And no, Neanderthals and Denisovans contributed no more than 2% of the DNA to this population, so they did not add much genetic diversity.
There's no real way to tell. The Neanderthal and Denisovan genome has been mapped, but its only a few samples. If their DNA is in our descendants, then basically Homo Sapien bred with other people that were basically as genetically different to them as dog breeds are to other dogs. (Does that make golden retrievers the master dog race?) Perhaps there's only 1% difference in genomes between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. Are you going to now suggest that caucasians "are going to become" extinct because lack of melanin appears to be a recessive trait?
Really it is probably going to be militaristic in nature with strong authorities to enforce everything that needs enforcing, from garbage disposal, to making sure doors are closed securely to who breeds with who.
"Autocratic" would be the more appropriate word; militaristic implies needing to go to war against an opponent population.
The ratio doesn't have to be that extreme, unless it was "important" to limit the total amount of humans sent to a future space colony. And if the women are starting out young, there's no reason to think they'd have a problem popping out three surviving offspring in their lifetime. No need to even send out males if there's enough surviving sperm or pre-fertilized blastocysts.
As I recall from something I read a long time ago the minimum size of a breeding population to avoid inbreeding problems is about 10,000.
Its smaller. Once you get up to 1000 breeding pairs, the succeeding population can randomly breed without introducing deadly genetic inbreeding ailments. Its borne out with isolated populations of about 2000 people (a town) are able to exist for centuries without requiring external genetic contributors.The 10K number probably was picked as a generic population, where only 20% were breeding. It gets fascinating to speculate how much smaller that human population can be, if there is no issue with regulating breeding decisions.
then they move on to repopulate Earth [...] and go on to colonize the other planets in the solar system.
More likely the latter. Earth's gravity would be such that it would be extremely difficult for humans born on Mars gravity to survive on Earth, but if they managed to produce survivable offspring, then it wouldn't remain a problem.
I agree. People with defective thinking like yours that conclude humanity can only produce negative consequences to their environment is not worth perpetuating.
Posit that there is enough collectable (or synthesizeable) water and oxygen on Mars to sustain a large human population. All you need is 1000 breeding pairs of humans to ensure the population won't suffer a death spiral due to genetic inbreeding. Mars could plausibly become humanity's lifeboat with our current technology.
I wouldn't want to start that engineering experiment on the Moon for that kind of goal; there probably isn't enough cheaply accessible water. Its possible to devise an indefinitely operating Moonbase, provided it has sufficient, continuous support from Earth, but then all that money that could be allocated towards a permanent, self-sustaining colony on Mars would be sucked into a white elephant project only 3 days of transit time from Earth.
Also, think of the joules involved to cause a life or planet ending event to the Earth. Would the Moon be far enough away from the Earth not to experience deleterious effects? Perhaps not.
More important, WTF has Microsoft done to prevent 70% of those errors? They've plowed an impressive amount of money creating their developer tools division. Couldn't have they shelled out a few more million to design a memory safe language and implemented it upon their VM (CLR)? Why do they perpetuate their OS product on a language (C++) utterly vulnerable and responsible for 70% of those security holes. Yes, C++ is capable of being type safe and memory secure, but apparently most people coding their product aren't capable of writing such code flawlessly in C++.
Its not my revisionist additions, its the OPs removal of words in a sentence, to distort the meaning. I took the trouble to get a translation of the webpage, and then read the interview.
Leave it to a denialist to distort the statements that people say.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.
He's merely differentiating using the free market to regulate gov't mandated carbon release restrictions from environmental issues. Reducing global warming with economic policy doesn't fix forests dying or ozone holes.
This may be a useful article to illustrate what the Duplicitious Coward is trying to do.
Debian moves at a glacial pace, I have tried to use it in place of Ubuntu a few times, it was always a massive hassle trying to get things patched up enough to work where Ubuntu already had those packages and just worked.
