The story I heard was intel failed to deliver on die shrinks that were supposed to increase thermal efficiency. The fan also had poor routing and basically did nothing.

Apple was clearly not at the top of their game for that design, nor would you expect them to be as the decision was likely already made to move to apple silicon.

Not necessarily, namely because P != NP. Verifying the correctness of a solution is faster than solving it. Thus a system that outputs 99% incorrect solutions and 1% correct solutions can still be incredibly useful.

COTs GPUs throttle at about 90-100C but that's because they have plastic parts and solder that melts. Those are relatively easy to eliminate.

We haven't tried much to scale up operating temp.

I still prefer it to the responsive pages where stuff moves unpredictably and annoyingly. Before you never had that feeling that the webpage was fighting you.

I sometimes wonder if there is an equivalent loss for this new AI world and one that I've noticed is a kind of sameness that is slowly spreading across the internet.

The real question is why are employers able to limit employee 401k investment choices and employee health insurance. This is not freedom.

See QQNE and SPNE.

For anyone that has worked on either side of government procurement it is obvious that this is not true.

It's quite common for contracts to no longer make sense yet neither side wants to cancel them due to the paperwork involved. "Just put the money towards something else similar"

Plus the many high profile examples like high-speed rail, rent subsidies.

Risk of perforation is something like .03% and almost never fatal whereas a colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer mortality by 60-70%.

>And you have to consider the opportunity costs of consuming the doctor's time, the labwork, and the facilities, possibly delaying treatment for someone else who actually needs it.

That is also rarely true. More often, greater demand for a service soon yields economies of scale, more efficiencies and overall more patients served at a lower price. Low volume is expensive, high volume is cheap.

Mainstream predictions are easy, usually it means predicting status-quo. It's the out-of-consensus that matters (right 2 quadrants) and it looks like they are slightly worse than 50/50 on those.

Props for publishing it though.

Remember when globally competitive electric cars, re-usable boosters, catching a rocket with chopsticks, playing a fps game via a brain implant, and maintaining a satellite constellation at 480km LEO were also impossible?

Indeed, but what happens if/when they choose to sell the system and someone else buys it? Now the owner is who is generating the value. Even if he hires some maintenance worker to come by once and awhile and check up on it, it is the system (aka the capital), not the worker that is generating the vast majority of the value.

We tend to have a pretty human-centric worldview so if there's a single human working to keep a hotel running, our default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case. You can imagine that hotel at some point in the near future goes from requiring 1 worker to keep it running to zero.