It’s not a subjective thing. Cold medicines treat symptoms, not the disease. Cold and allergies have common symptoms.
If your concern is that cold medicines don’t work for your allergies, thwn those tend not to work for colds either.
If the medicine is trying to use phenylephrine in a pill, that doesn’t do anything. You might also want to skip the acetaminophen usually included and you have zero need for that, but not every co of d medicine has that.
ICE existed, and was doing some bad stuff, but the chart omits 2025, which all told is like an order of magnitude higher than the prior year. If they included the all-in number, the bars before that point weld be hard to even tell the increase.
During his first term, the worst was largely constrained to border areas and pretty much stuck to immigration and customs with leadership and agents that were traditional career enforcement folks.
This term has been about just going all out, recruiting the dumbest and most white nationalist and occupying our own cities, and yes still going after immigrants, but also broadly ethnic people and people who dissent. This chart goes for “both sides bad” but ignores the only data relevant to why people are especially pissed about ICE now
As I said. It’s an extrapolation of the rules from once upon a time to a totally different approach. It’s marketing and increasingly subjective. Any number can “make sense” in that context. The number isn’t based on anything you could actually measure for a long time now, it’s already a fiction, so it can go wherever.
To be fair, the industry spent decades measuring a distance, so when they started doing features that had equivalent effects, the easiest way for people to understand was to say something akin to equivalent size.
Of course, then we have things like Intel releasing their "10 nm* process, then after TSMC’s 7nm process was doing well and Intel fab hit some bumps, they declared their 10 to be more like a 7 after all… it’s firmly all marketing number…
Problem being no one is suggesting a more objective measure.
For a while now the “nm” has been a bit of a marketing description aiming for what the size would be if you extrapolated the way things used to be to today. The industry spent so long measuring that when the measurement broke down they just kind of had to fudge it to keep the basis of comparison going, for lack of a better idea . If we had some fully volumetric approach building these things equally up in three dimensions, we’d probably have less than “100 pm” process easily, despite it being absurd.
My general point is that discussing the intricacies of potential local AI model usage is way over the head of the people that would even in theory care about the facile “AI PC” marketing message. Since no one is making it trivial for the casual user to actually do anything with those NPUs, then it’s all a moot point for this sort of marketing. Even if there were an enthusiast market that would use those embedded NPUs without a distinct more capable infrastructure, they wouldn’t be swayed/satisfied with just ‘AI PC’ or ‘Copilot+’, they’d want to know specs rather than a boolean yes/no for ‘AI’.
The issue is that to the extent that might even make sense, no major player is actually doing anything to help that happen. Every big player is exclusively focused on taking AI use cases into their datacenters, because that’s the way to maintain control and demand subscriptions.
If you did do it, then the users would complain that the ‘AI feature’ as executed on their puny NPU is really slow compared to what the online alternative does.
So that scenario is a hypothetical, and they are trying to make sales based on now. ‘AI PC’ doesn’t make any sense because people imagine what you describe, but in reality just cannot tell a difference because nothing works any differently for their ‘AI experience’. Their experience is going to be a few niche Windows features work that most people don’t even know about or would want.
Well, first Dell’s use of ‘confused’ is mainly a way to walk “away” from AI as a marketing strategy without having to walk it “back” (they can’t walk it back: Microsoft will keep Copiloting it up, the processor comparies will keep bundling NPUs, and the consumer exposure to AI will continue to have nothing to do with any of the ‘AI PC’ or not). So ‘confused’ is a way to rationalize the absence of ‘AI PC’ in their marketing strategy without having to actually change what they are doing.
But to the extent ‘confusing’ may apply, it’s less about ‘AI’ and more about ‘AI PC’. What about this ‘AI PC’ would impact your usage with AI, for most people the answer is ‘not at all’, since mostly it’s over the internet. So for the layperson, an ‘AI PC’ just enables a few niche Windows features no one cares about. Everything pushing around the ‘AI’ craze is well away from actually running on the end user devices.
The real ‘quiet part’ would be that they are avoiding it because a large number of people hate ‘AI’. To say they are ‘confused’ is still keeping the quiet part quiet…
More to the point, the casual consumer isn’t going to dig into the nitty gritty of running models locally and not a single major player is eager to help them do it (they all want to lock the users into their datacenters and subscription opportunities).
On the Dell keeping NPUs in their laptops, they don’t really have much of a choice if they want modern processors, Intel and AMD are all-in on it still.
