So instead of having ISPs enforce the law, we could... create the Great Firewall of America paid for by... Americans' tax dollars?

Tim Cook would have negotiated away their profit margins?

And how is that different than what is happening now?

https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1716/...

> Third-quarter GAAP earnings (loss) per share (EPS) attributable to Intel was $(3.88); non-GAAP EPS attributable to Intel was $(0.46).

Yeah, like they've done to TSMC over the past decade. (/s)

If you're talking about 3.3 70B Q4, any PC with 64 GB RAM could run it.

I can use RTX to speed the inference up. My budget is up to $2500.

Maybe you could run some layers on a 3090; I'm not sure how much speedup it would give.

Or we could admit that UI design didn't start in 2004 and skeuomorphism vs. flat is a false dichotomy.

Looks like a misleading headline for a highly speculative article.

You can model that here https://economicmodel.dshr.org/

Google has been showing different maps to different IPs for years, especially around disputed borders.

I'm still trying to understand if these NAND chips are proprietary and if so where vendors are getting them.

Those arent NAND chips. Those are proprietary PCIE SSDs packaged in BGA chip form.

You're kind of getting tripped up on terminology. The OP didn't measure Wayland; they measured GNOME Shell which does take responsibility for its performance. Also, I'm not aware of any latency-related mistakes in Wayland/Weston (given its goal of tear-free compositing).

> You're kind of getting tripped up on terminology.

I'm not. My comment doesn't address the latency of gnome shell. I understand the boring technical distinctions between wayland and wayland client libraries and wayland display servers and gnome shell and mutter and sway, blah blah blah. Much like I understand that Linux is a kernel. That it is inspired by UNIX, but it is technically not a UNIX. I also understand that if someone describes themselves as a Linux user they probably don't just mean that they have a Android phone or that the display controller in their dishwasher or wireless access point happens to include Linux the kernel.

The "well acksually wayland is just the name of the protocol" that emerges whenever a problem is brought up is a symptom of the underlying problem with wayland the system. The confusion that gives rise to these deflections is also a symptom of that problem.

By Conway's law systems end up resembling the organisations that produce them. In this way the design of wayland the system seems to be designed by people who don't want to work together. I can see a parallel with microservice architecture.

The distinction between protocol and implementation IS significant here.

Imagine comparing HTTP1.1 vs HTTP3. These are protocols, but in practice one compares implementations. I can pick curl for http1.1, but Python for http3, and http3 would very likely measures as slower.

Is that the protocols fault?

>> ”well acksually wayland is just the name of the protocol" […] is a symptom of the underlying problem

> well acksually

It’s not the protocol’s fault, but the system and organisation that brought it.

Which brings up the other problem that Wayland introduced, that instead of one incredibly old inscrutable software stack doing these things there are now five (and counting!) new and insufficiently tested software stacks doing these things in slightly different ways.

It would have been nice if KDE and Valve could (would?) work together to reimplement KWin's features on top of wlroots. That would have basically made Gnome the sole holdout, and I imagine they'd eventually have switched to the extended wlroots as well, or at least forked it.

There's also EFL and one other I'm forgetting at the moment, but yeah.

All this proves is that it's possible for a protocol to not be the determining factor; which says nothing about whether it's possible that it _is_ a determining factor.

You’re quite right. We’d need similar benchmarks done with other compositors.

I very much doubt that Wayland makes a difference for this test; Wayland is for IPC between the client and server. Moving the cursor around is done by the server, without needing to talk to the client.

> I understand the boring technical distinctions between wayland and wayland client libraries and wayland display servers and gnome shell and mutter and sway

I do not. Does anyone know a good but quick introduction into these concepts and the problems they cause or fix?

All I know is that Wayland was supposed to be faster by taking some slow parts out of the loop, but that doesn't seem to be working, according to these figures.

As a user, why should I care?

I would just rather pay someone 100 bucks and not care whose fault it is. (And yes, that's why I don't use Linux on the desktop anymore, as much as I loved i3 and tiling environments.)

It's probably in a hundred places that all add up, all of which are no particular person's responsibility. So, that probably means that 10 people from 10 different projects need to get on a call or mailing list together and find a plan of attack.

But it won't happen. And people will keep wondering why Linux can't ever get a foothold on the desktop.

I don't think this kind of situation could occur in the US because rehypothecation of shares underlying ETFs isn't allowed. See also https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Vanguard_safety And worst case if something did happen it would be bailed out.