> To apply the law to political figures can never be done in a clean or unambiguous way
Well yes. That's certainly the case when the system is deeply corrupt and only superficially democratic. They shouldn't be above the law nor their opponents should have the power to abuse it.
I find it hard to imagine what the overlap between this and e.g. ebikes from Trek, though. Besides the price of course... It's an entirely different product.
I really don't get what the point of the pedals on a thing like this, though. I guess mainly to satisfy some sort of regulations which separate bikes and motorcycle like vehicles? Considering that they aren't even connected to the drivetrain...
In the U.S., there are 3 classes of e-bike:
Class 1: pedal-assist only up to 20mph (helmets optional for adults)
Class 2: same as Class 1 but with optional throttle to 20mph
Class 3: pedal-assist only up to 28mph (helmets required, adults only)
There's also a maximum power rating of 750 watts for all of these. I'm not sure where the "pedal by wire" feature is from a regulatory perspective, but to me this fits into either class 2 or 3 depending on what option you get.
My state doesn't even require helmets for motorcyclists. I am guessing any regulations on e-bikes date back to the days when 2-stroke "moped" bikes were briefly popular.
Based on the video and rivian history I think they wanted to redesign from the ground up a bike to match the packaging success they had at rivian and companies like lucid vs how legacy automakers approached it. The problem is the current laws about bikes and ebikes limited them and they had to make many tradeoffs which is what we are looking at. I guess we will find it if it was worth it to go ground up vs more off the shelf. As a rivian owner I'm concerned about repair-ability and maintenance.
The state statistics are meaningless. As I already explained above, almost all of the murders in every state are concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods. It's a very localized problem.
As for the specific cities you mentioned, policies enacted by local governments over decades generally fall into the progressive category. State and federal governments certainly share some blame for the problem but because the causes are mostly local any solutions will also have to be local.
If gun violence is concentrated in a few neighborhoods and all states contain such neighborhoods, then state statistics do matter, don't they?
We can all agree that taking away peoples' guns would lead to less gun violence. (This is the part where you say "but that's impossible anyway" or "but the 2nd amendment" which doesn't really refute my point)
It didn't work in Canada. The criminals still have guns. Mind you when you share a large border with a nation that has lots of guns how effective could it possibly be? I'm not blaming the USA, I'm blaming the Canadian politicians for failing to take this into account.
Not sure what is progressive about the fact that one can easily obtain a gun. Pool with many legal guns makes it easier to obtain it illegal one as well.
There would be even less violence in Mexico if they were not bordering USA.
In the US, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, Section 512
In the EU, E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (2019/790/EU, “DSM Directive”), Digital Services Act (DSA).
Additionally specific countries each have their own laws on the matter.
DMCA would require something like a torrent tracker to respond to specific takedown requests in the prescribed manner. It has zero relevance to a torrent client.
I'd suspect Trump would model his on Saudi Arabia's PIF rather than Norway's fund. The PIF invests in companies worldwide, including Uber and Blackstone, as well as providing capital for mega-projects like NEOM.
And it took a long time for mobile CPUs to be considered important. Arguably mobile CPUs still aren't considered more important than desktop, even though they obviously sell more.
Mobile CPUs are almost a commodity these days and fairly low margin especially compared to server chips. Most people really don't care what chip does their phone has and its almost always "good enough" relative to the price.
IMO that's much less of a case for laptop and desktop (let alone server). Even if people don't understand the technical details e.g. Apple's superior performance per watt (or its implications at least) is something a lot more people notice.
This is demonstrably not true. TSMC is ahead because of the volume of mobile and that happened on the back of a lot of investment from Apple - who does make high end chips.
Intel focus on low volume high end chips is another reason they are behind.
TSMC doesen't design or sell the chips. If they have limited capacity they will of course charge more for manufacturing mobile chips if they can sell the capacity to Nvidia/AMD/Apple instead.
ARM chips (and that's pretty much by design based on ARM's business model) are close to being a commodity.
Apple is of course an exception but they are not directly part of the CPU market. And ARM and Qualcomm are barely bothering trying to compete with them because there doesen't seem to be a lot of point. They themselves are pivoting to datacenter because there is just more money to be made there.
> Intel focus on low volume high end chips is another reason they are behind.
I guess that's complicated. It seems like an optimal strategy if you are a chip designer (e.g. Nvidia or AMD vs Qualcomm). Not so much if you are a fabricator. Of course Intel being both makes things a lot harder for them.