Back in the 1990's, Slackware was my OS. Loved the damn thing to death. But (besides management issues based on Volkerding's health and at the time, his one man band approach), the fact that it was minimally "tweaked" became a huge problem for me, because I literally had to follow the "soap opera" of a lot of subpackages, and had to configure everything to make it work the way I wanted to (particularly for my laptop). So, at some point in the middle "aughts", I gave up on mastering everything and switched over to Ubuntu. (Of course, I never completely abandoned Windows, and it became my goto OS around when Windows 8 was released (but I always stuck to Windows 7 until Windows 10. Lately, I've been seriously thinking about only running Windows 10 for games, and abandoning my former casual interest in the Windows ecosystem.)
Why do I bring this all up? Just to say I understand completely what you mean about Debian. But I presume Pop!OS is working off the Debian unstable branch. Debian's management team is totally committed to open source and public domain, so of course its hell trying to get Debian working the way you want it to. Ubuntu's original mission was to focus on the user experience, so they totally run roughshod on Debian's distribution, including Debian no-no's like freely available proprietary binaries. Unity & Mir never bothered me, because the dogfood was never forced fed to the masses, and I ran stock or Gnome Ubuntu LTS when I bothered. (I totally get going to MATE, though, I used to do Solaris administration.)
When any company is looking to target Linux they only look at 2 distros, [...]
As I suggested previously, fuck System76's approach. I just don't care; I haven't bought any of their laptops (yet). I do like the fact that they realize they can't depend on the amateurish chaos that is linux, and feel they have to get their hands dirty with their own tweaked distro. It may put them into the position where they'll eventually be optimizing their products with power saving features and handing some of the modifications upstream to the larger linux community. That is where I really hope they'll eventually go (and thus I'm not going to crucify them for their attempt). If Pop!OS happens to be no good for a lot of their customers, fine, its System76's fuckup and their sunken costs and sales; I don't own stock in their company. But stop crucifying this company for not following one's "true" religion (not you, other posters), and realize its their fucking money, not yours.
Just doing internet, and some spread sheeting and word processing, the majority of the market, than Linux is factually the most efficient OS.
Citation please.
Want to play computer games, well, technically, "The operating system is Orbis OS, based on FreeBSD 9." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], is the most efficient.
Yeah, gamers care about hardware efficiency, not what games are available to play on it. (Duh.) That's why Steam on Linux "owns" the gaming market./s
In a business environment it depends upon the main packages you use in that environment.
I'll let the PlayStation4 penetration in the business market speak for itself. Again, you need to provide citations for you to claim "proof" or "fact".
In the server environment Linux absolutely craps all over Windows.
Yup, and when I need to buy a standalone server, I will probably run linux on it. But I was talking about laptops.
Yeah, let your fanboy flag fly, and use Trump style arguments to persuade the technically inclined. "Fuck the corporate power."
What do you want me to say? I have no proof laptop manufacturers will deliberately cripple AMD based products. I will say its quite possible in order for the laptop vendor to fit a pricing niche, they will deliberately do stupid things to cripple an AMD product, so it stays in the low price niche, and not compete with a higher margin product, which happens to be Intel based hardware But AMD probably is just as much to blame, because they can't produce enough of a particular CPU for the manufacturer to adjust their pricing product lines. (Remember, until recently, Intel could guarantee they could put out a zillion CPUs of varying capability, and AMD is stuck figuring out their price point.)
Its up to AMD to figure out how to best showcase their products, probably by partnering with a specific large vendor, guaranteeing a competitive price point, and supervising the design. But to this day, AMD CPUs will run hotter and consume more power; they just aren't as IPC(?) efficient as Intel products.
It depends on the laptop vendor. Some companies (Apple in the extreme) participate in the design. Some companies take what manufacturers offer. But they aren't the same complete board, with exact specs, or else one could figure out the generic board Dell gets, and buy a replacement board direct from the manufacturer. The mobo board maker doesn't take the responsibility for CPU allocation from Intel; they leave it to the laptop seller. They just give a rough number to their manufacturing capacity, and its up to the laptop seller (or some other conglomerate) to hit up Intel for CPUs. The way, the laptop seller controls its inventory and sets the order size, not the manufacturer. (There will be exceptional cases as well.)
