Texas and California are both extremely powerful in national politics. Neither has an incentive to give that influence up just to play at being a separatist.
Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. "Republican" governors in blue states are not really the type of right wing Republican you're thinking of, they're usually just moderates like Biden.
But nation states have never been restricted by export bans. For example the US during the Cold War bought titanium for the SR71 from the Soviet Union. And Russia is buying chips on the black market today for its invasion of Ukraine.
The comment I replied to is saying that without access to this specific CPU, they can still compete. That's tangential to whether or not they could get their hands on it anyways.
But do high productivity / high demand employees earn outsized compensation? Software engineers at Uber, for example, earn probably 10x what drivers make. If you look at some of the recent ridesharing coop attempts in the US, they advertise wages of 70-80k for devs, which is just not going to work in a competitive market.
Generally you won't find investors pouring millions into co-op because investors do this in expectation of ownership and control -- the opposite of what they get in a co-op. So it's harder for a co-op to raise the ridiculous amounts of money they need to pay outsized compensation.
Instead, part of the compensation package is to not be beholden to corporate overlords and quarterly report-driven shareholder value-based crap. I'm absolutely willing to take a financial pay cut for that.
I'd say the number of people willing to take a 5x paycut (it is literally 5x) for feeling better about themselves is pretty small. The number of those people who are qualified to work on matching algorithms and pricing algorithms is even smaller. And you need matching and pricing algorithms to compete against Uber and Lyft, because they can price discriminate (e.g. airport rides) against consumers and get better utilization out of drivers, so if they have to compete, they can pay drivers more than you.
> I'd say the number of people willing to take a 5x paycut (it is literally 5x) for feeling better about themselves is pretty small
What do you suppose is the median salary for devs in the US? Tech salaries are increasingly bimodal, take care not to be deceived by big tech/bay area salaries.
Sure, but then you are hiring less skilled talent that is probably incapable of working on pricing and matching algorithms (which along with scale are the real advantage Uber has, since everyone can make a crappy iOS app and call it a day).
If the algorithms didn't matter then Uber wouldn't be maintaining 70% marketshare in the US.
Also, a quick look at levels.fyi says salary at IBM (i.e. your median salary dev) for a senior is 192k. Compared to 80k for a ridesharing coop, that's still quite the salary cut. Don't forget a lot of these coops are based in HCOL areas like NYC.
> Sure, but then you are hiring less skilled talent that is probably incapable of working on pricing and matching algorithms
This sounds like a variation of the just world fallacy to me: in a just world, talented folk who solve hard problems get paid more, and the less talented ones - who are unable to solve hairy problems - get paid less. In such a world, you can identify the talented ones by how much they are earning. Yet in the real world, geography, and luck/ability to bootstrap to HCOL areas plays a huge part
> Also, a quick look at levels.fyi says salary at IBM (i.e. your median salary dev) for a senior is 192k.
I think you're underestimating how wide the gap is between the bimodal peaks. $192 is too high[2] still; it slots just below Senior executive average ($200k) and right above EM ($180k) in the 2022 StackOverflow salary survey[1] for the US
Your survey seems very flawed. It puts an average SRE at 175k yet the CxO's only make 200k. Are you sure you're not excluding stock based comp in those numbers?
In any case, even if you go by the data in your survey, a machine learning specialist is supposed to make 150k and a mobile developer 144k. Those are still a lot more than 70-80k.
> Yet in the real world, geography, and luck/ability to bootstrap to HCOL areas plays a huge part
Considering the bar to get into a FAANG is just 4-5 leetcode medium-hard questions, I think there is little gatekeeping happening. This isn't investment banking where if you don't go to an Ivy you can't get in. And there are a lot more firms than FAANG paying big salaries.
> I think you're underestimating how wide the gap is between the bimodal peaks
IBM is your quintessential example of a consulting bodyshop. If anything, they would be at the lower bimodal peak, not the higher one.
> Your survey seems very flawed. It puts an average SRE at 175k yet the CxO's only make 200k.
My guess is the sample of SREs in the survey is biased towards start-ups & big tech (thats were that role is common), where as CEOs samples have less of that bias.
> Are you sure you're not excluding stock based comp in those numbers?
