"below market rate" in the Bay Area means something quite different than what you might stereotype. These aren't section 8 housing for ex-convicts. "Below market rate" simply means "not $1M or above". So that the non-tech staff or workers (full time jobs) earning "just" 100k or so can afford to live there.
China's car industry is *for the most part* a domestic industry. They don't export much period ($5B in auto exports in 2016 compared $151B for Germany and $55B for the US).
Of that tiny amount of exporting, the US is 9% of China's exports of automobiles. China mainly and mostly exports to the EU (20%). We're ranked just above Egypt for imports from China (WOOOOO!!?).
"4th largest" does not imply 1 - 3 were proportional. Nor does it imply China will give two shits about how much they export (if they mainly consume domestically).
Take your (trolling) or (lack of understanding) elsewhere.
Beijing has 0 fucks to give about how much the US taxes their auto imports.
And there will be retaliation. Obama tried this shit in 2009 when he taxed imported tires. China taxed chickens and a shit ton of jobs were lost in the poultry industry.
I suspect Musk cars very little about Chinese solar panels since it's not a competing market (rooftop PV's mostly come out of Malaysia and Vietnam these days). The cheap chinese stuff are being phased out.
There's very little coming cheap out of China that we don't want to come out of China. Most of it are basic materials and/or stuff that's assembled from cheap labor (but even that's not happening too much anymore).
I'd say they're getting the shaft end of the trade.
The US imports next to zilch cars from China. They won't feel a thing. And the stuff we *do* import help local industries more than it hurts when it's subsidized by China (steel workers hate Chinese steel; everyone else from car makers to soda can makers to home builders who employ 1000x more people love it).
China simply has the leverage here. And chest thumping won't help. You gotta be sneakier than that.
Sure you can. It's not a bilateral game. It's a very very complex web. Tariffs *can* be useful but not as a blunt tool. Some things (especially basic materials and even labor in some cases) you want to drive down the cost of and it serves relatively little economic use to have it within your borders or not.
For those, you let foreign governments subsidize so you can import them on the cheap.
For other things, high-margin things like cars, planes, etc. You want people to buy your stuff -- the finished product -- instead of foreign products. So you can impose a tariff on those strategically.
But tariffs aren't the best tool for this. Tariffs only make your own cars more competitive locally. Subsidies work much better. Even better is to put money into R&D where you simply make a better product.
Do modern nuclear plants *really* melt down that often or at all? CA is ~20% nuke powered and it has, to my knowledge, never experienced a meltdown. The only meltdowns that have happened are due to negligence and a natural disaster happening all at once.
And really, if you're that NIMBY about it, just put the plant in the middle of nowhere and run a giant superconductor to the nearest power hub.
I think too many people played Sim City and thought it was a reality simulator.
The quality of iOS matters a whole lot more than the quality of MacOS. MacOS's only real purpose these days is for a limited market; there are plenty of people who get by with just an iOS device and a really cheap Windows (or Chrome) laptop.
iOS has been, however, not only stagnant but buggy as hell over the last few versions. Meanwhile Android has made really large strides getting more polished.
I get the feeling Jobs was good at reigning in some of Ive's more out-there ideas and only keeping the good parts. He probably also kept Ives on-point instead of letting him go off and design storefronts or t-shirts or whatever the fuck he wanted while the main product line lingered.
The phone needed the X update like 2 years ago. We should be on 3rd gen OLED by now with a much more radical design change. But Ive was too busy hanging out with Taylor Swift or something.
A lot of people pick up these walled garden platforms now. For instance Slack (for work chat) is very popular along with the Microsoft suite of Office/OneDrive.
People rail against these platform companies but they offer a lot of productive features when working in teams.
Before Google and Facebook, there was Ebay, Oracle, HP, Cisco, Sun, AOL, nVidia etc. (90's tech boom). Before them there was Intel, Fairchild, TI, Maxim, Analog Devices, etc.
Apple has always been there. Along with a bunch of others that are still around.
This area has had behemoth tech companies for a good 40 years now and each decade grows even more.
As to why they don't spread out? That's like asking why Wall Street traders don't spread out. Because information sharing and collaboration leads to much better results. And that is far more important than cost of real estate.
