This is totally wrong. I work in the industry. Solar panels should last for 30 years, but they degrade in capacity by 0.5 to 1% per year, depending on environmental conditions (temp, radiation, etc). Lithium batteries from tier 1 suppliers can last at least a decade of regular use. It depends on how their cycling and state of charge is managed. If you keep them between 20% and 80% charge, they can last incredibly long.
I have the precision 5690 (the 16inch model) with a ultra 7 processor and 4k touchscreen (2025 model). It is very heavy, but its very powerful. My main gripe is that the battery life is very bad, and it has a 165 watt charger, which wont work on most planes. So if you fly a lot for work, this laptop will die on you unless you bring a lower wattage charger. It also doesn't sleep properly. I often find it in my bag hours after closing it and the fans are going at full blast. It should have a 4th usb port (like the smaller version!). Otherwise I have no complaints (other than about windows 11!).
After using several Precisions at work, I now firmly believe that Dell does not know how to cool their workstations properly. They are all heavy, pretty bad at energy efficiency and run extremely hot (I use my work machine laid belly up in summer since fans are always on). I’d take a ThinkPad or Mac any day over any Dell.
Power hungry intel chips and graphics cards are inconvenient in laptops when it comes to battery life and cooling. It is especially noticeable if you spend any time using an M-series macbook pro, where performance is the same or better, but you get 16 hours of battery life. I prefer to use thinkpads, but apple just has a big technological advantage here that stands out in the UX department. I really hope advances are made quickly by competitors to get similar UX in a more affordable package.
While I appreciate the build quality and ruggedness of the thinkpads, I’d take the bigger trackpad and better screen of the XPS/precision any day. Or, maybe my employer screwed me by giving a shitty thinkpad SKU (it has a 1080p TN panel ffs)..
Their ceo just did an interview on stratechery where he defends this choice. Something about their software being better and wanting to control the whole experience. Doesn’t mean much if you lose customers before they enter your showroom.
I don't think these CEOs get how actively user-hostile the "wanting to control the whole experience" is. We as users are saying we want to control of our devices, and they are saying "that isn't the experience we want you to have - even if it is the one you want."
The forks do not currently have the manpower to take up the full maintenance of a browser but that does not mean it's impossible that they'll be able to rally enough developers in case Mozilla implodes. A lot of people want a truly free browser to exist. Currently Firefox (barely) manages to fulfill that role and keeps many of those people from spending their time/money on alternatives.
fwiw I've been running brave for the past 5 years and it seems fine, they put a bunch of weird shit in it you need to turn off, but otherwise it...browses the internet well?
very interesting. Can I control these with home assistant?
I already have a wind down dimming schedule on my entire home. It changes brightness and color temperature gradually over 2 hours. How do these bulbs compare with philips hue?
Yes, the bulb can be controlled with a smart dimmer like the Leviton model we sell on our site, or the Lutron Caseta plug-in dimmer.
These bulbs are not smart and do not have a full RGB array. But what you gain is way higher color quality even at low color temperature (1700K), much lower flicker, and infrared.
Atmos is a smart lamp, and we will get our Matter certification in early 2026. This one is also not RGB, but it has extremely high color quality in the whites and no blue spike. Flicker is lower and at a way higher frequency (32 kHz). We haven't updated the specs on the site yet as we are wrapping the calibration, but the CRI is 98 on the Atmos lamp.
Investors don't want 5x revenue valuations, they want 30x growth.
Make 'real infrastructure' and 'housing' companies attractive products for investors to buy and they'll buy. (No idea how to do that, don't ask me! :))
We need to kill the idea that a) this is what investors should be looking for, and b) it's even possible aside from a 1 in 1,000,000,000 fluke.
All of these economic instruments are supposed to be there to serve the needs of real human people, not just to make the wealthy even wealthier. We need to break this cycle of ever-escalating capital chasing capital, and get investment in things that will actually make people's lives better.
That's the thing. You have to remove the unsustainable nonsense that looks like 30x growth in order for investors to be willing to invest in 5x revenue valuations.