Yes I'm sure! I'm surprised that you're surprised - the average developer does not get stock-based comp because they are not working at big tech or a start up. "Enterprise software" shops & Small-to-medium businesses do not generally offer stock/options to employees
Won't it work though? The market isn't full of rational salary optimizing actors, there are some (probably a small percentage) that care more about their work env and culture than salary. This might be either because they already feel they have enough money or simply hate the normal corporate culture.
I don't know about you but I'd rather not spend years of my life sedated on drugs just for money. There are places to live outside the states that don't require you to make 100k per year to have a very good life.
At least in this case, it sounds like you buy it upfront.
> Mondragon’s co-ops share the same detailed information with worker-owners, who buy into their co-ops by making one-time payments of roughly sixteen thousand euros in most co-ops.
I'm sure Mondragon's financing coöp will happily assist with funding a loan, underwritten by an insurance coöp and paid through the bank coöp. It's turtles^w coöps all the way down.
The data showing the difference between percentage of college graduates and noncollege graduates who believe they have long COVID seems to point to a placebo effect. I don't see why college grads and non-college grads would have any reason to be affected differently by a virus.
Far too quick. Of course, there isn't a direct causal connection between college degrees and severity of Covid, but there are huge average differences between more and less educated individuals, including lots of health related outcomes. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/03/17/educated... (chosen basically at random, basically any relevant google search will get you many articles saying similar things).
It's also unbelievable that these groups don't differ in frequency of having Covid, vaccination rates, likelihood of having had Covid in 2020 vs. post vaccination, etc. Since we know vaccination has some protective effect against long-covid, that's another factor.
This doesn't mean these reports reflect underlying reality permanently (maybe a desk jockey reports disability differently than someone with a physically demanding job, maybe other factors make people less likely to report). But there are plenty of ways education can predict outcomes that aren't just reporting bias.
Probably because they were able to work remotely at a higher rate and thus fewer were actually infected. Being diagnosed with COVID was not a prerequisite for this study.
People with more (or later) education will often have better outcomes for things like Alzheimer’s Disease. It’s not unreasonable to think that education may have a protective role.
One theory is that educated people compensate better for decline on cognitive tests, basically by “muscling through it”. I’ve heard it doesn’t change the overall course of the disease much but it does make the decline less noticeable in the early stages.
Nicotine itself is not particularly dangerous and smoking cigarettes with no nicotine would be just as bad for your lungs. The main with it is the addiction however there is bo clear link between long term use of nicotine itself and any significantly negative health outcomes.
It just isn’t though. Opportunity is not doled out equally. Yes, everyone has the chance to be educated. But some schools are better, some families more supportive etc. And certainly there are exceptions that defy their environment but they are exceptions.
That doesn’t distract from the fact that many that have the opportunity chose not seek or continue higher education. This is especially true post collage.
Reason: College grads are more likely to get vaccinated against COVID than non-grads. Leading to a reduction in symptom severity and perhaps long covid.
But there could be other causes. You are operating under the default assumption long COVID must exist. But non-grads on average are poorer, work in different environments, and have different health (i.e. obesity and diabetes) than grads. There could be any number of underlying health conditions causing brain fog and other long COVID symptoms. Obesity and diabetes are known to impact brain function and are correlated with Alzheimer's. Sedentary lifestyles and poor diet can also lead to low energy.
The reason I say placebo is because any of these pre-existing conditions could be blamed on long COVID. Think about it: you don't know much about diseases, you see CNN/Fox News/MSNBC talking about long COVID. You think to yourself, hey I've got those symptoms! You blame long COVID, even though the underlying cause could have been obesity, diabetes, sedentary lifestyle, diet, etc.
We know obesity is harmful yet the fat acceptance movement exists. Do you think those people are going to blame their symptoms on their obesity?
College graduates may be less likely to be exposed to larger quantities of COVID molecules (e.g. driving via car, vs taking the subway, or any other number of possibilities), or perhaps they had better treatment of their COVID due to their financial capabilities.
If a placebo is effective it’s presumed to psychosomatic as there have been no underlying medical changes. In this case I presumed that the term ‘placebo’ was being used incorrectly and what was meant was psychosomatic.