Everything from VC capital to talent hunting to investor meetings to office spaces where you can poach employees from the building next door happens in that 10 mile radius.
Those cities are expensive because the tech companies are there. Mountain View, Cupertino and Sunnyvale were orchards and farms with dirt-cheap housing before the rise of Google, Apple, Facebook, Intel, etc.
Anywhere the tech moves; high prices will follow. Just look at Portland and Seattle.
In reality though, all a faster CPU gets you is software developers that write more complicated code. So you end up with the same amount of absolute time doing compute work but with much higher energy use.
But yes, if you ran iOS 7 (or Jelly Bean) on a modern phone CPU, it'd be both blazing fast and very power efficient.
It's higher IPC in Geekbench. IPC varies by workload. Note that there isn't that big of a difference in IPC between the 5W i7-7Y75 (Kaby Lake) and the 91W i7-7700k (Kaby Lake).
You could walk away from that data point thinking that there's no difference between the 91W desktop processor and the 5W laptop processor. Or you can walk away thinking that Geekbench is a limited benchmark that only measures a tiny subset of processor functions.
I doubt Apple optimizes for Geekbench. But whatever internal iOS workload they do optimize for apparently has similar stress points as Geekbench.
Daily driver for commuting/work/shopping? EVs for sure, but let's try to charge them off wind/solar please? Otherwise you're shifting the efficiency problem from your engine bay to the grid. I hate smug EV drivers boasting about "clean" driving. They get all flustered when I point out that grid-charging has all sorts of issues from coal-fired electricity.
These arguments usually stem from taking a geographical "national average" for electricity generation and applying it to your "average EV". The problem is that EV adoption, population and miles driven aren't done on a geographically "average" scale.
Most EV's driven by commuters who rack up miles are done in the more affluent cities/States. Hell, CA has the bulk (nearly half) of EV's sold within the US. CA also happens to have very little coal generation with about 50% coming from natural gas:
27% comes from renewables and 10% from nuclear. All 3 forms generate far less pollution compared to an ICE. The grid comes with its own issues, of course, including balancing base-load with peak load for EV charging (at night). But hopefully utility-scale batteries will alleviate that somewhat.
I think a similar scenario exists for WA, NY and even TX.
To be fair, most electronic devices are "computers" if we go by that definition. But you'll never hear a TV, DVD player, watch, toy or walkie-talkie be referred to as a "computer".
It might be one of those terms that become anachronistic one day. Kinda like "adding machine".
While there will always be *some* applications that can utilize the computing power of larger form factors, they tend to, over time, become more and more niche.
Just look at laptop sales vs desktop sales. Same OS, same programs, but once laptops got "good enough", entire demographics began using them and forgetting about ever having a desktop.
I expect the same will happen with tablets: the majority of users eventually will use a tablet as their primary computing device. There might still be a market for the 16-core mega-towers but only if you're a content producer. And even then, it might be relegated to 1 per office.
There are many many content creators now that use "pro" laptops instead of desktops and that's plenty computing power for them.
I've noticed this with auto-pilot. It's good at following cars that are moving but if I'm driving down a road and there's a car stopped in front of me (for instance, at a red light), it seems to full speed way past the point where I'd start slowing down when driving manually.
I've not let it do its thing yet, instead I'll take over.
It seems they've calibrated it to function like most adaptive cruise controls in that it's great at matching the speed of a car it's already tracking in front of you. But it isn't calibrated for non highway driving in that it'll stop for parked cars...
Slashdot Mirror
With the exception of "full photoshop", all those other pieces of software are available on iOS and Android today.
And on the app side, there are tools that, while not quite Photoshop, do rival 95% of the tasks that use Photoshop.
Moore's Law: the density of devices (transistors) that can be packed into a microchip doubles roughly every 18 months.
"below market rate" in the Bay Area means something quite different than what you might stereotype. These aren't section 8 housing for ex-convicts. "Below market rate" simply means "not $1M or above". So that the non-tech staff or workers (full time jobs) earning "just" 100k or so can afford to live there.
Hehehe. I'm reminded of when Obama tried to put a tariff on tires. That ended up gutting jobs in the chicken industry.