I take it you don't remember all of the abandonware distros put out on the netbooks, nettops and cheap desktops a decade ago that where all dead within a year only to be replaced with XP Starter edition.
Nope, don't remember that era, even though I was in my thirties at the time.
There is a reason Dell, HP Zareason, Puget Systems and many others use Ubuntu, they don't have to go through the hassle of maintaining an entire distro, they just provide packages and patches to Canonical and they add it to the repos.
You are aware that Ubuntu uses its base OS off of Debian packages? Ubuntu then tweaks whatever is coming off of Debian, including incorporating proprietary binary code into Ubuntu distributed packages. Its possible that I am wrong, but I believe Pop!OS is running off of Debian distributions as well.
The real reason why System76 wanted to get off Ubuntu was that Ubuntu for the past decade has been ineptly tilting at technical windmills where Ubuntu originally wanted its own Unity desktop, that had nothing directly to do with Gnome or KDE, and then their own rendering layer (Mir?), and eventually just gave up on all of it last(?) year. A lot of Ubuntu users abandoned Ubuntu in the past decade because of this, and System76 decided they couldn't risk losing their customer base being dependent on a poorly(?) managed OS distributor. System76 wanted to standardize its OS in a manner where they weren't dependent upon the whims of Ubuntu, and they're chasing business customers, so they know they don't have to provide the ultimate consumer experience.
So Pop!OS is very basic, its GUI is theirs, build off a lot of other linux windowing code, and they can ensure that their business customers can have a working laptop that works the same way four years from now. Don't think of System76 leaving a stable linux distribution; think of System76 leaving the Ubuntu base product for the Debian base product (that Ubuntu is based on), and Pop!OS tweaks off of Debian, rather than Ubuntu. In any case, I don't care. I just don't like anyone (or company) being pilloried over fanboy ignorance.
And linux works fine under my old laptop with the Arrandale CPU. But I obviously can't use updated code that expects a graphics hardware primitive that the CPU can't deliver. And it doesn't run 2 hours on battery.
Of course there was. Like it or not, laptops are going to be most power efficient on a Microsoft OS, because they own the Wintel market. One day that may change, but not until hardware chip manufacturers are designing their chips to be power efficient under linux, while linux kernel developers are incorporating those power saving features, and glibc, gcc, and GUIs are mandating power efficient code into their products. "Nice tweak, does it interfere with sleep mode 3X? Then it doesn't get put into the codebase."
I'll never understand why System76, Zareason, Purism, Think Penguin etc keep only ever offering Intel/Nvidia crap.
Simply, you're utterly ignorant of the manufacturing business. They're not there to make a laptop that makes their customers happiest. They're there to make a laptop as cheaply as possible, and then charge as much as possible, while still satisfying the majority of laptop purchasers who are not you (geek). They need to have a relationship with the various chip manufacturers, because those manufacturers provide an allocation of CPUs at a price, and those manufacturers are going to favor the the company that gives them the best long term profit and jumps through their hoops.
Before Ryzen, only a fucking moron would buy an AMD laptop, because they have to run hotter & use more power in order to match the performance of an analogous Intel CPU. Even now, there's no consensus that Ryzen cpus, specifically made for laptops, can run as power efficiently as Intel. Ryzen only hit the market maybe 3 years ago. No major manufacturer is going to jeopardize their CPU allocation with Intel for a company that makes inferior laptop CPUs and can't even ensure they can deliver X CPUs to them per quarter, or be producing a laptopable, competitive CPU two years later. Then you have to design a laptop around AMD hardware. Even now, I don't think AMD has a laptop CPU based on Ryzen until their 2nd generation, which only came out a year ago.
