qwebfdzsh

I wasn't complaining just replying to your somewhat silly analogies...

The whole thread was basically about Apple purposefully crippling base/cheapest configs (which most uninformed people tend to buy) to maximize their profit margins and make their laptop less future proof

> Apple sell a laptop with specs you don't want, while they sell a laptop that does have the specs you want

Of course they actually don't. There is no 32 GB or 64GB MacBook Air.

> I think you just want something to complain about.

Perhaps, other people prefer complaining about other people complaining so to each his own, I guess...

I mainly talking about driving styles, modern F1 drivers pull all kinds of maneuvers and drive so close to the limit that would be totally suicidal back in those days (especially for overtaking, you aren't going to fight as hard when you know that any crash might result in death or severe injury)

Of course a lot of that is because of the cars. 50s to 60s cars had basically no downforce and would be undriveable on modern tracks amongst other things.

I'm certainly not implying that modern drivers are less risk-averse these days, just that the risks were massively higher and drivers generally took that into account.

> The base level Porsche is absolutely slow compared to the top-end.

It's still very fast compared to a 100 hp budget car (HP is selling 8GB laptops for $300 and you can get a 16 GB one for $500 with 512 GB of storage, the Air starts at $1000, is Porsche offering models with 100 engines?)

> The base level Tesla has vastly less range than the top-end.

Vastly is an exaggeration but let's say so. It still has a much larger battery than budget EV with ~30 kWh batteries)

> You missed the point entirely.

I don't think so.

> geared towards pros is laughable

I didn't say anything about pros. A 16GB + 512GB laptop is certainly not "geared towards pros" and Apple only gives you half that.

> Companies make a range of products to suit a range on consumers and needs.

Maximizing profits comes first in this case. Apple uses segmentation to up charge their customers for upgrades (at obscene margins) because their clients have no other options if they want macOS. Again an extra 8GB would cost peanuts...

> Early race cars were not paragons of safety

They were death traps, racing drivers were way more cautious back in those days because any slightly severe accident was likely to result in death or severe injuries. Reliability was garbage too so basically just crossing the finish line was a great result.

> Do you complain the base level Porsche is slow?

It's certainly not "slow" though...

> Do you complain the base level Tesla has a short range?

Again, the range is still pretty good compared to most other EVs

> The base model is slow and cheap. I

RAM is relatively cheap and the impact on price would be minimal. However Apple's business model is in large part based on making money from upgrades because they can charge obscenely inflated prices for memory/storage because their customers don't have a choice.

> RISC-V chips from China

Entirely different market segment, I'm not even sure how's that particularly relevant when talking about iGPUs anyway/

> the deadliest natural disaster in its modern history.

Wasn't the 2004 tsunami deadlier?

What does that have to do with ketosis? You can eat a lot of carbs and not be fat...

> had almost none of the diseases we have that are all really metabolic dysfunction/diabetes at their root

True. Unless you were rich. Even heard of gout? But yeah probably somewhat accurate for the whole population. But again, not much to do with ketosis.

I mean is there any evidence even today that someone whose diet is primarily (~80%) grain and other plant products with a lot of carbohydrates can enter ketosis even when practicing "intermittent fasting" while consuming ~2000-3000 calories per day (e.g. the estimate for standard Roman soldier daily rations is 3,000-4,000)? Seems impossible...

You know that how exactly?

Salt was very bulky (less so than grain of course) but I don't think it made a very good medium of exchange. Shipping goods on land especially was extremely expensive.

.e.g according to Diocletian's price edict (so the prices themselves are probably not accurate due to inflation by ratios might be) a laborer could afford to buy ~7kg of salt for his daily wage.

Salt was supposedly very cheap, actually the same price as grain by volume. So it really wouldn't have made much sense to drag bags of salts with you just to sell it for pennies (salted meats or fish etc. probably would've have been a much better option).

> They had to find alternates.

Except they didn't use salt for that. That's a myth. Did you read the article?

> the lack of fiat currency as the reserves of silver and gold were exhausted.

True, they had the same problem in the middle ages. Since we know massively more about the middle ages than Ancient Rome AFAIK they partially solved it through a mix of barter and credit (accounting was done using currency bit might have never changed hands in reality). As long as most trade is local that must be a pretty effective system.

Why? I'm not challenging the validity of the data itself. Just the interpretation.

You do have a point, but directly comparing costs is somewhat dishonest until solar plans start working 24 hours a day.

Just starting build them at a much bigger scaled would probably result in significant decrease in costs on it's own. China, Korea and Russia somehow manage to build at much lower cost.

> risk factors of a meltdown (however small) to tackle which are always working against you. Technology development in the Nuclear area is SLOW.

True, then again these really aren't a big deal. Burning coal is about the same as having a Chernobyl size disaster every few year (even when we 100% ignore climate change) and most people don't seem to mind that much.

Directly comparing solar or even wind with nuclear, gas, coal isn't exactly fair though unless you account for storage costs.