PC can't be shipped to CA, CO, HI, OR, VT or WA due to power consumption
dell.com
dell.com
Basically, these desktops probably have very ancient/buggy motherboards with broken ACPI. Good riddance.
Fun fact: Desktops/workstations shipped without an operating system at purchasers request are exempt from the rule. So technically, if they don’t insist on shipping with OEM Windows, then the PC can be shipped just fine.
In any case, hopefully this rule will nudge them to use half-decent motherboards that maybe better supported under non-Windows operating systems.
Workstations are also often sold with ECC RAM.
That's it? The rules only mandate maximum power consumption for sleep mode? Some comments linked to the actual regulations[1], and they seem to contain tables with per-year maximums per device[2]. Can you comment on this?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27955212
[2] https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Link/Document/Blob/Icabb0f7...
The weighted average power consumption is based on measured power draw in the following states: "off", "sleep", "Long_idle", and "short_idle". Most desktops under the California rules will use the "conventional" weighting factors of (45%, 5%, 15%, 35%) for the respective power modes in that average.
Short idle is basically what you expect. Screen is still on, drives are still spun up.
Long Idle allows basic power saving features to have kicked in (like spinning down hard drives), and assumes the screen has gone blank, but that the computer is still in ACPI G0/S0, not in some form of sleep mode.
All it requires of sleep mode is that it be configured to go to ACPI S3 within 30 minutes of inactivity. If it does not go to S3, then your quoted formulas are almost accurate, except all of the formulas subtract a base amount of memory; a workstation with 32G of RAM must not exceed 10W because the formula is (10 + 0.03 * (RAM - 32 > 0 ? RAM - 32 : 0)). Also, there's another formula for notebooks, and that one takes into account whether there's a dGPU.
But all of that is irrelevant because there's also a separate requirement, namely, all computers manufactured >=2019 shall "Comply with Table V-7" which has a yearly maximum power consumption (with base values and very complex "adders").
> In 2018, California's energy consumption was second-highest among the states, but its per capita energy consumption was the fourth-lowest due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.
Source: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-4
This is an achievement to be proud of.
Or, put differently, rates are high exactly because California per-capita usage is low -- fewer kWh across which to amortize costs.
Importantly, while California rates are relatively high, customer's bills are not -- because the customers use less electricity.
Also, net metering and widespread consumer generation (largely solar) means that the fixed infrastructure costs are actually amortized not across the low total energy usage, but across a fraction of the total, already low, usage.
Clearly you have never dealt with SDG&E, home of the highest residential electricity rates in the country. And yes that translates to astronomical electricity bills for households
Turns out, a LOT of people live in CA.
Even then, it was at most a few weeks total. Annoying as hell, but probably not enough to really move the needle. Wish we could have had autonomous solar (but while renting, that wasn’t an option). Best I could do was a portable panel to recharge phones/power banks for the evening.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/science/just-how-much-pow...
That cannot possibly be true. I would love to know how they calculated that.
In New Zealand only about 20% of home electricity is used on electronics. And in the USA it appears to be even lower.
https://www.nzcompare.com/n/power/average-household-electric...
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/what-uses-the-most-energy-h...
Dryers, fridges, heating and lighting are the vast majority of power and they don't use much idle power.
They did ten case studies, and in one they found the highest idle load device was a water recirculation pump and the second was a halogen light being left on 24/7 because no one cared.
If they studied my home they would consider my fish tanks as "idle load," because they are designed to run continuously.
This is not a study of devices in sleep mode. This is a study primarily measuring devices left on, or devices designed to always be on.
> Per research and analysis conducted by the Stanford Sustainable Systems Labs, idle load was 218 watts on average across the 70,000 homes in PG&E’s service territory. We estimated the always-on share of this idle load to be 164 watts.
Then they go on to say:
> ALWAYS-ON, 23% Continuous loads
> ACTIVE, 77% Variable loads, including heating and cooling, lighting, and actively used appliances
So their definition of idle load includes things like heating/cooling, wtf? Then they guesstimate that 23% of that is always-on load (continuous load) where do they get than number from?
[0] https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/home-idle-load-IP.p...
I mean I'm all for reducing power consumption, but is having a mild climate an achievement to be proud of? I'd guess that California's main population centers have fewer degree days away from 72 F than any other state in the country. By default, you'd expect their power consumption to be the very lowest.
