I’m a little surprised to see how much trouble people in this thread have had with the Cal Digit TS3.
Mine works pretty well — have used it with three Intel MacBooks in the past and now currently two different Apple Silicon MacBooks.
One of the Intel MBPs did not like it. Would reboot every time I unplugged it from the dock. I blamed that MacBook for that one, since nothing else was ever a problem. I sent every crash report to Apple, along with some choice words that my $2,500 MacBook should be able to handle connecting to a very commonly owned TB Dock. Eventually they did fix it and it stopped being an issue.
Has ended up one of the more reliable pieces of tech gear in my life, especially given the absolute mad complexity of TB3 behind the scenes.
> This model might trigger planned obsolescence legislation in some jurisdictions.
As opposed to years of garbage Windows laptops at the $600 price point, which you seem to expect will remain viable longer than the Neo ... ?
If any legislation comes out of this, it will simply be because of Apple's high profile. They were content to let e-rot fill the shelves for years before the Neo.
Big deal, smart for all parties, really. Apple standards will make Intel step up and become a better foundry partner.
Apple will gain increasingly needed diversification.
US supply chain gets a boost.
Should be fine for TSMC in the short to medium term. Apple not going to risk actual mainline iPhone SoC on Intel any time soon, so lion share of TSMC Apple revenue will be fine.
Bought and read the book and honestly the author is just as crazy as the rest of the executive team she skewers. I’m not too broken up that she didn’t get more money from my purchase.
You’re describing all the advantages that Russia in theory had when it invaded Ukraine. That war remains in stalemate.
With US support and the resilience and ingenuity of their people, Ukraine has persisted.
> It is possible to land large numbers of boots on the ground.
I think you need to do more research on how challenging a Taiwan invasion would be. It is nowhere near as simple as “just cross the strait. Put those boots on the ground.”
There is a reason it has not happened. It would be incredibly logistically challenging.
I agree with your statement that human resilience can outlast a better army.
But then you go on to say:
> Which is why if China makes a move on Taiwan, the US can do nothing.
If your opening thesis is true, then it's strange you follow it up with that. Taiwan has just as much a chance of outlasting a stronger competitor as those other countries that resisted US dominance.
And with the US providing them weapons, intelligence, and support, maybe a better chance. See Ukraine.
I think that says more about our political leaders than our military.
Politicians choose the war and our military fights the battles. We're very good at winning battles. But some wars can't be won. The problem then lies in their choosing.
I imagine Sisyphus became the best, most effective rock push in the world. Unfortunately despite his talents, the task he was assigned was insoluble.
Love this kind of behind the scenes -- thanks for sharing!
Personally, I think in a way you both ended up right. Content is king. But with the iPad (my favorite PDF viewer) as an important part of the Preview landscape now, I view the right side as where content should live.
As long as both companies remain stable and viable, there's probably limited upside to pouring more money into them. If they fail, and bring down the AI ecosystem with them, that is very bad news for Nvidia. So they've been there nurturing their success and providing capital to backstop their exponential growth.
You can see Nvidia stepping in throughout the ecosystem with confidence boosting investments where needed. They haven't just supported Anthropic and OpenAI.
If OpenAI and Anthropic succeed, and get their business fly-wheels fully spinning, they don't necessarily need more capital from Huang. Ultimately the goal of Nvidia is to profit from their long-term success by selling them GPUs for a long, long time. The goal isn't to keep plowing money into them forever.
You could get something smaller but have it closer to your face than 1m?
The sort of “visual impact” a screen can have is mostly a combination of what percentage of your FOV it consumes.
People think they’ve got a bunch of screen real estate when they buy a big TV to use as a monitor… and then they use it a twice or more the distance of a regular monitor.