(If you have real things that are actually producing 30x growth then that's fine, obvs.)
capitalism is kinda-sorta weaponized greed, but in a way that tries to promote competition and thus create actual value. IMHO blaming regulators for not nudging capital in the politically desirable way is appropriate: either they shouldn't be regulating because they don't know how, or they're regulating according to a hidden policy instead of whatever they say. (cue 'why not both'.)
There is no need for hedging language, it is entirely weaponized greed.
> but in a way that tries to promote competition and thus create actual value.
No, its in a way which tries to remove constraints from the power of the capitalist class, and full enable their dominion over society -- that's what drove it and how it evolved from prior systems.
The assumed existence of competition (along with other assumptions) making it optimal was a much later, after the fact attempt at rationalizing it in response to criticism, and actual attempts to promote competition were later yet reforms limiting capitalism, not part of its essence.
> capitalism is kinda-sorta weaponized greed, but in a way that tries to promote competition and thus create actual value.
In practice, capitalism itself doesn't really promote competition, but rather competition is an externally-enforced situation required to keep capitalism from going off the rails. IMHO, capitalism naturally evolves towards monopoly (otherwise antitrust laws would be unnecessary).
Maybe investors shouldn't treat inversion like casino gambling. With their capital, they could make inversions (or even their own businesses) that grow slower but steadily.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? In case you aren't, the answer is roads, bridges, public transportation, electrified rail, grid modernization, utility-scale storage and solar. We need these things desperately, and instead we're going to get sheds full of video cards from here to the horizon.
If you want to spend your money and time building bridges for electrified rail, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Other people clearly feel they have enough of that and would rather invest in datacenters. Who are you to say they're wrong?
This kind of absolutist individualist argument just rings more and more hollow as we see the very real consequences of that philosophy for our society.
Who am I to say they're wrong? A human being, that's who. A human being who lives in a modern society that does not have to prioritize the whims of the wealthy few over the needs of the many. We can choose to set stringent requirements on people who have that much money, and therefore power, and that is not evil. Indeed, it is the furthest thing from it.
And what happens when those people don't want to have your requirements "set" on them? Do you force those peaceful people to do your bidding with violence? Would that not make you the evil ones?
Look at the reply from the guy I was questioning. It took just two or three mild questions for him to go full Hitler, talking about how his comrades will have to "discipline" a whole generation of "oligarchs" (i.e. anyone who makes things he doesn't personally prioritize).
Collectivist thinking always leads to violence, and eventually societal failure.
There's nothing violent about using elections to make the decision to tax rich people so that we can spend (formerly) their money building roads and bridges. The idea that this is the road to Hitlerism is absurd, and thankfully this rhetorical stance no longer rings the slightest bit true to anyone within earshot of the working class.
Also, as I'm sure you're aware, I was using "discipline" as a term of art to mean "withhold our labor until their profits suffer and they are willing to negotiate". This was the strategy employed the last time we seriously dealt with concentrated capital getting high on its own supply. It is also not a form of violence. What's the alternative? Capital using force to require us to work against our will? Would you call that slavery? Or just serfdom? Which do you advocate?
> There's nothing violent about using elections to make the decision to tax rich people so that we can spend (formerly) their money building roads and bridges
The results of votes are enforced on the losers using the police, who will do so violently if required.
You mentioned the Fordist truce. The unions the auto industry dealt with weren't just a bunch of people refusing to work. They were frequently violent, and they also used stealing other people's property as a standard tactic to prevent anyone else from working also. Those were violent times.
> The results of votes are enforced on the losers using the police, who will do so violently if required.
The whims of the dictator are also enforced on the public using police.
All human rules, laws, customs, and edicts are enforced, ultimately, with violence of one sort or another. There is no way to avoid the threat of violence being the bedrock of the power of the state, and in the absence of formal states the strong would use violence to enforce their desires until they became states.