As long as AMD is committed to putting out a competitive laptop CPU, they will eventually show up in laptop products. But it doesn't happen overnight, and it certainly doesn't happen in less than a year.
The reason why System76 puts out its own spin on debian is strategic to the manufacturer. They want to be able to control (and provide support) for the OS, which is intrinsic to building a consumer experience. They don't want to be at the mercy of the whims of debian or ubuntu corp (or microsoft for that matter).
Also, anyone who claims to be technically competent should be aware that linux isn't efficient with laptop power consumption, because it requires driver support (from the chip manufacturer) and kernel/OS support for various sleep modes. If you want a laptop that runs for hours off of battery, you going to get that extra hour from running windows or macOS (because between Microsoft/Apple and the hardware manufacturers, they're plowing a ton of proprietary work into it). If you run linux, then you probably won't be able to run your laptop off of battery for as long. But with Pop!OS, System76 could be incorporating more of those power efficient features by negotiating with the chip manufacturers and the mobo designer/manufacturer, but some of that customized work probably also needs to be in the OS. (I have no idea if System76 is actually doing this.)
You're not satisfied with Pop!OS? Fine, that's still the manufacturer's responsibility. But they aren't putting out Pop!OS out of egotism.
If I ever bother paying money for a laptop, its going to be a laptop with a separate GPU not dependent upon Intel Corp. My last laptop CPU was the Arrandale model, and the OS could not be upgraded to Windows 10, because Intel abandoned support for the CPU after 1.5 years. The problem was that the GPU didn't support advanced graphics primitives that became "expected" for Windows 10. Intel could have written an updated driver that would work in Windows 10, and ignored the obscure calls, or even made the API available for someone to write a 3rd party driver, but of course, they didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
And no, Neanderthals and Denisovans contributed no more than 2% of the DNA to this population, so they did not add much genetic diversity.
There's no real way to tell. The Neanderthal and Denisovan genome has been mapped, but its only a few samples. If their DNA is in our descendants, then basically Homo Sapien bred with other people that were basically as genetically different to them as dog breeds are to other dogs. (Does that make golden retrievers the master dog race?) Perhaps there's only 1% difference in genomes between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. Are you going to now suggest that caucasians "are going to become" extinct because lack of melanin appears to be a recessive trait?
We didn't used to think there was water ice there!
We still don't have proof of it. Just spectroscopy analysis of the reflected light from various craters on the Moon.
Really it is probably going to be militaristic in nature with strong authorities to enforce everything that needs enforcing, from garbage disposal, to making sure doors are closed securely to who breeds with who.
"Autocratic" would be the more appropriate word; militaristic implies needing to go to war against an opponent population.
The ratio doesn't have to be that extreme, unless it was "important" to limit the total amount of humans sent to a future space colony. And if the women are starting out young, there's no reason to think they'd have a problem popping out three surviving offspring in their lifetime. No need to even send out males if there's enough surviving sperm or pre-fertilized blastocysts.
As I recall from something I read a long time ago the minimum size of a breeding population to avoid inbreeding problems is about 10,000.
Its smaller. Once you get up to 1000 breeding pairs, the succeeding population can randomly breed without introducing deadly genetic inbreeding ailments. Its borne out with isolated populations of about 2000 people (a town) are able to exist for centuries without requiring external genetic contributors.The 10K number probably was picked as a generic population, where only 20% were breeding. It gets fascinating to speculate how much smaller that human population can be, if there is no issue with regulating breeding decisions.
then they move on to repopulate Earth [...] and go on to colonize the other planets in the solar system.
More likely the latter. Earth's gravity would be such that it would be extremely difficult for humans born on Mars gravity to survive on Earth, but if they managed to produce survivable offspring, then it wouldn't remain a problem.
I agree. People with defective thinking like yours that conclude humanity can only produce negative consequences to their environment is not worth perpetuating.
