My 2070 barely handles those games at that fps.

Yes those are older games because this APU is not going to play modern AAA at 4k, but it can handle some pretty hefty games fairly well and might be tempting to budget gamers especially when mid-tier cards start at $500-600 nowadays.

This is pretty close to my 2070 GPU does, which cost me $400+ a couple years ago and uses 215W. My CPU also uses 100W, so about 300W compared to 65W for very roughly similar performance (in some games) is still pretty incredible.

Now GPUs are almost twice that for that xx70's and xx80's cards. I don't know what market this is aimed at, but this is very impressive for an APU. There's a pretty strong budget PC gamer community that could benefit from this. There are a lot of people who can't afford gaming PCs anymore and this could be a big seller to the budget community. Also at 65TDP power supply and fans and ventilation costs will be low, so they can be sold in cheap and modest cases and ps's.

I'm not sure if these chips translate into laptops, but a laptop that games well is always desirable in the gaming market.

---

This is concerning. These cars are essentially delicate ipads with wheels and repairs for them are costly and specialized. Driving, in general, is dangerous and accident prone. Waking up to twice your repair cost or insurance premiums must not be great for Hertz.

Also the article doesn't mention the EV value cut-off unrelated to MSRP. When the battery reaches 50-60% of its top capacity, then range anxiety is back. No one wants a 150-100 mile Tesla, or worse in the winter with the heating on.

Range issues aren't a big deal with regular owners as with regular use they only lose 10-15% range in the first few years, but Hertz drives theses hard everyday, unlike someone with a suburban commute who gets groceries on the weekend. Who knows what their internal data is suggesting. Id be very, very hesitant to buy a Hertz used Tesla. I'd want to see how bad the battery is first, especially what its real world range is in the winter. I wouldnt be surprised because how hard these cars are run, they'll have more battery degradation per year/per mile than a well kept car babied by someone who loves their Tesla.

I just took a look on their website and the long range sedan I'd be interested in at that trim level 2024 model is going to be about $50k. Hertz has a 2022, a less than 2 year old car, with 80k miles for asking $31k. A 40% depreciation in 2 years is very rough.

Their resale value is particularly punishing. Hertz doesn't keep cars for all that long, so a tough depreciation isn't something they can ignore.

Evolution didn't create all this life with the assumption there would be electric beaches. I suspect the loss of this warmth will be a small price to pay to reduce emissions and that other parts of the biome will flourish in-line with how evolution developed life in that regions for billions of years.

No one would care about IoT wrenches if they forced some app-based auth with mfa. We only care because we can trivially exploit them.

Companies like Bosch shipping these things insecure by default is the real problem. Near everything embedded does snmp 'public' with write options and very few devices force strong passwords or passwordless or force mfa. The embedded space is a mess and where computers were pre-2000.

This it the classic "we invented cars before seatbelts and don't want to spend money on safety anyways," scenario.

Regulation here is badly needed. The market won't fix this itself. Bosch isn't really hurt by this stuff. They can just blame operators, the same way Boeing blames pilots or airlines when their Max's crash or fall apart in the sky. This is a classic perverse incentive of capitalism at play here and now that politics has moved towards idealizing a low-regulatory environment, we're only going to see more awful scenarios like this.

Now they have to worry about whether Elon is in the mood to give your account proper security or if your password hash leaked "by accident" by a "junior dev." Or just the everyday incompetence of all personality-cult organizations. Elon went from being sued by the SEC to hosting its humiliation.

Elon is chuckling it up right now. The problem with personality-led companies is that if you get on the bad side of that personality, then anything goes.

So in the article about 200 miles driving (in California) is 1 in a million chance of dying. So lets use that number nationwide to be lazy.

Now we can move a decimal point over. So the death chances of a Chicago to LA drive is 100,000 in one. But you drive back, so then its that twice. Once in 50,000 people dying on a Chicago to LA and back roadtrip is extremely frightening. How many people from the midwest make this drive a year? Or from the east coast? How many don't make it back?