It’s just a softer thing to say than ‘a lot of people hate AI and it’s alienating potential customers’. They can’t come out and say that out loud, they don’t want to piss off Microsoft too much and they aren’t going to try to do NPU-free systems (it’s not really possible). They aren’t going to do anything to ‘fight back’ against the AI that people hate (they can’t), so their best explanation as to why they pull back from a toxic brand strategy is that ‘people just don’t care’ rather than ‘people hate this thing that we are going to keep feeding’.
But if they need to rationalize the perspective, an “AI” PC does nothing to change the common users experience with the AI things they know, does not change ChatGPT or Opus or anything similar, that stuff is entirely online. So for the common user, all ‘AI’ PC means is a few Windows gimmicks that people either don’t care about or actively complained about (Recall providing yet another way for sensitive data to get compromised).
In terms of “AI” as a brand value, the ones most bullish about AI are executives that like the idea of firing a punch of people and incidently they actually want to buy fewer PCs as a result. So even as you can find AI enthusiastic people, they still don’t want AI PCs.
For most people, their AI experience has been:
For those that have actually positive AI experience, they already know it has nothing to do with whether the PC is ‘AI’ or not. So it’s just a brand liability, not a value.
Outlook not so good… nailed that one too.
Inspired by your comment, I polled ChatGPT 5 direct and Copilot itself, and ChatGPT was smarter than the executive by saying it was a bad idea, while Copilot itself said it might be a bad idea, but it’s aligned with Microsoft’s vision, which may be more important, but ultimately seemed to have no idea if it was a good idea or bad idea…
So I guess ChatGPT at least is smarter than the MS CEO. Of course Copilot seemed primed to try to favor and vindicate Microsoft’s decision. I tried a more aggressive statement that it was stupid to try to get that ‘I agree with you by default’ and it still tried to soften the perspective in favor of Microsoft.
As a bonus, I asked if it would be a good idea to rename LibreOffice to LibreSidekick. It looked more like the ChatGPT 5 answer for Office to Copilot, saying it’s a dumb idea, until the end when it said unless it has an AI assistant like Microsoft Copilot, then it would be a good idea…
It’s really vague, and does warrant some specific examples…
I’d say if anything, they pretend some things are more peaceful than they are. Like sending the military in to capture a foreign leader being portrayed as simply “a military operation” rather than “act of war”. Emphasizing celebrations by Venezulan ex-pats.
The nominally socialist nations that receive media attention are generally truly not particularly peaceful, and the socialist nations that are pretty good peace wise are well known, but just too ‘boring’ to be in a ‘news’ cycle.
I suppose the point is that people can’t just take someone’s declaration of ‘socialism’ at face value, as there’s too many examples of malicious authoritarianism that claimed affinity to socialism as part of their rise to power. Not to say that capitalist nations are faring any better, just that the word ‘socialism’ when wielded as a brand isn’t to be trusted.
Ugh, the color choices for ‘former’ versus ‘socialist ruling party’ are impossible for color blind folks…
Yeah, absolutely nothing in the writing explained why he stuck with the emperor. I feel like the last thing he would have done based on his motivation to that point is stick with palpatine. Beyond being a psychopath, it doesn’t even make sense by those standards.
Empire strikes back set up a couple of plot twists that the series really couldn’t execute on. Nice in the movie since they got to leave it open ended, but bad for the series when they actually had to run with resolving those twists.
Also, he was the one who killed his wife.
Upon finding out that he was the one ultimately responsible, he went “nooooo” and I suppose went “well, as long as I’m in this cool suit, guess I’ll just keep doing the evil then”.
Frankly, I find his arc to be one of the least convincing “how a guy went evil and was redeemed” in fiction. Empire strikes back had the benefit of being able to leave it vague enough to leave it a potentially interesting turn, but when they actually had to delve into it, was pretty unfulfilling
Fun space action movies, but execution on the “twists” was not the strong point.
The reference is an example of a flippant sort of response of answering the request, but with something lacking the depth the person was asking about.
He probably doesn’t mind talking about the game broadly, but it can be a bit much for someone to be annoying about saying it should have been a different genre that they would have enjoyed. I suppose your question could be flipped around, why attend a panel discussing doom if you don’t really care for doom?
Sounds like a couple of randos, no one significant. The perspective is the interesting part, not the person expressing the perspective.
Anything we do? Like breathing?