Posit that there is enough collectable (or synthesizeable) water and oxygen on Mars to sustain a large human population. All you need is 1000 breeding pairs of humans to ensure the population won't suffer a death spiral due to genetic inbreeding. Mars could plausibly become humanity's lifeboat with our current technology.
I wouldn't want to start that engineering experiment on the Moon for that kind of goal; there probably isn't enough cheaply accessible water. Its possible to devise an indefinitely operating Moonbase, provided it has sufficient, continuous support from Earth, but then all that money that could be allocated towards a permanent, self-sustaining colony on Mars would be sucked into a white elephant project only 3 days of transit time from Earth.
Also, think of the joules involved to cause a life or planet ending event to the Earth. Would the Moon be far enough away from the Earth not to experience deleterious effects? Perhaps not.
Way more energy than dumping it on the Moon.
What happens? (You do realize that Space 1999 was a really bad show for science fiction.)
How is this news?
More important, WTF has Microsoft done to prevent 70% of those errors? They've plowed an impressive amount of money creating their developer tools division. Couldn't have they shelled out a few more million to design a memory safe language and implemented it upon their VM (CLR)? Why do they perpetuate their OS product on a language (C++) utterly vulnerable and responsible for 70% of those security holes. Yes, C++ is capable of being type safe and memory secure, but apparently most people coding their product aren't capable of writing such code flawlessly in C++.
Its not my revisionist additions, its the OPs removal of words in a sentence, to distort the meaning. I took the trouble to get a translation of the webpage, and then read the interview.
Leave it to a denialist to distort the statements that people say.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.
He's merely differentiating using the free market to regulate gov't mandated carbon release restrictions from environmental issues. Reducing global warming with economic policy doesn't fix forests dying or ozone holes.
This may be a useful article to illustrate what the Duplicitious Coward is trying to do.
Debian moves at a glacial pace, I have tried to use it in place of Ubuntu a few times, it was always a massive hassle trying to get things patched up enough to work where Ubuntu already had those packages and just worked.
Back in the 1990's, Slackware was my OS. Loved the damn thing to death. But (besides management issues based on Volkerding's health and at the time, his one man band approach), the fact that it was minimally "tweaked" became a huge problem for me, because I literally had to follow the "soap opera" of a lot of subpackages, and had to configure everything to make it work the way I wanted to (particularly for my laptop). So, at some point in the middle "aughts", I gave up on mastering everything and switched over to Ubuntu. (Of course, I never completely abandoned Windows, and it became my goto OS around when Windows 8 was released (but I always stuck to Windows 7 until Windows 10. Lately, I've been seriously thinking about only running Windows 10 for games, and abandoning my former casual interest in the Windows ecosystem.)
Why do I bring this all up? Just to say I understand completely what you mean about Debian. But I presume Pop!OS is working off the Debian unstable branch. Debian's management team is totally committed to open source and public domain, so of course its hell trying to get Debian working the way you want it to. Ubuntu's original mission was to focus on the user experience, so they totally run roughshod on Debian's distribution, including Debian no-no's like freely available proprietary binaries. Unity & Mir never bothered me, because the dogfood was never forced fed to the masses, and I ran stock or Gnome Ubuntu LTS when I bothered. (I totally get going to MATE, though, I used to do Solaris administration.)
When any company is looking to target Linux they only look at 2 distros, [...]
As I suggested previously, fuck System76's approach. I just don't care; I haven't bought any of their laptops (yet). I do like the fact that they realize they can't depend on the amateurish chaos that is linux, and feel they have to get their hands dirty with their own tweaked distro. It may put them into the position where they'll eventually be optimizing their products with power saving features and handing some of the modifications upstream to the larger linux community. That is where I really hope they'll eventually go (and thus I'm not going to crucify them for their attempt). If Pop!OS happens to be no good for a lot of their customers, fine, its System76's fuckup and their sunken costs and sales; I don't own stock in their company. But stop crucifying this company for not following one's "true" religion (not you, other posters), and realize its their fucking money, not yours.
