Seems like the first part of that law would be struck down on First Amendment challenges.
Second would be technically impossible, or the responsibility of VPN providers to somehow forward geo-location information for website operators to consume.
The current iteration of the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear they're going to decide whatever partisan truth they want, and that pesky Bill of Rights will not stand in their way.
"Seems like the first part of that law would be struck down on First Amendment challenges."
Should be, but I wouldn't bet on it. We can see what states have been doing about "child sex abuse material" and arresting people for fictional stories, animations, etc on the theory that it might contribute to viewers becoming predators. It's disgusting stuff to even think about in this principled context, but it's wild that something fake is treated basically the same as the real thing. That's a lot of maybes and what-ifs resulting in child abuse convictions for something fictional. Might as well start up the pre-crime division.
Edit: Why do people disagree? Is it just because it is repulsive? Or is there an actual legal theory and material harm you are thinking about? If it's just "gross", isn't that the basis for many people's anti-gay stances, and how is this different?
«[T]he primary standout feature of this memory solution is the integration of a staggered interconnect topology that routes connections diagonally within the die stack rather than drilling straight down. According to Intel, the biggest benefit lies in ZAM's thermal capabilities.»
The connectors on the side indeed look like the letter Z. Maybe it disperses the stronger currents across the stack of the crystals, instead of concentrating.
I'd guess that it'd allow for thinner layers which is ultimately why you can pack in more memory.
And why it's not currently done is likely because it's hard enough to stack when everything is uniform. A small deformity in the first layer will spoil the entire chip.
Along with this, which is how nearly every major piece of software works today, removing telemetry likely wouldn't have a measurable impact on performance or memory usage. Those aren't heavy subsystems.
Those production numbers for the Neo are global and from unnamed supply chain sources. I'm not sure why you brought the US workforce population into the equation as that mixes up scales, nor is there a 1:1 relationship between people and computers (I have 5 x86 systems and 2 M-series laptops in my home between work and personal use).
Lenovo shipped roughly 16m units in Q1 2026 at #1, with Apple shipping roughly 6m in the same timeframe at #4, WW. [0]
Linux is hardly a blip and even the Steam survey #s back that up if you want to be targeted towards a particular audience. It's a lot of noise in forums like this, not so much on the general street. Windows overall gaining ~1.1% with Linux overall declining ~0.8% (and macOS continuing to be poorly represented for obvious reasons) in April.
> Those production numbers for the Neo are global and from unnamed supply chain sources.
Good point. Fixed.
> Linux is hardly a blip and even the Steam survey #s back that up
The IDC link doesn't provide Linux numbers. These links [1][2] do; [2] backs up the numbers you're quoting. The trouble is how to interpret them in context - are the 1% changes per OS on a monthly basis even statistically significant?
The statcounter numbers show desktop share for linux as 5.2% in December, 2.8% in February, 3.1% in March, 2.63% in April. Chrome OS as 4.3%, OS X as 15%, macOS as 8.8%. There's an interesting huge peak for OS X in Oct 2025, Linux in Dec 2025, macOS in Jan '26, with 'unknown' showing a continuous rise to 9.4% in April. Even Windows is showing monthly variations with 58% at the lowest and 65% at peak.
I don't know what to make of those numbers. And how do you separate that from the ebbs and flows to Steam and Statcounter properties?
I think one can make a case for 7 million Linux users in the US, with 18 million if including Chrome OS. Now throw in say 50% of the Neo worldwide buyers, so say 2.5 million (to grow to 5 million at new production levels), and the analysis holds up. What's even more important is the trend - and that seems to be on the upswing, and may not be showing up in these measurements quite yet. And I'm sure MS has internal dashboards showing windows users in some detail.
Linux users are notoriously hard to measure. macOS users are not broken out by country. So that leaves us reading the tea leaves, so to speak, based on sales numbers and estimates on the US breakdown.
Windows 2000 had sequential service startup. It took /ages/ to boot. The boot screen was pretty, though.
XP was a security nightmare and out the gate was BSOD city, much of that thanks to 3rd party drivers, but the OS had fundamental kernel bugs, too.
7 was okay, but it isn't something you'd want to go back to with modern hardware. It lacks many features we find essential. TRIM being a big one. I'd argue that the Windows 7 iconography wasn't very nice.
I'm more of a fan of NT4 for it's utilitarian look, though service management was no where near as nice as what the MMC brought.
From a stability perspective, it really wasn't until Windows 8/10 where we got to the "PEAK" Windows versions, where stability was not an issue at the OS level with Microsoft-shipped code, but rather at a driver or hardware level. No longer were we seeing some fundamental kernel bug halting the system, instead it shifted over to garbage 3rd party drivers (largely fixed thanks to Windows' unique ability to restart the graphical subsystem/removal of kernel mode print drivers) or failing hardware. You won't find that level of stability in Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows 7.
> You won't find that level of stability in Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows 7.
Nice try but you won't deceive any attentive readers. Everything you've told in that paragraph was applicable to Windows 7, it had all the stability and none of the user hostility of later versions.
I think you strung together a bunch of words that don't jive with real world experiences.
Windows 7 still had some fundamental kernel quality issues. WDDM 1.1 wasn't mature to the point of providing a stable experience across the board and vendors were still adapting to the WDDM model; kernel mode printer drivers were still common, both a stability and security knock for those older versions of Windows.
So no, Windows 7 did not have "all of the stability" of Windows 10 or 11.
> I think you strung together a bunch of words that don't jive with real world experiences.
I know the real world experience I've had, thank you very much.
> Windows 7 still had some fundamental kernel quality issues.
No it didn't, it was solid as a rock.
> WDDM 1.1 wasn't mature to the point of providing a stable experience across the board and vendors were still adapting to the WDDM model;
Display drivers adapted by the time Vista SP2 was released, and 7 was a solid release from start without even needing a SP.
> kernel mode printer drivers were still common, both a stability and security knock for those older versions of Windows.
First time I've heard a printer driver crashing the system, are you sure you're not making it up? ( print queue hanging is annoying but it isn't a BSOD)
> So no, Windows 7 did not have "all of the stability" of Windows 10 or 11
Okay I give up, Windows 11 is the bestest release, Satya is the broest tech CEO and you're the number 1 fan boy
Second would be technically impossible, or the responsibility of VPN providers to somehow forward geo-location information for website operators to consume.
reply