I think the original Broadcom chips were overstock in the normal market because they were somewhat a nuisance of unnecessary checkboxes that would reward you with further testing/diagnostic complications in return for paying too much..
They were overstock because they were underpowered, overpriced garbage targeting the set-top market and those manufacturers weren't interested.
Ebon Upton started Raspberry Pi to help Qualcomm dump stock they couldn't get rid of otherwise.
Look at every single Pi to come out - it's been faster than what came before it, but in a matter of weeks half a dozen competitors have better boards with faster processors for cheaper - that don't have all the nonsense like RPi foundation repeatedly fucking up the power supply so vendors could milk people on "pi compatible" USB power bricks.
A Pi 5 16GB costs $120. Plus case ($10) plus power supply ($12) plus video adapter ($10)...$152. That is absurd.
A huge chunk of the value of an RPI is the ecosystem & support. The actual hardware in & of itself is consistently mediocre to poor for the price these days.
I think RPI is starting to lose sight of that with the Pi 5 and especially the 16gb models. It's starting to just be expensive and the better support for an ARM SBC starts losing a lot of value when it's butting up against x86 mini-pcs like the large number of N100-based options at around the $150 price point[1]. They aren't really any less efficient, and x86 software support is still consistently better than ARM software support.
You may want to check what the conditions are on transferring credit from other schools.. In some schools you only need a limited portion of credit from your own school and a sign off from an appropriate professor for equivalences.
All agencies have process for handling FOIA requests for issues that are often of a more serious nature than some data possibly arriving fresh enough for front running..
So the other 8 types of exemptions must exempt virtually every agency with a meaningful role, but wait, no, they don't. Agencies are expected to judge every request against these exemptions.
I think the Olympics in particular are mostly supposed to be a less violent outlet for nationalism, but I think we learned from the Anger Management craze that safe outlets lead to a normalization and more of the original problem.
It's an absolutely awful outlet for "nationalism" in a post-national diversified world.
Table tennis, for example, is basically a bunch of Chinese people battling it out for gold for their host country. Am I supposed to root for the Chinese-Australians as if they're any more representative of me than the Chinese-Canadians?
no serious fan of the sport would agree. not even truls would consider him to be the 2nd best in the world. but yes, he did have an amazing run to the silver
If you are dumb enough not to hire someone who is able to integrate ChatGPT from analbeads into a conversation while looking natural then that is on you.
Yes like gold, real estate, and also arguably the index fund investment (that everyone buys into via 401k).
All these investments are only worth anything if someone buys them from you at a higher value.
Yes you can generate revenue from these but looking at increases in P/E ratios and real estate prices / income growth tells the story that the increases are primarily fueled by inflation.
For example compare the pre-pandemic and post-pandemic rent for a given apartment and you will see if the "underlying investment" is providing increasing value or if the value is the same or less for an older building but inflation is propping it up.
> All these investments are only worth anything if someone buys them from you at a higher value.
The index fund may be over priced but much of the market has actual productivity that leads to dividends eventually, so whether someone will buy that off you is not about the next sucker or betting on an increase in wealth among suckers.
In actuality fiat currency makes everything a pyramid scheme and allows the government to spend the wealth of the nation in whichever manner it deems fit, since the value of inflation accrues disproportionately to the asset owner (aka people who were there before you, aka pyramid scheme) vs. the earning productive class.
Inflation benifits the borrowers. Fist currency makes thing run smoothly when well managed, alternatives such as the gold standard have proven to be much worse that's why everyone switched
the borrowers that just have a mortgage for their own house while working for a paycheck don't really benefit from it. Sure, their debt has been reduced, but their wage too. And inflation is generally lower then interest, so that benefit gets wiped too.
The by far biggest winners with inflation are the people that own a lot of assets.
People didn't switch because of stability problems with gold standard. That's just propaganda and fiat apologetics. As a matter of fact gold standard seen fastest and most stable growth in the history of human kind. Gold is hard to transport, secure and divide so ledgers were used instead which allowed government to just end goal standards to fund WW1 efforts, which also shows the magnitude of destruction and statist largese this enabled.
I recommend Broken Money for history and analysis how it came to be that things are how they are.
They literally did. They didn't want to go off the gold standard but they did because there was no choice and soon after each country went off the gold standard they started recovering from the great depression.
