psvrh

I can’t catch quite the drift what x86/x64 chips are good for anymore, other than gaming, nostalgia and spec boasting.

Probably two things:

• Cost- and power-no-object performance, which isn't necessarily a positive as it encourages bad behaviour.
• The platform is much more open, courtesy of some quirks of how IBM spec'ed BIOS back before the dawn of time. Yes, you can get ARM and RISC-V licenses (openPOWER is kind of a non-entity these days) and design your own SBC, but every single ARM and RISC-V machine boots differently, while x86 and amd64 have a standard boot process.

All those fancy "CoPilot ready" Qualcomm machines? They're following the same path as ARM-based smartphones have, where every single machine is bespoke and you're looking for specific boot images on whatever the equivalent of xda-developers is, or (and this is more likely) just scrapping them when they're used up, which will probably happen a lot faster, given Qualcomm's history with support.

I'd love to see a replacement for x86/amd64 that isn't a power suck, but has an open interface to BIOS.

If you're lucky. You could have a Sun parent.

Well, they are owned by the richest family in Canada.

It isn't.

Acknowledging them with anything more than "you're weird" just give the lie oxygen.

Unemployed young people who despair for the future.

That always works out well.

Way to go, Bibi. Putting all of Israel and every member of the Jewish diaspora at risk just to save your corrupt political skin.

Oh, and killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Trump would handle the economy better, viewers thought? Really?!

The only reason he didn't cause a recession is because COVID forced Keynesian policies early.

Neoliberalism broke democracy.

People are willing to vote for someone, anyone, who promises to make things better because they're tired of bootlicking milquetoast corporatists that'll give a tax break to a billionaire but will charge you user fees for breathing.

We need to vote for politicians that will actually improve things, instead of either rainbow-bench-painting wage-thieves or protofascist grifters.

Labour makes up about 15-20% of the cost of a vehicle. Curiously, that number doesn't change all that much between jurisdictions.

And while ~18% is as lot, materials makes up most of the rest, and those costs don't change with jurisdiction. So the OEMs relocate to save a few percent, but mostly they relocate because the overall supply chain is more cost effective. This is why China (and now Vietnam, and Thailand, and before China, Japan and South Korea) are able to do what they do: the government and industry are willing to think long-term and make huge investments to make it happen: slapping down power plants and steel mills and making trade deals with, eg, Africa or the middle east to secure resources at scale.

You're falling for the modern version of blaming the working class--even in a roundabout way--for the capitalists' failure to plan.

Companies seek out cheaper labour, sure, but you're taking a very simplistic view of it:

Canada, the US and Western Europe is a big reason we farm stuff out to cheaper places (like Mexico and China) that don’t have pesky things like high safety standards or employee benefits.

This isn't nearly the case any more, and hasn't been since the 1970s. They actually do have roughly similar safety standards. Replacing workers is expensive, and churn costs a lot, and you really do want to run a plant as efficiently as possible, which means not burning people out. We're not in the triangle shirtwaist era any more.

Workers don't really have much of an impact on the cost or quality of the product because it's cheaper to engineer your plant such that they don't. Mistakes are expensive. Waste is expensive. Re-work is expensive.

If you had said environmental standards, yes, you'd be right. Those can be more lax. That's something different, and also not nearly the gap it used to be.

the fact the huge disparity in labour costs between the two countries is reason the TFW program even works

Slinging donuts at Tim Hortons, answering support calls and/or writing shitty front-end web code is a different thing entirely, and yes the TFW program is a problem, but that's not the issue with heavy industry.

"People want choices" is a great way to say "people are squeezed and can't afford it"

If governments want people to have children, governments need to redistribute wealth such that people can manage it. Few people are going to have kids when they're living in a rooming house, spending most of their wage on rent while their landlords and grocery-store owners and other oligarchs make millions.

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny watching capitalists freak out about declining birth rates, since their greed is the cause of them.

In the 1980s, faced with a crisis of their own making, Harley went crying to Ronald Reagan for tariffs on imported bikes. Reagan, free-market champion that he was, obliged.

This resulted in

• Harley getting a handicap, allowing them to keep doing what they were doing, selling uncompetitive and overpriced bikes and just prolonging the inevitable.
• Because Harley didn't have to try nor evolve, and because their bikes were overpriced and uncompetitive, their international sales, which were never great, dried up.
• Honda et al, because they were at a cost disadvantage, had to make a better product for the same money, which they did. Basically every standard and cruiser product Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki and especially Honda made rubbed Harley's nose in it, notably the Gold Wing.
• Because Harley didn't have to try, while the JDM makes had to try extra hard and everything cost more, the motorcycle market as a whole collapsed
• Again, because Harleys were not competitive but were anachronistic and could get away with it because of Mama Reagan, what few bikes did sell to new riders weren't Harleys, and Harley didn't bother to try new things, missing out on the adventure-bike boom and losing at least two generations of street-bike riders.

Basically, it set Harley up for failure and nutured mediocrity.

Tariffs, if they don't come with government pressure on the industry being protected, are basically corporate welfare that helps in the short term but results in long-term pain.

EVs will be similar. Protecting the North American industry in the short term isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it would require the American and Canadian government to bust the balls of Ford, GM and Stellantis, as well as the domestic-produced imports: you get the tariffs and you get tax breaks, but in turn you have three years to produce a cheap, capable EV or, eg, we'll make it happen without you.

Our governments won't do this because they're neoliberal chickenshits who lost their spine forty years ago.

The result will be EVs that are too expensive, sold to the most profitable niche domestically, with collapsing sales abroad. Which is what we have now, and it will get worse if we insulate lazy OEMs from market pressure.

China's hands are not clean, but one thing they have done is invest in the long term. The North American OEMs resolutely refuse to do that, and tariffs would make that situation worse.

What's horrible is that Trump's misunderstanding of how tariffs work is only forgotten by how much he doesn't understand about how viruses and vaccines and health policy works.

Had it not been for the pandemic, he was well on his way to crashing the global economy, between the reckless tax cuts, deregulation and slapdash tariffs. Ironically, the stimulus spending necessitated by the pandemic probably saved him--and all of us--from the second great depression.