Hosting is a commodity. Runtimes are too. In this case, the strategy is to make a better runtime, attract developers, and eventually give them a super easy way to run their project in the cloud. Eg: bun deploy, which is a reserved no op command. I really like Buns DX.
Apple is known to be one of the kings of putting their suppliers over a barrel. There's a good chance this is mainly a move to negotiate a better deal with TSMC, and even if it's not, the chance that Intel gets a boat load of profit out of it is very small.
And historically when fabs have been separated from a business, it's always been in a way to shed a capital intensive albatross. In that case, they're normally loaded up with so much debt in the divorce that they were essentially never intended to succeed or continue to keep up, but instead just barely stay afloat on the already capitalized investment.
> the chance that Intel gets a boat load of profit out of it is very small
Why? TSMC seems to be doing ok. It’s worked with RAM and SSD suppliers the same way and they seem to be doing ok too. So does Foxconn. Apple has been known to subsidise leading edge nodes in exchange for priority or temporary exclusivity, and is absolutely ruthless, but it does not prevent its partners from being successful.
> And historically when fabs have been separated from a business, it's always been in a way to shed a capital intensive albatross
That is true. But there are other factors that might be worth considering. First, Apple hates being dependent on a single supplier (which is a single point of failure). Then, hedging risks related to the security situation in Taiwan makes sense. Whether it means subsidising a new TSMC plant in the West or subsidising a new Intel plant might not be that huge a difference. Finally, it might apply some gentle and friendly pressure on TSMC by threatening to shift some production to a competitor.
Whether all this makes sense or not depends on quantitative and qualitative analysis based on data we don’t really have.
Not in most cases. Apple, AMD, and most other chip makers lack a fab. The design what the fabs can make, but they don't have much input into the fabs. Someone makes a fab, and you make something it can made.
Of course things are never that neat. I have no doubt the large players have input into the fabs - we have no idea what. However the two teams are still different companies, when the fab and chip design are the same company there is the possibility of more cooperation (or less - we don't know. In the best case for both there is more when it is all internal, but we don't know if this is the best case)
Is that true though? Better coolants, inverters / variable speed / scroll /swing compressors, insulation and mfg, etc. maybe for residential it’s less impactful, but refrigeration in general has better efficiency than 30 years ago.
The Montreal protocol (1987) put us back into the dark ages with coolants for a while (both with CFC ban and later phase outs of HFCs). I suspect if you tested a refrigerator from 40 years ago they would give modern ones a run for their money...
It was obviously a worthwhile sacrifice for the ozone layer though.
Utility scale fields tend to have single axis trackers which can optimize output. They are expensive though. I wonder if a manual rack that could lock at 30 or 90 could work and be cost effective.
W = Watt. h = hour. One kg supply one watt of power for 178.7 hours (without considering other factors). Power is how much energy can it supply at a moment. Up to 8.3 kW instantaneous.
Hours to seconds conversion probably, the number 60 plays a role there. (Albeit not base 60 but mod 60, but I'm not firm enough in the math to rule out that there is some correspondence between the concepts)
The "oh but there's crime in fiat" argument holds no water.
Sure, HSBC facilitated money laundering and drug trafficking in Mexico. And when it came out, the fiat response was a huge outcry and putting a stop to it.
The crypto response is to say "screw the laws, let's go all in with money laundering and drug trafficking".
It's like noticing that kitchen knives are occasionally used for murder, and then concluding that it's a good idea to sell machine guns at every corner.
Fiat is indispensable, and (due to regulation) better for legitimate purposes than for crime.
Crypto is entirely dispensable, and (due to its inherent limitations (inefficient, slow, cumbersome)) better for crime than legitimate purposes.
Fiat currencies have collapsed in the past due to bad monetary policy (regulation is only good right?). Ask Argentinians how they feel about stablecoins after rapid inflation.
Alternative currencies offer competition and access. Why is that such a problem?
Fiat is not indispensable, hello. Did you forget that human societies used to primarily have metallism-based economies before central banks managed to entrap the entire world in a system of debt slavery?
Sure, and that gold standard failed. Fiat (with a money supply that can be discretionarily managed, and allows for monetary policy) is indispensable to a modern economy.
This is a dumb question. The Fed can endlessly print as many dollars as it wants. They could print $20 trillion tomorrow. See? Just think about how much gold would be required to back that $20 trillion! Clearly gold is stupid. Right?
Yes, each opcode has a gas cost. Some are quite expensive, like writing storage (changing network state). Each block has a target gas limit. Say 30 million. A single transaction cannot exceed that. Additionally, a transaction specifies a bid on how much they are willing to spend, in ether, per gas. That said, transferring funds does not typically require significant gas.
