There's very few manufacturers, I believe 3 globally? And there's a large moat. Nobody can compete with them in the next 10 years. It's really not hard to coordinate action between 3 companies.
There really aren't though. The reason there's only three is because memory is a commodity and margins are historically very low. It's not a very good business to be in, generally.
In the past when memory supply was short and then rebounded, many companies went out of business because making memory was no longer profitable.
And margins will continue to be low, otherwise they'll discover they don't have a moat. Commodity markets being competitive is a self fulfilling prophecy.
The companies have two choices. They either produce RAM cheaply and in large quantities, or they get replaced by someone who will produce RAM cheaply and in large quantities. Current incumbents are free to pick which of those two scenarios they prefer.
There used to be over 50 memory manufactures in the US alone. Everytime there was a bust (following a boom) there'd be bankruptcies. The lucky ones got bought out and consolidated. Empirically, attempting to capitalize on memory booms is a losing strategy.
Right, but that should probably be a red flag. I mean, we put sugar in everything because it makes everything taste awesome and, yeah.
There's nothing wrong with using beef tallow or bacon fat in your cooking occasionally. I use bacon fat sometimes. But of course consuming saturated fat in excess is not good for you in the long run, so do it in moderation.
Yeah, as you say, the key point is moderation, always.
I find it extremely unlikely that evolution got us to like foods that are supposedly that bad for us. Our palate is actually a tool for evaluation of what is consumable and has the nutrients we need.
If you look at children not corrupted by ideologies, it will become extremely obvious that they naturally crave this stuff without any prompting.
The problem just comes from our modern ultra-abondance. Not that long ago, most people were very limited in the amount they could consume because it was expensive and rare.
I agree. Fat, salt, and sugar taste good because they are, in a sense, good for us. For the entire history of humanity, the more of that you can eat, the better. This stopped being true less than 100 years ago.
Which, to be clear because some people legitimately believe in this diet, this is bad for you. Diets high in animal fat cause heart disease, and eating this much red meat without fiber is going to cause gastrointestinal distress and increase your risk of colon cancer. Also, it is very difficult to eat a reasonable amount of calories when you consume calorically dense food that's high in fat.
Colorings and fillers are not that bad for you. You, and other, are missing the forest for the trees here: diets high in fat, sugar, and calories lead to heart disease and metabolic syndrome.
Replacing "seed oils" with hamburgers and french fries fried in tallow won't magically help your health. If anything, you would die quicker from the huge amount of saturated fat you're now intaking.
Ultra processed foods are bad generally, yes, but not because they're processed, but because they're high in fat and sugar, while being calorically dense with no nutritional value.
> Replacing "seed oils" with hamburgers and french fries fried in tallow won't magically help your health. If anything, you would die quicker from the huge amount of saturated fat you're now intaking.
I'd like to see your evidence for the first claim.
The second claim is not as well supported as you might think. A recent Cochrane review published by The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) rated "Reduction in Saturated Fat Intake for Cardiovascular Disease" as having Unclear Benefits with no significant effect on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. This is based on randomized controlled trials that measured endpoints directly rather than LDL levels.
No, we know that eating less saturated fat and replacing it with unsaturated fat, such as those found in seed oils, can reduce your risk of CVD as much as statins.
We know, for sure, that eating less saturated fat reduces your markers that put you at risk of cardiovascular disease. Your study points that out. The problem with assessing cardiovascular mortality is that takes many many years to come home to roost. As your source points out, most studies were only 12-24 months.
As evidence for mortality related to saturated fat, that AHA statement cites only three sources.
First, in the Oslo Diet-Heart Study, "there were fewer cardiovascular deaths in the experimental group by 27% (P=0.09)", a non-significant result.
Second, it cites the reduction in CHD deaths in Finland between 1972 and 1992, attributing 50% of the reduction to cholesterol levels. But similar reductions occurred in many nations at that time, largely due to reduced smoking, improved treatment, and other changes that should not be ignored. There is no clear link to saturated fat here.
Third, it cites the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study, an observational study that didn't isolate PUFA intake, and is likely to be confounded by diet quality.
I would describe that evidence as weak-to-moderate at best.
The evidence regarding LDL is stronger, but that's a concern that should be measured and treated individually. People do not respond identically to diet, not everyone has high LDL, and there are many ways to lower it if needed. Personally, I don't worry much about saturated fat because my LDL is under 70.
What’s your background to describe this evidence as anything at all? Significant nutrition background? I’m not clear why you think you have standing to make any claims whatsoever, here, especially given the utter paucity of evidence you have cited.