So if you're an anti-statist, just say so. (So we can all dismiss everything you have to say as coming from a place of absolute ignorance of what's needed to live and operate in the real world. If we were to abolish all states tomorrow, and erase the very memory of their existence from every human alive, by Sunday new ones would have arisen to replace them, one way or another, because they are how humans organize themselves.)
This thread started with a false dilemma: do we spend money on datacenters or "real infrastructure". It's only a dilemma if you assume governments should decide the answer, as ElevenLathe did.
Otherwise there's no need to choose between dictatorship or majority rule via democracy: everyone can spend money on the infrastructure they feel is more important, and there doesn't need to be any losers. Which is mostly how we try to do things in reality.
We can talk about how violent taxing the rich is once we have the first instance ever in history of the police locking up a rich guy for refusing to pay their taxes. Even then, sure, I'm fine with that level of violence. We would live in a utopia if that were the worst kind of state violence we had to deal with.
Go ahead and twist my normal, non-radical politics into whatever shape you want. You're the wing nut, not me. Normal people want normal stuff out of politics: functioning infrastructure, upward mobility, a future. Only the most warped, unreachable paint huffers are willing to throw away all possibility of a normal country for the "freedom" of a few dozen rapacious sociopaths. This means that we will ultimately win. Unfortunately normal people have been asleep at the switch for at least a generation, so you're probably going to be able to drag us through several hellish decades, maybe centuries, until we can right the ship.
I'm sure I'll see you in the camps, so at least we'll have that in common. Have a nice day.
Falsifying your tax return statements is not the same as a simple refusal to pay. By doing that, you are indicating that you agree to the legitimacy of the taxes in general, but would prefer to lie about whether you should personally pay them or not. These people were also all given their day in court, and convicted of actual crimes in fair trials where they had adequate representation. If this is your idea of "violence", then I don't know what to say.
He was "was sentenced to 38 years in prison". That's why most tax evaders try falsification rather than refusal.
> At the sentencing hearing in Denver District Court, Doucette fidgeted in his spinnable chair, while chained up in a green jumpsuit. He sat alone because he has insisted on representing himself in this case. Before the hearing, the judge asked him if it was OK to proceed and he said, “I do not consent and never have.”
Note the photo of him wearing handcuffs, surrounded by police.
All law is implemented through using violence or the threat of using it. You can't resolve that conundrum by claiming that holding a vote to tax rich people is somehow apart from using violence. It's just an abstraction over it.
These are basic facts, but a lot of people struggle to understand them because our society likes to pretend that there's nothing underneath the abstraction - that courts and rules is all there is. It helps them believe that if they vote to take other people's stuff, it's white and pure, that nobody is getting hurt. It's a "might makes right" argument pushed at every level of society, because it enables what you're doing here: claiming that "we" should be able to choose what is done with the fruits of other people's labour.
I say they're wrong, and I do so in my capacity as a citizen. These large pools of capital should not be allowed to follow the whims of a handful of unelected oligarchs who have clearly lost the plot. In a functioning society, this scale of decision would not be left to the whims of international finance capital, but decided via democratic means. It's unfortunate that the last scraps of the Fordist labor truce are unraveling, because it means that I and my comrades are going to have to discipline this generation of oligarchs just like our grandparents did the last really nasty one.
I would say it should belong to voters (or "society", or "the people", or whatever formula you want to use to express it), in a functioning society. Unfortunately, we're not in a functioning society, and it doesn't. On the other hand, property is socially constructed, so this political economy can be changed, though how exactly is left as an exercise to the reader -- I don't a foolproof answer.
I have savings, sure. I need them, because in the current system the alternative is to starve in the street if anything at all goes wrong with my employment, my health, etc. Many others are not so lucky. If you mean this to be a "gotcha" because I wouldn't want my savings "confiscated" to build roads and bridges, then save it. There is a difference between 1) taxing billionaires so that they're merely hundreds of times richer than the average citizen, and 2) stealing my retirement savings and emergency fund without providing any equivalent public safety net.
Bumping this. Mat went through the exact same crazy process with the Revuelto. Audi/Lamborghini overengineers the heck out of these cars its really absurd.
reply