mknelson

draenar said:

BG3 has been running great on my Mac Studio using GeForceNow.  

Panifex said:

mknelson said:

Larian hasn't been very good at communicating about the Mac release delay. It just wasn't available launch day and then almost silent since except a vague statement about releasing later in September (2.5 week delay).

On the other hand: it'll be nice to play with the 3 major and 5 (or 6) hot-fixes already in place, and hopefully tested with the Sonoma release candidate.

Fully agree, communication was remarkably poor for Mac release. Those of us who'd been playing on Mac in early access were pretty surprised by the delay and then we were just kept in limbo for weeks. Thankfully I also have a PC and have been able to play since launch, but I'm looking forward to playing on Mac again soon! I'm not sure how it'll shake out with the full release, but in early access my M1 Mac Studio ran BG3 noticeably smoother than my decently specced PC (RTX 2080, 32 GB RAM, etc). Fantastic game!

rob53 said:

Will Intel allow others to create TB5 hardware or are they back to forcing companies to license and/or buy everything from Intel? Will this be an official standard that allows companies like Apple to use the new standard without being sued to death? 

The crazy thing is Thunderbolt 3/4 is not being used that much except by Apple. USB4 is not using the top speed of USB, which is slower than TB3/4. Putting out something faster is not really going to be used by that many people because the full TB hardware is not inexpensive while USB4 (not including TB connectivity) is much less expensive. I can see TB5 controllers being extremely expensive and the only way to use that full 80Gbps is with a RAID configuration of SSDs. 

Of course, all of this will use a marginally good plug and jack system (USB-C). 

mayfly said:

tht said:

This bill speaks to how reticent people are to change. This bill is only about reporting, not actually doing something. We need bills to do something! Every and all things must tried. Write the bill to enforce >1b companies to be carbon neutral.

Even in California, there is a strange hesitancy. They are going to test out this idea of covering a waterway with solar PV for some hundreds of feet. Hundreds of feet? The passivity here is crazy. Hundreds of feet?! It should be hundreds of miles. California, you will need water. Lots and lots of fresh water. The best option is desalination. You will need basically free energy to do it. Just completely overbuild solar PV by 2x, 4x your peak demand needs. Cover every single waterway and river with solar PV.  Not completely always in the shade covered, but covered. Then use that "free energy" to power desalination plants, batteries of all kinds, direct air capture to gas or to ground. Put in a serious carbon tax to get everyone to turn over.

No such thing as free energy. You've made good points, but marginalized the best solution to your last sentence: conservation.

And covering all waterways with solar panels, well, it would be a serious detriment to navigation, and would require shipping to use more electricity for lighting. And ships get electricity from burning diesel fuel. Not to mention that currently, it costs $28,600 to replace 10kWh of electricity with solar panels. Los Angeles County uses an average. 22,000 gigawatt hours (gWh) per year. The math tells us the cost would be $62,920,000,000,000. That's just under $63 quadrillion dollars at current prices. I'm sure economies of scale could bring down the price to a lousy $30 quadrillion or so, but the entire United States GDP in 2022 was $25.46 trillion, or less than a thousandth of the money needed. And that's just for Los Angeles County. Add the cost of shipping, installation, maintenance, repair and replacement over 50 years, it adds up to serious money. Not to mention that one hurricane or earthquake could destroy the entire infrastructure.

We will wind up using less energy per user. How that happens is looking more and more dire for future generations.