This is typical Internet Nutrition Bullshit, just packaged in vaguely smart sounding words.
The "purely political" reasons is that nobody wants to work on X.org implementation. Which, I guess, is technically political? Maybe? But it has real world consequences.
Like okay yeah we could all just stick to X. But in order to do that we need X to be developed, which it's not.
It's not bragging - the commenter stated that Wayland has no advantage, which isn't true. It has many features which just are not possible in X. Many of these features are par for the course on Windows and MacOS. They do matter to some people, but not all of course.
No, it definitely does. Features like disparate refresh rates are very difficult to implement in X11 so they weren't. Bear in mind we have exactly one modern X implementation, x.org, and it's very hard to add new features. The codebase is old and complex.
The main strength of Wayland is that it encourages competing implementations. There are many Wayland compositors. That might be interpreted as a downside, but what it allows is innovation and incremental improvement. Something that was just not happening with X.
You could argue that it could have happened with X. What you can't argue is that it did, because it didn't and that's not up for debate. That's just the truth.
And, it doesn't even matter anymore, because x.org isn't being actively developed in any meaningful sense anymore.
No, I don't think this is true and just the usual nonsense used as justification. Some people continue to develop X, so I hope this is sufficient that I can continue to avoid Wayland.
so what you're basically saying is that with the exception of a very few individuals working on xlibre, the developers of xorg, KDE, GNOME and several others are essentially lying about the feasability of continuing with xorg? that, or too incompetent to make the same realization you did?
edit:
what are you gonna do if it turns out you cant avoid wayland? have you considered actually reporting the bugs you might see in wayland instead? because the future very much looks like A LOT of things are gonna go more and more wayland, its gonna be with reduced functionality to stay on X
I've been using Wayland for a while now on Debian as of 13, and the advantage is that it just works so much better.
Animations are much smoother, frames are dropped much less, and there's very little artifacts. It's almost uncanny how good desktop compositing looks right now.
Naturally, some people don't care or don't notice. I notice because I run everything at 240hz and I'm a freak. But, for me, so far everything has worked in wayland. I have not had to boot up an x11 session on Debian 13 with KDE. And, mind you, this is Debian - not bleeding edge. But, screen sharing works, audio works, everything.
I think a lot of those people buying Alibaba type AI generated decor and stuff are just old and have bad eyesight. I don't know that they know it's AI generated. Most of it is slop, and I don't mean in the AI sense - it looks sloppy and terrible.
From an American perspective, it's because we have no choice. What you have to realize is that, in the US, third parties do not have a foothold.
Yes, we can vote third parties, but this point always comes up at the presidential election and by then it's too late. If I just vote third party, that's how people like Trump make it to office. What we need is third parties to rise up naturally through local and state politics. Then, and only then, can we humor it at a federal level.
The main issue is that Americans are just not involved enough in local politics. Most Americans only vote during the federal elections.
In the sense that it doesn't work? Well it definitely works, gender affirming care like TRT helps men all the time. Breast implants help women after breast cancer related mastectomies. Vaginoplasty also commonly helps traumatic rape victims, too.
Or, do you mean debunked as in debunked in helping people with gender dysphoria? Because that's wrong too, we know that gender affirming care leads to less suicide in that population.
Because suicide is so rare and the number of people receiving gender affirming care is so low it is nearly impossible to get population sizes to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in suicide.
We can instead show a statistically significant reduction in depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking. In every other medical context this is used as a strong shorthand for "reduces suicides." It is completely reasonable here as well.
The research community is happy to use "reduces suicides" as shorthand for "reduces depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation in statistically significant amounts." It is only in this one context that people insist that this is somehow misleading and therefore actually gender affirming care is evil.
But okay. Imagine that in this circumstance it really is the case that gender affirming care doesn't reduce suicide rates (rather than this just being difficult to collect data about). It merely reduces depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation in people. Oh no. That still sounds good to me.
He's not me, but from our understanding it reduces suicide as he explained.
Also, you pulled the 95% number directly out of your asshole. Most people don't give a shit if someone gets hormones prescribed by a doctor. You care for reasons that are unclear and you have failed to explain. I'm guessing because they're stupid reasons, and you know it, and you don't want to embarrass yourself so you figure you can just not say anything and hope nobody notices.
It is so incredibly rich to be talking about a "substantitive argument" when you haven't even brought AN argument. You just said "uh it don't work" and "durr people don't like this" and then refused to elaborate further.
Yes, you should stop responding because obviously you are far out of your depth and liable to humiliate yourself.