I’m unsure as to what you mean. There most certainly are lots of uncontrolled variables. I’d be highly surprised if this study wasn’t flawed in a number of material ways.
I'm just saying that we don't have to jump to psychosomatic to explain why a placebo may show identical results to a treatment. There are plenty of ways that can happen.
Education is about using intelligence not gaining it. That said, in practice knowledge can be more useful than intelligence if the circumstances presented fit the available knowledge well.
There is now fairly substantial evidence that COVID can cause your brain to physically shrink. Maybe some people experience a placebo effect, but long COVID is clearly a real, physical disease at this point.
Government can't afford to hire the competent talent, only the scraps after everyone else (even the consulting bodyshops) are done. The top GS pay bracket is lower than entry level engineers at many companies (not just FAANG, but also defense, F500 companies, etc.)
One of the many things that I found tempting about working for the U.S. Digital Service was that, while the GS-15 pay grade is definitely way less than I'd make in the private sector, my spouse's family is military/government and the difference between "hippy programming thingy" and "has a GS-15/O-6 job" would've been night and day. The one puts me in a pile of stereotypes, but the other says "oh, he's basically the bureaucratic equivalent of a Captain, that's very respectable."
Different circles I guess. While my spouse's family considers government jobs to be stable and somewhat respectable, there is a lot more respect for FAANG and other high paying jobs. One is respectable, the other is prestigious.
That’s all perspective. Many people who realize you work the government will see you as a do nothing bureaucratic leech and for most government employees that is the correct assumption.
I thought existing Starlink needed a phased array antenna to get decent signal strength. How the hell is a cell phone radio going to reach a satellite?
This is definitely what I am interested in-- how existing cell HW can be picked up by their satellites. Even at low data rates for emergency SMS, etc. (caveat, I'm not a HW or radio engineer), this seems like an incredible feat if they can get it to work.
GPS is an 'incredible feat', that's advanced magic. This is many orders of magnitude more signal strength, even without beam steering. That said, it will still require a pretty sensitive receiver, but nothing on the order of what your cell phone already contains for GPS.
It's straight up, line of sight. The biggest issue will be water in the atmosphere. Compared to your average urban canyon it probably isn't all that bad.
Consider that HAMs routinely work insane distances with extremely little power LOS is relatively easy, especially if one side is a satellite with a beefy antenna for both transmission and reception. I'm more interested in the power budget than whether or not they can close the distance and what the effect is on the cell phone's battery life.
GPS receivers in a cell phone work at or under the noise floor, which to me is advanced magic. This will be way above that.
Line of sight will be needed for upload transmit, definitely. However, with sufficient power on the satelites it should be able to transmit loud enough at lower frequencies (better penetration) so it should be receivable inside of a phone pocket or underneath something shallow.
It will be interesting to see how well it performs inside structures. Is there any info on what kind of power those satellites can output or is that classified?
If they're just going to be using this for sending texts for now, the signal to noise ratio can be really bad and still work. I suppose they could also fall back on buffering until a satellite is in an optimal position if it can't send immediately -- texts should arrive quickly, but they don't have to be quite real-time.
That's my guess anyways, there might be some other tricks involved and it's an impressive thing to do at any rate.
If you're really out in a super remote location you might be the only person in your zone, but if you're camping with a dozen friends you'll all be splitting that 2-4 megabits.
Still tremendously impressive though, if they're able to pull it off.
Power use tends to scale non-linearly past a point - disabling turbo modes would likely significantly reduce the peak power use, and ~18% performance differenceis pretty big buffer to lose.
The 6850u also beats it rather comprehensively according to those same results, and that's only 18-25w.
Really, you'd need everything power normalized, and even the rest of the hardware and software used normalized to compare "just" the CPU, which is pretty much impossible due to Apple and their vertical integration - which is often a strength in tests like this.
The 6850U is comparable in power use and still has a big perf gap against the M2 in mosts tests. Though there are some tests where the M2 leads with a big gap too so maybe it comes down to software in a lot of these. Still it seems to me like Apple is not leading.