This is true but the government is the biggest borrower, who then immediately spends the funds by "awarding" contracts, obviously they don't have any corruption or favoritism when they do this, nor do they place trades using their insider knowledge of how the funds will be appropriated, which will definitely never impact the average citizen borrower (who is probably in need of borrowing money to buy a house, which is so expensive because... inflation)
Still, it's confusing to use WD as an example of high end. They have dramless which is like the winmodem of SSDs, and even in this case no encryption. Clearly they are a budget manufacturer that happened to have something that worked out for some people.
Samsung is a much better example of a manufacturer that Apple would be emulating, investing in their own controllers, etc, and certainly not leaving out security features with no plan.
You're completely wrong. Both Samsung and WD have a full lineup of consumer and enterprise SSDs, retail and OEM, including low-end DRAMless budget drives and high-end drives, with vertical integration of the NAND manufacturing, controller silicon, and bringing the complete drive to retail. Writing off WD as a budget manufacturer in favor of Samsung is stupid brand loyalty ungrounded in reality. Dismissing a high-end product because the same company also sells different low-end products under a different sub-brand is also ridiculous.
So I'm wrong that Samsung is a possible example of what Apple could be that doesn't make WD a realistic example. Apple would have no more experience designing and selling trash than a UNIX vendor would have had with IDE and that makes it harder to sell top end that uses cheap performance hacks some of the time.
I'm having difficulty parsing your comment and I'm not at all sure you're not just trolling, but I'll try to be simple and clear: WD as a brand is on par with Samsung. WD's high-end consumer SSDs are comparable in quality, performance, etc. to Samsung's high-end consumer SSDs. Using a WD high-end consumer SSD to compare against Apple's storage options is every bit as valid as using a Samsung high-end consumer SSD to compare against Apple's storage options. Implying that WD drives are all (or almost all) trash is wrong. Implying that Samsung drives are all (or almost all) trash is wrong. Asserting that Apple's Mac storage is substantially superior to high-end consumer SSDs in performance or reliability is wrong. Believing that any of these companies are above "cheap performance hacks" is wrong.
In the long term, Apple was on a cycle of market failure and then rejuvenation attempt because they either can't make high volumes of questionable components or they ruin their whole brand selling them. They have no dumping capability like a PC brand, I.e. I didn't even know what compromise Samsung's non-Pro models made vs EVO and they are obfuscated in searches by the PRO models. Great for dumping garbage for scale and testing out cost cutting tricks..
Intel leaving the SSD market probably has more relation to Apple than WD or Samsung.
I'm not asserting that Apple succeeds in making high quality, I'm saying their hardware trust makes them uncompetitive with the entire PC market where some brands will deliver high enough quality and all brands have access to low quality dumping to reach scale, etc.
Yes, they do. The base models. They gimp those in stupid ways ALL the time to use up questionable old components. Just look at how silly the iPad lineup got with regards to how they interface with the Pencil. Low end models use old lightning Pencils that require plugging in and an adapter from lightning to USB C. Then you got models with way too little storage and cut back storage so it's smaller and considerably slower than what's advertised, etc.
> They have no dumping capability like a PC brand, I.e. I didn't even know what compromise Samsung's non-Pro models made vs EVO and they are obfuscated in searches by the PRO models.
Ok, I think your first mistake here is assuming that retail SSDs are a priority for Samsung. What they actually care about are the SSDs they sell to PC OEMs, and the enterprise SSDs. They don't really need the retail product line to serve as some kind of experimental dumping grounds. The low-end models that make it to the retail product line exist because they already have similar models in mass production for PC OEMs, and they can make a retail version by changing from green solder mask to black solder mask and printing a new sticker. (The high-end retail models exist for much the same reason, but sometimes have more meaningful hardware differences because PC OEMs aren't so obsessive about maximizing scores on bad benchmarks.)
You've just explained to me how Samsung can maintain a good reputation in a way that Apple cannot using what I referred to as dumping..
I don't really understand how everyone on this thread can explain the nuances that should be what is interesting while claiming everything is the same.
Either technology/politics has changed and organizational structures we claimed in the 1980s to be both unethical and inefficient are now only unethical, or they have not changed and we are in the same cycle with these organizations as before but somehow elongated..
But no, what is interesting to HN is that there's a lot of fine detail in the physical market, but somehow when searching for any interpretation, a widget is a widget and Apple is WD and nothing interesting will ever happen again.
If there is only one time they would honor their fair market obligations and not raise their own rankings, it would be on a cost center like free tech support to consumers.
A lot of people learn to program from declarative languages like spread sheets. We should all be happy we have access to defective versions of assembly at too high a level but be angry that we had to use too low level an editor?
