>Compared to the Gripen, as an example, which can land on a freeway and be up in the air again in a few minutes.

I have no idea where people got the idea that the F-35 requires a major refit after each sortie or that it needs climate controlled hangars, but there's literally no truth to any of it.

The turnaround time for an F-35 after a mission in a wartime scenario isn't going to be much different from any other older fighter jet. Refuel, rearm, get back in the air.

One of the key requirements for the F-35 programs was to minimize extra care needed for the RAM (Radar Absorbent Material). Unlike older stealth aircraft the F-35's ram is "baked in" to the aircraft skin, rather than being a coating. The F-117 and B-2 require climate controlled hangars because their coatings are old and delicate, the F-22 doesn't, but needs regular touch-ups for its coating, the F-35 is just left sitting outside most of the time regardless of where it's operating, a desert, the arctic, a jungle, the deck of a ship, you just leave it out there. The only common maintenance done on the F-35's RAM is replacing a relatively small amount of special RAM tape which is usually used around the edges of the access panels which are opened for other types of maintenance.

The footprint needed when trying to generate this much power from solar or wind necessitates large-scale land acquisition plus the transmission infrastructure to get all that power to the actual data center, since you won't usually have enough land directly adjacent to it. That plus all the battery infrastructure makes it a non-starter for projects where short timescales are key.

>Under combat conditions the Norden did not achieve its expected precision, yielding an average CEP in 1943 of 1,200 feet (370 m)[1]

This means that 50% of bombs fell within 1,200 feet of the target, which is an absolutely awful accuracy if you're trying to hit anything specific.

This was further compounded during the campaign against Japan by the heavy reliance of Japanese wartime industry on cottage industries which were dispersed almost randomly within Japanese population centers, rather than being located within specialized industrial districts. From a purely strategic standpoint which is only concerned with destroying the enemy's ability to make war, the most effect way to disrupt these kinds of industry with 1945 technology was essentially to burn every building in the city to the ground. Other options were simply ineffective.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight

[1]https://blog.google/products/google-cloud/ironwood-tpu-age-o...

That's a pretty serious abuse of the word "literally" given that they have nothing in common except vague density figures which don't mean that much at this point.

Here's a line literally from the article

>Based on this analysis it is our belief that Intel 18A has the highest performance for a 2nm class process with TSMC in second place and Samsung in third place.

Given what we currently know about 18A, Intel's process appears to be less dense but with a higher emphasis on performance, which is in line with recent Intel history. Just looking at the density of a process won't tell you everything about it. If density were everything then Intel's 14nm++++ chips wouldn't have managed to remain competitive in raw performance for so many years against significantly denser processes. Chip makers have a bunch of parameters they have to balance when designing new nodes. This has only gotten more important as node shrinks have become more difficult. TSMC has always leaned more towards power efficiency, largely because their rise to dominance was driven by mobile focused chips. Intel's processes have always prioritized performance more as more of their products are plugged into the wall. Ideally, you want both but R&D resources are not unlimited.

Many creative works these days require the effort and input of so many people, so much time, and so much money that they can't have a specific creative vision. Mediums like book, comics, indie movies, and very low budget indie games, where the the end product was created by the smallest number of people, have the most potential to be interesting and creative. They can take risks. This doesn't mean they will be good, most aren't, but it means that the range of quality is much broader, with some having a chance to shine in ways which big budget projects just can't. The issue with small teams and small budgets is that they are inherently limited in what they can create. Better tools allows smaller groups of people to make things that previously would have required an entire studio but without diluting the creative vision.

Will this also result in a tidal wave of low effort garbage? Of course it will. But that can be ignored.