.

Second, Cruise is one of the top movie stars in the world. He has access to personal trainers, nutritionists, private chefs, stylists, etc. As a world class movie star, Cruise also has a significant professional and financial incentive to maintain a youthful, well manicured appearance. As such, Cruise has almost certainly had some cosmetic surgery or other work done. At very least, he’s dyed his hair.

Looking your best, especially in your 60s, takes a lot of work. Cruise clearly has a strong incentive to put in that work. McGillis doesn’t necessarily have that same incentive. As a middle aged man myself, I could be doing a lot more to look my best, but why bother? Again, it’s a lot of work and for what? So that maybe if someone snaps a candid pic of you the internet won’t see it and think you’re fat, old and ugly? I mean, who gives a shit, but also they’ll probably think it anyway. And let 'em. Fuck 'em.

If this disaster has taught us anything it’s that we can’t continue to be so utterly dependent on oil. This particular oil crisis was unnecessary, a result of profoundly incompetent leadership, but it really just accelerated the inevitable.

Oil is a finite natural resource. There’s only so much of it in the ground, and it can’t be renewed on human time scales. What we pump up and burn is essentially gone forever. We’ve already used a lot of what took nature millions of years to create. We’ve already pumped up and burned the easiest and cheapest to get at oil. There’s no more Jed Clampett oil. You know, oil that’s so near the surface and easy to extract that you can find it by accident. No, that’s all gone. We have to really look hard to find more oil, today. New oil discovery is much more expensive.

There are still about 1.77 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves. But, we use 37 billion barrels of oil every year. At that rate of consumption, proven oil reserves will be depleted in a little under 50 years. And that’s at current annual consumption levels. If our annual consumption increases, the time remaining to total depletion of proven oil reserves decreases.

We will all but certainly discover more oil than what is already proven. However, that oil will almost certainly be more expensive to extract. Again, we’ve pumped up and burned all the Jed Clampett, sweet bubbling crude. Today, we have to drill deeper to get to less easy to extract oil, like oil that’s locked up in porous rock that has to be fractured apart.

So it takes more money to produce a barrel of oil than used to, and the demand for oil just keeps going up every year. Higher oil prices are an inevitability. It’s simple supply and demand. We simply can’t afford to continue to be so dependent on oil. We have to diversify.

Electrified transportation is a great option, especially if the electricity is generated from renewable sources. Once we’ve burned a gallon of gas, it’s just gone. It’s been used and it’s never coming back. Conversely, the sunlight that was used today to generate electricity will be replaced with new sunlight tomorrow. The sun keeps making more, and it will keep making more for billions of years.

This isn’t just an environmental issue, it’s a financial issue, it’s a common sense issue.

Also, unless I’m mistaken, teachers aren’t paid from the federal budget. I believe that the vast majority of public school funding, including teacher salaries, come from local taxes. In fact, I believe school funding is paid mostly from local property taxes. There isn’t one, national public school system that’s centrally funded. It’s decentralized and can vary significantly from one district to another.

Neoliberal economists are liberal economists. It’s literally in the name.

Yes, the mask is fully off. So, again, won’t state power be needed to reign these people in?

The people at the top are just not competing as would be required to make an open and free market work.

Which seems to be an inevitability, unless state power is used to force the people at the top to play by the rules. But don’t most liberals consider that authoritarianism? It seems to me whenever something like that is mentioned, there is much hand wringing and clutching of pearls at the thought of such big government overreach.

Liberal economists will say this is perfectly fine. They’ll say The Market™ has decided and it’s never wrong.

Something better is theoretically possible. Modernity can be replaced by a paradigm of human well being and sustainability. Theoretically. But whether or not that will happen is another matter.

If it is to happen, the first thing we need to avoid is the pitfall of many theorists: creating a perfect world in our imagination and then trying to make the real world fit that image. We do not live in a theoretical reality, we live a material reality, and the limits and confines of material reality must be respected. We need to let material reality dictate what is possible, not try to impose our vision on the real world. If we try to fight the real world, the real world will win every time.

Second, we can’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Perfection is an unattainable standard. If we set out to attain perfection, we will fail. Imperfect solutions that work are better than perfect solutions that don’t.

Third, We need to be willing and able to learn as we go. We will not start out with all the answers. We can’t be inflexible.

I think this is a start. I don’t think a top down approach will work. I don’t think we can just fix everything by electing different people into the existing national governments. New systems have to be built, from the ground up. I think the best place to start is where we live. Not the nation that we live in, but the city, the town, the community. We focus too much on governments that are hundreds or thousands of miles away from us, and we don’t focus nearly enough on the governments where we live and work and spend most of our lives. Maybe some will find it beneficial to start new communities or towns. Either way, we should start where we live.

Liberals gonna lib.

Bernays is definitely the father of modern propaganda, that’s true. But, here in the US, the psychological manipulation tactics developed by Bernays were used extensively by corporations. When a business uses Bernays’s tactics, liberals call it “public relations,” or just marketing. I think that’s why, in the minds of the liberals, propaganda originated from the left. To them, it’s simply not propaganda when it’s done by a business, or a state that has been captured by market interests. It’s only propaganda when a “socialist/communist” government does it. That’s how delusional and biased liberals are.

They mean Marxists, or Marxism-Leninists, specifically. MLs learned very early on that propaganda and information controls are very powerful tools, and so they used them, extensively.

However, it’s more than a little hypocritical of liberals to criticize leftists for using propaganda when liberals very much use it too. Propaganda is too useful of a tool for them not to use it. In fact, I would argue this article verges on liberal propaganda.

I want to clarify that, despite what we are taught here in the US, liberals are not left. Liberalism is the centrist position. The Left would be Marxists, anarchists and other kinds of anti-capitalist socialists.

Not exactly John Wick, is he.

Trump safe

That’s unfortunate.

I’m gonna buy a bottle of nice champagne for the day when Trump finally kicks it.