China will reap the protectionist ramifications of what they sowed soon enough. There's no reason the US should go down the same doomed road.
That statistic is misleading as fuck:
https://www.statista.com/stati...
http://www.worldstopexports.co...
China's car industry is *for the most part* a domestic industry. They don't export much period ($5B in auto exports in 2016 compared $151B for Germany and $55B for the US).
Of that tiny amount of exporting, the US is 9% of China's exports of automobiles. China mainly and mostly exports to the EU (20%). We're ranked just above Egypt for imports from China (WOOOOO!!?).
"4th largest" does not imply 1 - 3 were proportional. Nor does it imply China will give two shits about how much they export (if they mainly consume domestically).
Take your (trolling) or (lack of understanding) elsewhere.
The US imports next to no cars from China.
Beijing has 0 fucks to give about how much the US taxes their auto imports.
And there will be retaliation. Obama tried this shit in 2009 when he taxed imported tires. China taxed chickens and a shit ton of jobs were lost in the poultry industry.
Trade wars end poorly for everyone.
I suspect Musk cars very little about Chinese solar panels since it's not a competing market (rooftop PV's mostly come out of Malaysia and Vietnam these days). The cheap chinese stuff are being phased out.
There's very little coming cheap out of China that we don't want to come out of China. Most of it are basic materials and/or stuff that's assembled from cheap labor (but even that's not happening too much anymore).
I'd say they're getting the shaft end of the trade.
Only if you have the leverage to negotiate.
The US imports next to zilch cars from China. They won't feel a thing. And the stuff we *do* import help local industries more than it hurts when it's subsidized by China (steel workers hate Chinese steel; everyone else from car makers to soda can makers to home builders who employ 1000x more people love it).
China simply has the leverage here. And chest thumping won't help. You gotta be sneakier than that.
We've had a 25% tariffs on trucks for decades. Trucks also happen to be the most profitable cars people make.
We've just never bothered with low-margin cars (sub-20k) because it's not useful to have the low-margin stuff done domestically.
Anyone who tells you America has not been "America First" is either ill-informed, deceiving you or both.
Sure you can. It's not a bilateral game. It's a very very complex web. Tariffs *can* be useful but not as a blunt tool. Some things (especially basic materials and even labor in some cases) you want to drive down the cost of and it serves relatively little economic use to have it within your borders or not.
For those, you let foreign governments subsidize so you can import them on the cheap.
For other things, high-margin things like cars, planes, etc. You want people to buy your stuff -- the finished product -- instead of foreign products. So you can impose a tariff on those strategically.
But tariffs aren't the best tool for this. Tariffs only make your own cars more competitive locally. Subsidies work much better. Even better is to put money into R&D where you simply make a better product.
Well, for me, the barrier to entry into VR is requiring me to hook it up to a PC box.
Having a giant collection of fans inside a loud, power-hungry box is not something I want in my living room.
I already have trouble with the low-profile keyboards on the new MacBooks.
A touchscreen would make it even worse.
Do modern nuclear plants *really* melt down that often or at all? CA is ~20% nuke powered and it has, to my knowledge, never experienced a meltdown. The only meltdowns that have happened are due to negligence and a natural disaster happening all at once.
And really, if you're that NIMBY about it, just put the plant in the middle of nowhere and run a giant superconductor to the nearest power hub.
I think too many people played Sim City and thought it was a reality simulator.
The quality of iOS matters a whole lot more than the quality of MacOS. MacOS's only real purpose these days is for a limited market; there are plenty of people who get by with just an iOS device and a really cheap Windows (or Chrome) laptop.
iOS has been, however, not only stagnant but buggy as hell over the last few versions. Meanwhile Android has made really large strides getting more polished.
I get the feeling Jobs was good at reigning in some of Ive's more out-there ideas and only keeping the good parts. He probably also kept Ives on-point instead of letting him go off and design storefronts or t-shirts or whatever the fuck he wanted while the main product line lingered.
The phone needed the X update like 2 years ago. We should be on 3rd gen OLED by now with a much more radical design change. But Ive was too busy hanging out with Taylor Swift or something.
A lot of people pick up these walled garden platforms now. For instance Slack (for work chat) is very popular along with the Microsoft suite of Office/OneDrive.