The USA, on average, has 100+ fatalities via auto transportation a day.

The above ignores serious injury, permanent disability, etc. Its just death. The chances of having to deal with a broken spine, losing a limb, blindness, 3rd degree burns all over your body, etc aren't even calculated, but those are real and far more common than death. Death being harder to achieve with modern medical treatments.

Cars are extremely dangerous. We downplay what it means to drive.

Things on the moon are permanent until launching is 1000x cheaper. Even then, who would pay to clean up and what property rights are in play?

Lets stop polluting the moon with garbage to get rich people involved in projects (ashes of relatives, etc). Invest on its merits, not on some morbid ego boosting entitlement.

NASA and the international community needs to step in here. The moon should not be the trophy case of the super-rich.

Also these budget moon missions are starting to get concerning. What standards bodies are in control here, if any? The Israeli's lost one in 2019. It crashed on the moon and spilled a bunch of tardigardes and dna samples on its surface.

Tony Hawk at this event is just a marketing stunt and his celebrity can be beneficial to drive engagement, impress potential customers, keep existing customers happy, help with recruiting, etc. Those stunts can get incredible attention. Look at how common celebrities in advertising and endorsements are.

Stock buybacks, having the Moody Blues play your annual meeting or the Rich-dad-poor-dad guy give a speech to execs and play down to their biases doesn't drive marketing or the product. Its what execs enjoy personally and burn through money for these entitlements. Instead this money should be used to give raises to the working class.

Also I'd substitute accountants for MBA's in your comment.

Of course the drug war was a classist and racist thing and ultimately a failure because its propaganda couldn't keep up with people's desire for cannabis and the truth on how its far less dangerous than they were told. But to win politically you need to go big, so now we've over-corrected into cannabis being entirely harmless or even being a wonderdrug and cure-all, which obviously isn't true.

I see people on reddit recommend it for any number of health issues which I think is reckless and ignorant. A lot of these people have health issues that need to be treated. Covering up these issues with cannabis isn't going to help in the long run. Worse, almost zero discussion on how cannabis can trigger lifelong schizophrenia for people who have schizophrenia in their family and have latest schizophrenia that otherwise would have remained dormant for a long time, even the rest of their lives.

It reminds me a bit of the crony capitalism that kept stevia from being used as a sweetener. Society over-corrected with that as well, and honestly it tastes kinda terrible. And like all sweetners, who knows if its healthy. I don't think the blind watchmaker was expecting sweetness with no calories the same way she didn't expect being able to artificially shoot up your dopamine and serotonin with things like cannabis.

I don't think modern people realize how unbelievably delicate our bodies and mind are and how many 'ordinary' things are reckless and risky experimentation on us. I think we're still in this 19th century mindset of "conquering nature with science," which is obviously a pretty flawed premise and poor social philosophy. I'm not sure if its even possible for a capitalist technological society to leave that mindset.

The problem is that what you think of a "scam" is in a category of actions that businesses we consider legitimate use and those people have lobbying power over the state, which controls education. This isn't very different than how people are preyed upon by credit agencies, free trials, variable interest, etc which make up a good part of our business ecosystem. Essentially capitalist systems are about finding potential victims, and well, victimizing them.

Education programs like this are often criticized as liberal or "communist." What school administrator with a solid job and cushy state pension is going to risk the ire of the ruling monied class to potentially lose those things?

The people wondering why this and things like socialized medicine or minimum wage hikes are "taking so long" are really missing the forest for the trees here. These capitalist systems are ultimately anti-consumer and have narrow allowable cases for what is to be taught in state education. The US more so than most Western ones as it never developed a strong socialize tradition that lasted and its politics long captured by the "low regulation" monied class.

