All devices on the computer consume power.
The CPU being the largest in this context. Older processors usually don’t have as aggressive throttling as modern ones for low power scenarios.
Similarly, the “power per watt” of newer processors is incredibly high in comparison, meaning they can operate at much lower power levels while running the same workload.
In the fall/winter in northern areas it’s free! (Money that would already be spent on heating).
Summer is a negative though, as air conditioning needs to keep up. But the additional cost is ~1/3rd the heat output for most ACs (100w of heat require < 30w of refrigeration losses to move)
I want to reduce wasteful power consumption.
But I also desire ECC for stability and data corruption avoidance, and hardware redundancy for failures (Which have actually happened!!)
Begrudgingly I’m using dell rack mount servers. For the most part they work really well, stupid easy to service, unified remote management, lotssss of room for memory, thick PCIe lane counts, stupid cheap 2nd hand RAM, and stable.
But they waste ~100 watts of power per device though… That stuff ads up, even if we have incredibly cheap power.
Naw, they will figure out how to target you specifically.
Will these ever be useful on the second hand market
Nope, not ever. Even if it’s standard form factor gear.
They will be disposed of (“recycled”), since that grants the largest asset depreciation tax break, and is the easiest economically. The grand majority of all data center gear gets trashed instead of reused or repurposed through the second hand market.
Source: I used to work at a hardware recycling facility, where much of the perfectly good hardware was required to be shredded, down to the components, because of these stipulations. It’s such a waste.
Dumping bucket of tens of TB worth of modern RAM into a shredder is… Infuriating.
They wouldn’t though, large businesses see no consequences from laws that you and I would see consequences for.
That is parallelized… I didn’t make mention of threading being the concern here.
The 100+ billion operations per second isn’t exactly easy.
4k 60fps = 498 million pixels per second
Each pixel takes a couple hundred logical operations with HEVC.
A modern high end 4GHz, 8 physical core CPU at 4 instructions per cycle, at maximum capacity, can handle 128 billion operations per second.
You probably wouldn’t even get your realtime framerate in this scenario.
Yeah, because of the ASICs built into them to enable that decoding.
Without that, a 4K HEVC video is in upwards of 100+ billion operations/s to decode on the CPU. Which limits you to high end CPUs getting capped out on something you essentially get for “free” otherwise
This isn’t tech news, go post your Elon spam somewhere else
Almost nothing you mentioned here has to do with accessibility and accessibility tooling.
I get the feeling that most of the people replying here and downvoting the folks that are right don’t actually know what accessibility means.
Which… Honestly tracks. If the community in general doesn’t actually understand what accessibility is of course the projects themselves aren’t going to give a shit about accessibility.
And the Linux community, par for the course, shits on anyone who has real critical feedback.
It’s not about being better than everything else.
It’s about literally maintaining the same capabilities that it had before that don’t alienate an entire class of users. And taking into consideration how dropping centralized APIs and ecosystem fragmentation affects users.
Accessibility apis are non-optional for accessibility tools that many individuals require in order to use their device effectively.
That’s a pretty big difference from what you seem to be thinking. We’re not talking about how the user interface looks here.
I mean if you rely on accessibility apis you’re not going to use it because it’s not there… You literally cannot use the OS because you require accessibility tools to use your computer effectively.
And implying that someone should just make it their own is kind of asinine. This is a big shift in the Linux Desktop ecosystem that one person cannot affect when decisions have already been made and contributions that go against project decisions are not necessarily welcome.
Developers of large accessibility projects slowly dropping Linux support because of Wayland Is a Wayland problem, not a “devs of accessibility tools problem”.
They are already vocal about it, to frustratingly no effect.
Accessibility apis on Windows and Mac actually work and are actually consistent.
They’re only consistent across Linux Desktop environments if you are using X11. Wayland kills that
I think most of the commenters that are replying to me or completely missing this point
Too bad Linux completely abandoned accessibility with Wayland by putting accessibility API implementations up to the distros. Which, by far, don’t. And when they do it’s fragmented as fuck.
Making Linux an absolute no go for anyone that needs accessibility tools like Talon, which does work on X11 APIs. Since those were actually consistent.
To other companies?
There is a lot movement opportunity for experienced developers still.
Honestly same thing here. They didn’t even do internships anymore.
They don’t seem to be hiring anyone that’s not a senior engineer either.
They also have been regularly laying off folks every year or more than once a year but not backfilling. So workloads are up.
Couple of this with them freezing promotions and now they’re risking high performers leaving because they aren’t being considered and rewarded for their contribution levels and engagement.
Other countries are doing it to themselves, no need to do anything explicitly.
I mean, look at the shit hole that is the U.S. now. They are u doing themselves just fine and giving victories to their adversaries.
I mean, large corps like Meta get away with straight up piracy these days.
Laws only matter if you’re not part of the ruling class.
The amount of Labor that would go into it it really isn’t that high.
This is what distribution is for.
The company that owns the hardware is not the company that recycles it. The recycler can make a profit by reselling these components, they’re not allowed to.
Many of these components still have to be pulled out so that labor cost is already a wash. The additional labor cost of testing, selling, packaging, and shipping is baked into the price in the secondary market.
Not everything is worth being resold, but many things are and those things are often not allowed to be resold due to destruction contracts.