People rail against these platform companies but they offer a lot of productive features when working in teams.
Before Google and Facebook, there was Ebay, Oracle, HP, Cisco, Sun, AOL, nVidia etc. (90's tech boom). Before them there was Intel, Fairchild, TI, Maxim, Analog Devices, etc.
Apple has always been there. Along with a bunch of others that are still around.
This area has had behemoth tech companies for a good 40 years now and each decade grows even more.
As to why they don't spread out? That's like asking why Wall Street traders don't spread out. Because information sharing and collaboration leads to much better results. And that is far more important than cost of real estate.
Everything from VC capital to talent hunting to investor meetings to office spaces where you can poach employees from the building next door happens in that 10 mile radius.
Those cities are expensive because the tech companies are there. Mountain View, Cupertino and Sunnyvale were orchards and farms with dirt-cheap housing before the rise of Google, Apple, Facebook, Intel, etc.
Anywhere the tech moves; high prices will follow. Just look at Portland and Seattle.
In reality though, all a faster CPU gets you is software developers that write more complicated code. So you end up with the same amount of absolute time doing compute work but with much higher energy use.
But yes, if you ran iOS 7 (or Jelly Bean) on a modern phone CPU, it'd be both blazing fast and very power efficient.
It's higher IPC in Geekbench. IPC varies by workload. Note that there isn't that big of a difference in IPC between the 5W i7-7Y75 (Kaby Lake) and the 91W i7-7700k (Kaby Lake).
You could walk away from that data point thinking that there's no difference between the 91W desktop processor and the 5W laptop processor. Or you can walk away thinking that Geekbench is a limited benchmark that only measures a tiny subset of processor functions.
I doubt Apple optimizes for Geekbench. But whatever internal iOS workload they do optimize for apparently has similar stress points as Geekbench.
Daily driver for commuting/work/shopping? EVs for sure, but let's try to charge them off wind/solar please? Otherwise you're shifting the efficiency problem from your engine bay to the grid. I hate smug EV drivers boasting about "clean" driving. They get all flustered when I point out that grid-charging has all sorts of issues from coal-fired electricity.
These arguments usually stem from taking a geographical "national average" for electricity generation and applying it to your "average EV". The problem is that EV adoption, population and miles driven aren't done on a geographically "average" scale.
Most EV's driven by commuters who rack up miles are done in the more affluent cities/States. Hell, CA has the bulk (nearly half) of EV's sold within the US. CA also happens to have very little coal generation with about 50% coming from natural gas:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/alman...
27% comes from renewables and 10% from nuclear. All 3 forms generate far less pollution compared to an ICE. The grid comes with its own issues, of course, including balancing base-load with peak load for EV charging (at night). But hopefully utility-scale batteries will alleviate that somewhat.
I think a similar scenario exists for WA, NY and even TX.
Every web browser would qualify as a "computer" by that definition (and you can argue it's true). And smartphones/tablets do have web browsers....
To be fair, most electronic devices are "computers" if we go by that definition. But you'll never hear a TV, DVD player, watch, toy or walkie-talkie be referred to as a "computer".
It might be one of those terms that become anachronistic one day. Kinda like "adding machine".
To your point #2:
While there will always be *some* applications that can utilize the computing power of larger form factors, they tend to, over time, become more and more niche.
Just look at laptop sales vs desktop sales. Same OS, same programs, but once laptops got "good enough", entire demographics began using them and forgetting about ever having a desktop.
I expect the same will happen with tablets: the majority of users eventually will use a tablet as their primary computing device. There might still be a market for the 16-core mega-towers but only if you're a content producer. And even then, it might be relegated to 1 per office.
There are many many content creators now that use "pro" laptops instead of desktops and that's plenty computing power for them.
I've noticed this with auto-pilot. It's good at following cars that are moving but if I'm driving down a road and there's a car stopped in front of me (for instance, at a red light), it seems to full speed way past the point where I'd start slowing down when driving manually.
I've not let it do its thing yet, instead I'll take over.
It seems they've calibrated it to function like most adaptive cruise controls in that it's great at matching the speed of a car it's already tracking in front of you. But it isn't calibrated for non highway driving in that it'll stop for parked cars...