>Unfortunately for testing, as mentioned, right now there is no Linux driver exposing the M2 SoC power consumption under Linux. Hopefully this will be addressed in time but unfortunately meant not being able to deliver any accurate performance-per-Watt / power consumption benchmarks in this article. But when such support does come, it will likely show the M2 indeed delivering much better power efficiency than the Intel and AMD laptops tested. Even under demanding multi-threaded workloads, the M2 MacBook Air was not nearly as warm as the other laptops tested. It's a night and day difference of the M2 MacBook Air still being cool to warm compared to the likes of other notebooks like especially Dell XPS laptops that get outright hot under load. The power consumption metrics should also be more useful/relevant once Linux has working M1/M2 GPU support in place too.
I mean, you shove a fan on the M2 and it beats itself...
According to this it should be an average of 19.3 Watts with a peak of 31.85 Watts.
Apple also exceeds the stated tdp during peaks as well but we don't have that information atm. And remember there's a 14% perf gap between the two.
My purpose isn't really to say AMD is definitely better since apple still probably takes the win in overall product, I think the MBA is thinner and that's important to me. But it's to show that x86 isn't behind in performance and that you're not making sacrifices in that department to maintain software compatibility with the x86 ecosystem.
That average is over the entire benchmarking suite, including single thread tests and when tests are loading from disk or otherwise not fully saturating the CPU. Some of those benchmarks in that power consumption number are GPU only!
> And remember there's a 14% perf gap between the two
Like I said, power is not equal at all.
> x86 isn't behind in performance and that you're not making sacrifices in that department to maintain software compatibility with the x86 ecosystem
Comparing the lowest end chip from one vendor to the highest end chip from another is not exactly a great look. Especially when the Arm chip is basically matching the x86 one while having only a few years of software optimization work.
I do think M2 is more power efficient, but it seems close enough to me. The Thinkpad in real usecase testing has very good battery life, 15 hours etc doing regular work. I just don't have the perspective that the fact it can scale up in power should be held against it. It's pretty typical when you're doing some super computationally expensive processing to be plugged while it's the casual emails etc that has to have great battery life.
> Comparing the lowest end chip from one vendor to the highest end chip from another is not exactly a great look.
Is it anyone else's fault that Apple only has one sku. The M2 is a 20 billion transistor chip while the Rembrandt is a 13 billion transistor chip. I'd argue that the M2 is higher end one. The laptops MBA/Thinkpad compared are the same price.
> Especially when the Arm chip is basically matching the x86 one while having only a few years of software optimization work.
So we agree it matches lol? That's what I was arguing for. Nowhere did I say Apple sucks. I default to using Apple products and have been for almost all my life. I was just trying to make a case that x86 is good enough too hardware wise.
One could argue that the Ryzen's biggest pitfall is that it hasn't adopted a big.LITTLE configuration yet. Alder Lake keeps it's thirsty TDPs while staying relatively respectful of your temps and battery life. It's not quite as granular as Apple's core clusters, but the work with Thread Director is a promising start. Seeing AMD push heterogeneous systems so far down the roadmap virtually guarantees that they won't get Apple-level power efficiency for a while.
On the bright side, AMD has carte-blanche to design whatever they want. Not only can they one-up Intel by implementing core clusters, but they could also one-up Apple by adding power management per-logical-core, or some weird chiplet optimizations. The sky is the limit, really.
Alder lake is much worse temp wise. Look at the new Dell XPS design. They literally had to remove the F keys to make room for additional heatsink to get the newer Alder lake CPUs to work in a reasonable way.
Those Dell XPS are no better than an Intel Macbook, they're designed by people who can't put function before form and consistently screw up their hardware design enough to avoid like the plague. I'm not the least bit surprised they didn't pick the right chip for the job, two years ago it was Dell sending out emails to XPS owners warning them not to leave it asleep in a bag for risk of permanent damage...
I've tried a few Alder Lake laptops now (and daily-drive a 12700k desktop), and I don't really have any complaints about the thermals. Gaming, music production, video editing, none of it can seem to push the CPU past 40c under extended load. It's a solid chip that stands toe-to-toe with it's contemporaries, and I reckon it's going to get scarily good once Intel transitions it from 10nm++ to 5nm.
I agree but that still doesn't invalidate my point. They had to significantly overhaul the thermal system for alder lake. I validating the point that it uses less power then the prior Intel gens.