> TSMC doesen't design or sell the chips. If they have limited capacity they will of course charge more for manufacturing mobile chips if they can sell the capacity to Nvidia/AMD/Apple instead
That’s the entire point. Intel is behind because their vertical market strategy of using their own fabs only for their own chips doesn’t give them enough volume compared to TSMC who has volume because they are a foundry.
> ARM chips (and that's pretty much by design based on ARM's business model) are close to being a commodity.
ARM doesn’t manufacture chips. The entire argument is that it’s a strategic interest for Intel to manufacture chips in the US. ARM is irrelevant to this conversation.
> Apple is of course an exception but they are not directly part of the CPU market. And ARM and Qualcomm are barely bothering trying to compete with them because there doesen't seem to be a lot of point. They themselves are pivoting to datacenter because there is just more money to be made there.
Apple, Nvidia and to a lesser extent all of the companies that are designing chips and using TSMC as a foundry are more relevant than x86 chips.
Between phones, tablets, watches, and Macs, Apple, etc alone sells more devices with Arm chips than PCs and servers sold by Intel.
They have enough scale to fund leading edge processing.
Qualcomm is a bigger seller of processors than anyone since every mobile cellular chip that I’m aware of except for the very few designed by Apple for the low end 16e is sold by Qualcomm.
> I guess that's complicated. It seems like an optimal strategy if you are a chip designer (e.g. Nvidia or AMD vs Qualcomm). Not so much if you are a fabricator. Of course Intel being both makes things a lot harder for them.
That’s exactly the issue. Intel the chip designer would be better off if they used TSMC and Intel the fabricator would have a lot more funding if other chip designers trusted them enough to use them as a foundry.
Every company that both tries to be vertically integrated and a “platform” fails at one or the other.
Google - The Google Pixel is an also ran hobby project. But they are relatively successful with their products across iOS and Android
Apple - a great vertically integrated product. But no one uses Apple Music on Android unless they are an iPhone family with the one off Android user. iTunes has sucked from day one on Windows and Safari for Windows was rapidly abandoned.
Microsoft - the Surface laptops have gained some traction. But sales are miniscule in the grand scheme of things.
But you notice in the case of Google and Microsoft, they aren’t crazy enough to manufacture their hardware.
My only point was that mobile chips are pretty much a commodity these days and not a particularly lucrative market if you want to maximize margins and growth. The fact that there are way more ARM chips sold in a year than x86 servers doesen't prove much.
> Qualcomm is a bigger seller of processors
Yes, even for their highest end mobile chip (Snapdragon 8 Elite) the estimated OEM price seems to be under <$200.
A midrange AMD EPYC 9004 chip is $4000-6000. Presumably the gross margin is also higher. So hardly a fair comparison. Of course Intel seems to be propping up it's server marketshare by dropping its margins, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are lower than Qualcomm's.
> But you notice in the case of Google
They design their own mobile SoCs though which seems like a fairly serious effort for a hobby project (although being an off the shelf design like almost all ARM chips besides Apple's maybe not)
Reminds me of the desktop/server processor space in the late 90's. At least this time we have a dozen vendors that are all using ARM instead of x86/POWER/DEC Aplha/MIPS/IA-64 & ARM. More chance of surviving together rather than making multiple moats.
I had a Duron chip that, for like two full years in the early '00s, would've required an Intel chip about double the price to beat it. That was wild. I assume the Celeron line in particular only hung on through that period via contract-inertia and brand recognition, because it was a total joke next to Duron, on a bang-for-your-buck basis.
Like I did (at the time) high-end gaming on it, back when gaming used to sometimes tax your CPU and not only your GPU, and in that entire time I didn't ever feel like I would have benefitted at all from an upgrade, it was so far ahead of the curve. And that was AMD's budget chip line! They simply didn't deliberately cripple it nearly as much as Intel did their Celerons.
> companies in 2015 and that projected for 2025 to see this trend
It's easy to grow very fast when you are starting from a very low base. Especially when you are chasing someone.
It's a bit like China's GDP per capita. If it continued growing at the same pace as between 2000 and 2020 it might have had a chance to catch up with US in a few decades or so from now. Certainly Western Europe.
Yet based on current trends they will never close the gap (then again who knows what will change in the next 10-20 years or so).
Of course demographic collapse is not that far either. US and Europe at least have immigrants propping them up.
The problem with predicting that China won't catch up on GDP per capita with the West is that the West too went through those growth phases about a century or two ago. It will take a 100-200 years, but China, and the rest of world will catch up. Just a matter of time. A long time no doubt. But it will happen.
Well yes. That's certainly the case when the system is deeply corrupt and only superficially democratic. They shouldn't be above the law nor their opponents should have the power to abuse it.
reply