Look at the top reply to your comment, its someone saying "Well, if I was made czar of education, I'd do this and that!" If you said you were going to do those things, you'd never be made czar of education! A bit like if you said during a jury trial "I believe in jury nullification over non-violent crimes used against vulnerable populations often victimized by police dishonesty and brutality and caused by systems of oppression, poverty, racism etc," you'd never be made a juror. Anyone wanting to nullify, say non-violent drug offender charges in poor neighborhoods, will never be allowed to do so.

Also HN isnt a 5th grader's venue, so its interesting how normalized it is posting children's media in adult spaces, probably because he doesn't come off as much more childish than most YT personalities.

Sorry but even before today, having a automotive engineer sent to a random person's home over what clearly sounds like a quack letter seems implausible to me. The dictates of capitalism, human resources, and the politics of the workplace would make this difficult if not impossible. Even in the past when there was more human capital in support positions and more of a sense of customer service.

Way, way too many suspicious stories involve high-level people being involved in trivial issues. I just find it all pretty suspicious. Real stories tend to start with poor customer service at the dealership and being mocked by managers and mechanics. Not some unrealistic ideal white knight manager sending off engineers to people's homes. Imagine how many weird letters a place like pontiac gets. They don't have the manpower to do this if they actually chose to do it, and engineers might balk at the idea of doing at-home support too.

Pretty much any "idealized Americana" business story should set off BS alarms in us. "Oh a trivial problem with your car? No problem ma'am, I'm sending our top engineers over tomorrow," doesn't happen because its costly and unsustainable. Instead ask anyone who has odd car problems. Its endless painful calls and visits to dealerships and mechanics. There's a reason we have lemon laws for cars. Its because whats described in this story doesn't actually happen and people demand restitution.

I don't doubt that someone had a famous vapor lock shopping story (ive heard different versions of this story, usually about a housewife picking up her child from a nearby elementary school), but over the years these stories get modified into memetic structures based on dishonesty because most people are social capital seeking and having a humorous story provides them the immature ego boost they need. So "wow my car had vapor lock when I make quick trips" became "So the CEO of Ford came to my house to look at my ice cream car..." The latter is just more interesting in the market of storytelling.

That is to say, the ONLY reason this story is here is because its been modified to be memeticly attractive. A "boring" (i find old technology faults interesting, personally), but a "boring" story about vapor lock wouldn't make it to places like HN or reddit, which are memetic responders (upvote/downvote mechanisms) and lowest-common denominator (by this demographic) popularity machines. But dress up that boring story and now everyone is repeating it, often times claiming its their story and they know the people in it! The same way the comment you're responding to probably doesn't actually know the famous "unplug the server at 5pm" person.

Essentially its a learned affectation to come off as approachable and unthreatening (see also Jimmy Fallon) to garner views. Read a "boring" technical article at Ars or watch this guy fumble around and be silly and give these practiced big smiles? A lot of people would rather watch a 20-30 minute video that's entertaining and lower information than read a 5 minute article thats denser.

Essentially this is blogspam in video form and it makes a lot of people very wealthy, so its not going away anytime soon.

As someone who loves the arts, but can't get into youtube personality culture, its just so crazy to me people watch these things. They're a bit infantlizing to me. "Oh you want to learn about these drones? Instead of proper sources here's some guy who will pretend to be your friend and do silly comedic things for you while explaining it to you on the 5th grade level." Umm ok.

The most positive thing I can say is that there are people out there who can't read well (or read English at all) or can't learn from reading well, so these videos can be seen as helping a vulnerable demographic in an accessibility-like way. It may also attract younger people who otherwise would never read an Ars or Hackaday or HN (or whomever) article because these outlets are just not super accessible to them (unknown site to them, written on a too low level, etc). And that these video personalities could be a stepping stone into better and deeper media.

Essentially media is a free capitalist market and people choose their media sources, via their own biases and limitations. If they want everything explained to them via a Jimmy Fallon impersonator, then it will happen. Eventually the lowest common denominator demands questionable gimmicks and the market is more than happy to oblige.

We are not discussing 1985 here. By the mid to late 90s, internet access was greatly normalized.