Klinky

Reduce White Point doesn't solve the problem, but helps reduce brightness while leaving the phone at a higher brightness to reduce the modulation depth. This also results in color and contrast changes. Apple is still one of the worst offenders for flicker sensitive people.

Pretty sure people used or even still use RSS for this.

There's already Expanded Access / Compassionate Care options for terminal patients. It doesn't require the FDA rushing through unproven medications.

You're citing some blog copy that doesn't link to or correctly cite its sources that seems to be trying to sell shady psychological services.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if AI played a part in constructing this post. For example, what's up with the last paragraph about Nicholas Carr? It says "Dr Nicholas Carr", but he's a journalist who doesn't seem to have a doctorate degree and I cannot find any indication he refers himself as "Dr Nicholas Carr", did an AI hallucinate this? Also Carr has a bone to pick with the Internet, not AI, his book was written back in 2011.

This is a good first step. Ideally it turns into a "verify this all looks correct & add anything we're missing" kinda thing.

They would pay more if there were fewer market options, but there aren't, so not sure your point.

The cost is not relatively tiny, it's actually quite significant. Nuclear at least allows for better accountability & management of the waste it produces. Unfortunately accountability & management has been rather poor, diminishing the potential.

I am not entirely sure what your point is about reactor design. Did you mean we shouldn't build more BWRs? Agreed. If you mean we should focus on HWR like CANDU or experimental molten salt reactors, those have their downside. Deuterium is expensive & molten salt is corrosive & not commercially proven. If you really want nuclear you go with off the shelf proven designs like AP1000, but even then there are hurdles to build these as these boondoggle projects have shown. Yes every sector has scandal, but massive rate hikes & tens of billions in overruns is atypical & undermines the promise of what nuclear was sold as to those ratepayers.

Nuclear is go big or go home, and we can't socialize losses & liability while privatizing profit. Nuclear is also unattractive to the commercial market due to long-term ROI & project/liability risks. Effectively it needs to be a massive energy independence program funded by the government. I don't see that happening though.

The fears I was talking about were around the toxicity and dangers, not the cost. While we're on costs why didn't you highlight the $7B/yr for Fukushima or the $68B to date for Chernobyl? What about the 200% cost overruns and scandals involving Virgil C. Summer & Vogtle in the US that have cost tax/ratepayers tens of billions? $2B/yr doesn't look that bad in comparison.

You clearly did not read the second sentence in my tiny comment. Hand wavy nuclear apologia is what's actually incredibly disingenuous.

You don't just need to keep tabs on it for 100 years. Much longer & ideally in a coordinated fashion.

If there's such demand for nuclear waste, why aren't companies making bank off of it? The demand isn't as high as you think.

We'll build magical breeder reactors that aren't actually commercially viable & use reprocessing facilities with the same process drawbacks that created some of these messes in the first place? Sounds like a bad idea.

Poo pooing the fears and dangers of nuclear is how we got into this mess where nuclear has a bad rap, deservedly so, from very poor management of very powerful substances.

The realities are that nuclear is incredibly complex & costly to implement & manage in a way where its full potential is realized. That's not a reason we shouldn't do it, but let's stop pretending commercial nuclear is viable.

Nuclear & fossil fuels both look bad when considering long-term sequestration of their waste.

That said many of these sites are so polluted due to fast & loose early nuclear weapons programs.

interesting, I wonder why. I guess it's saving via current reductions despite higher vcore.

You can do more power optimizations with efficiency cores than the performance cores. There are power tradeoffs to get max perf. You can significantly reduce vcore if your max frequency is much lower. Cache is also power hungry & takes up space.

Some of the Microsoft deal was due to the antitrust pressures MSFT was under in the late 90's, seeing Apple go under would've removed any deniability and put them under the microscope.

That said it's hard to argue that Jobs didn't have vision, or wasn't at least able to find people who had vision & talent, even if he was a polarizing figure.

Why couldn't he just turn NeXT into the wealthiest company in the world? Perhaps you could say that's what he did by getting bought out by Apple, but Ives was an Amelio hire, and hard to say Ives wasn't as pivotal to Apple's future success as Jobs.

Jobs takes a lot of the credit, and some of it is due, but there were many other people involved in bringing him back on board & the transition back to profitability/dominance.

How? Jobs did have some original ideas, but it's not like NeXT was a resounding success on its own that toppled Apple & Microsoft. Being the ideas guy is different than the implementation guy, and in some cases he was neither.