Just doing internet, and some spread sheeting and word processing, the majority of the market, than Linux is factually the most efficient OS.
Citation please.
Want to play computer games, well, technically, "The operating system is Orbis OS, based on FreeBSD 9." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], is the most efficient.
Yeah, gamers care about hardware efficiency, not what games are available to play on it. (Duh.) That's why Steam on Linux "owns" the gaming market. /s
In a business environment it depends upon the main packages you use in that environment.
I'll let the PlayStation4 penetration in the business market speak for itself. Again, you need to provide citations for you to claim "proof" or "fact".
In the server environment Linux absolutely craps all over Windows.
Yup, and when I need to buy a standalone server, I will probably run linux on it. But I was talking about laptops.
Yeah, let your fanboy flag fly, and use Trump style arguments to persuade the technically inclined. "Fuck the corporate power."
What do you want me to say? I have no proof laptop manufacturers will deliberately cripple AMD based products. I will say its quite possible in order for the laptop vendor to fit a pricing niche, they will deliberately do stupid things to cripple an AMD product, so it stays in the low price niche, and not compete with a higher margin product, which happens to be Intel based hardware But AMD probably is just as much to blame, because they can't produce enough of a particular CPU for the manufacturer to adjust their pricing product lines. (Remember, until recently, Intel could guarantee they could put out a zillion CPUs of varying capability, and AMD is stuck figuring out their price point.)
Its up to AMD to figure out how to best showcase their products, probably by partnering with a specific large vendor, guaranteeing a competitive price point, and supervising the design. But to this day, AMD CPUs will run hotter and consume more power; they just aren't as IPC(?) efficient as Intel products.
It depends on the laptop vendor. Some companies (Apple in the extreme) participate in the design. Some companies take what manufacturers offer. But they aren't the same complete board, with exact specs, or else one could figure out the generic board Dell gets, and buy a replacement board direct from the manufacturer. The mobo board maker doesn't take the responsibility for CPU allocation from Intel; they leave it to the laptop seller. They just give a rough number to their manufacturing capacity, and its up to the laptop seller (or some other conglomerate) to hit up Intel for CPUs. The way, the laptop seller controls its inventory and sets the order size, not the manufacturer. (There will be exceptional cases as well.)
I take it you don't remember all of the abandonware distros put out on the netbooks, nettops and cheap desktops a decade ago that where all dead within a year only to be replaced with XP Starter edition.
Nope, don't remember that era, even though I was in my thirties at the time.
There is a reason Dell, HP Zareason, Puget Systems and many others use Ubuntu, they don't have to go through the hassle of maintaining an entire distro, they just provide packages and patches to Canonical and they add it to the repos.
You are aware that Ubuntu uses its base OS off of Debian packages? Ubuntu then tweaks whatever is coming off of Debian, including incorporating proprietary binary code into Ubuntu distributed packages. Its possible that I am wrong, but I believe Pop!OS is running off of Debian distributions as well.
The real reason why System76 wanted to get off Ubuntu was that Ubuntu for the past decade has been ineptly tilting at technical windmills where Ubuntu originally wanted its own Unity desktop, that had nothing directly to do with Gnome or KDE, and then their own rendering layer (Mir?), and eventually just gave up on all of it last(?) year. A lot of Ubuntu users abandoned Ubuntu in the past decade because of this, and System76 decided they couldn't risk losing their customer base being dependent on a poorly(?) managed OS distributor. System76 wanted to standardize its OS in a manner where they weren't dependent upon the whims of Ubuntu, and they're chasing business customers, so they know they don't have to provide the ultimate consumer experience.
So Pop!OS is very basic, its GUI is theirs, build off a lot of other linux windowing code, and they can ensure that their business customers can have a working laptop that works the same way four years from now. Don't think of System76 leaving a stable linux distribution; think of System76 leaving the Ubuntu base product for the Debian base product (that Ubuntu is based on), and Pop!OS tweaks off of Debian, rather than Ubuntu. In any case, I don't care. I just don't like anyone (or company) being pilloried over fanboy ignorance.
And linux works fine under my old laptop with the Arrandale CPU. But I obviously can't use updated code that expects a graphics hardware primitive that the CPU can't deliver. And it doesn't run 2 hours on battery.
Of course there was. Like it or not, laptops are going to be most power efficient on a Microsoft OS, because they own the Wintel market. One day that may change, but not until hardware chip manufacturers are designing their chips to be power efficient under linux, while linux kernel developers are incorporating those power saving features, and glibc, gcc, and GUIs are mandating power efficient code into their products. "Nice tweak, does it interfere with sleep mode 3X? Then it doesn't get put into the codebase."
I'll never understand why System76, Zareason, Purism, Think Penguin etc keep only ever offering Intel/Nvidia crap.
Simply, you're utterly ignorant of the manufacturing business. They're not there to make a laptop that makes their customers happiest. They're there to make a laptop as cheaply as possible, and then charge as much as possible, while still satisfying the majority of laptop purchasers who are not you (geek). They need to have a relationship with the various chip manufacturers, because those manufacturers provide an allocation of CPUs at a price, and those manufacturers are going to favor the the company that gives them the best long term profit and jumps through their hoops.
Before Ryzen, only a fucking moron would buy an AMD laptop, because they have to run hotter & use more power in order to match the performance of an analogous Intel CPU. Even now, there's no consensus that Ryzen cpus, specifically made for laptops, can run as power efficiently as Intel. Ryzen only hit the market maybe 3 years ago. No major manufacturer is going to jeopardize their CPU allocation with Intel for a company that makes inferior laptop CPUs and can't even ensure they can deliver X CPUs to them per quarter, or be producing a laptopable, competitive CPU two years later. Then you have to design a laptop around AMD hardware. Even now, I don't think AMD has a laptop CPU based on Ryzen until their 2nd generation, which only came out a year ago.
As long as AMD is committed to putting out a competitive laptop CPU, they will eventually show up in laptop products. But it doesn't happen overnight, and it certainly doesn't happen in less than a year.
The reason why System76 puts out its own spin on debian is strategic to the manufacturer. They want to be able to control (and provide support) for the OS, which is intrinsic to building a consumer experience. They don't want to be at the mercy of the whims of debian or ubuntu corp (or microsoft for that matter).
Also, anyone who claims to be technically competent should be aware that linux isn't efficient with laptop power consumption, because it requires driver support (from the chip manufacturer) and kernel/OS support for various sleep modes. If you want a laptop that runs for hours off of battery, you going to get that extra hour from running windows or macOS (because between Microsoft/Apple and the hardware manufacturers, they're plowing a ton of proprietary work into it). If you run linux, then you probably won't be able to run your laptop off of battery for as long. But with Pop!OS, System76 could be incorporating more of those power efficient features by negotiating with the chip manufacturers and the mobo designer/manufacturer, but some of that customized work probably also needs to be in the OS. (I have no idea if System76 is actually doing this.)
You're not satisfied with Pop!OS? Fine, that's still the manufacturer's responsibility. But they aren't putting out Pop!OS out of egotism.
If I ever bother paying money for a laptop, its going to be a laptop with a separate GPU not dependent upon Intel Corp. My last laptop CPU was the Arrandale model, and the OS could not be upgraded to Windows 10, because Intel abandoned support for the CPU after 1.5 years. The problem was that the GPU didn't support advanced graphics primitives that became "expected" for Windows 10. Intel could have written an updated driver that would work in Windows 10, and ignored the obscure calls, or even made the API available for someone to write a 3rd party driver, but of course, they didn't.
It would explain why we only see one side of the Moon... (Do I really need to place a /s here?)
Grow up. Even if there was H2O & oxygen to collect from the Moon, its not going to affect the earth, or knock the Moon out of its orbit.