(The other states close to CA in consumption per capita have much worse climates, but their people live in denser urban centers and have smaller, likely more efficient dwellings.)
I had one tell me that everywhere should put street signs on the roadway itself. Had no concept of what snow was apparently.
Of course, we do also have overhead signs as a backup and for longer-range visibility. But it's more likely that the overhead signs are useless due to a setting sun than that the on-road ones are due to snow. The streets with on-road signs are very high priorities to plow, so the on-road signs are going to be visible unless it's a very bad storm where you probably shouldn't be on the road, and if you are you're probably going home and already know which lanes to be in.
I'm not saying this should be done for every road; it works best for roads known by a number (I-71; US-23; OH-315, etc.) where you don't have to read a long name. But it's not an daft as idea as it might sound.
I'd be very interested in state-to-state comparisons that exclude internal climate control usage.
If southern states spike their watt hours due to aircon, we could say the cause is poor construction/architecture. The poorer the insulation (southern homes' insulation is crap compared to northern) the more you need to pump the aircon. And when homes are not designed for optimal environmental efficiency or passive temp regulation, you can't cool the home well except with more aircon.
(All this also assumes that aircon is some sort of human right. We could learn how to deal with heat without power, the way we had to for the past 300,000 years)
That's not so say they should be discounted, only that each segment of energy consumption should be compared like to like.
By all means, embrace food as eaten by out ancestors, if that's what someone really wants, but they should understand that such diets resulted in malnutrition and stunted growth, and we're "embraced" by our ancestors living on the brink of starvation & lack of choice.
In the long term, humans deal with everything by dying. It's rather inefficient and denotes a tendency to run away from any problem that can't be solved within the ~55 years of an educated human period of productivity. Maybe with a little more grit and resolve to avoid such cowardly tactics as death we would undertake longer term projects.
But as long as humans insist on dying, that is going to be a nearly impossible challenge. It is hard to get a person motivated to take on a high-stakes challenge when they plan on dying before the consequences of inaction impact them.
I propose that all humans make the sensible choice to not die, at least for a century or so longer than their current predilections in this area, to demonstrate their commitment to truly advancing the cause of human kind.
Well, sure, except that the way we dealt with the climate of the American South before air conditioning was by not living there. That is a major reason the South, and not the North, had so many slaves.
We heat with wood and propane but air condition with electricity. Our electricity bill is much higher in the summer.
Insulation can only do so much when the outdoor temperature doesn't drop below 80F for weeks at a time.
I also don't think the world's temperate zones are large enough to facilitate everyone living in climates that have minimal requirements for heating & cooling. Also many areas that require a lot of energy for heating also require very little for cooling, and vice versa: another reason why consumption details are important when evaluating these things.
When I visited Hawaii long ago, typical homes were not even sealed. There'd be a large gap between the top of the walls and the roof. The idea was to let the breeze blow through. The air temperature never varied enough to make it worth installing an HVAC system.
How can we know how far California has come when the citation only has a single point in time referenced? What was the per capita consumption before 2018?
California's energy mix tends to be low due to a lack of both a heavy heating (northern climates) and cooling (southern / south-eastern) load. Housing stock has been notoriously inefficient in insulation, though newer construction gains on that.
Major usage has been in transportation. Sprawl'll do that to ya.
LLNL has historical energy usage charts, and began breaking that out by state sometime since the 1990s (possibly only in the 2000s / 2010s). History since 2010 is readily available here there's also an archive though you've got to hunt for it:
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy
US EIA have 2019 data, but no trend-over-time. The map clearly shows that high per-capita energy usage is concentrated in states with either weather extremes, a large rural population, or both:
https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/#/series/12
Intersting, New York is directly after California in per-capita usage. Rhode Island just edges out both.
A 2013 NRDC report shows that CA's per-capita usage has been flat since roughly 1980, whilst the rest of the US has increased. I suspect much of that growth is due to population increases in the South, with growing cooling load.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130714131300/http://www.nrdc.o...
Charts here: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/California-Is-P...
There may well be a case to be made that California's accomplished significant progress in energy efficiency. But I've a strong suspicion that what we're looking at instead is credit-claiming where not particularly due, based on dominant other factors. That's unfortunately rather common in this space, in both senses of the word.
Percent industrial and transportation use in the low states:
Rhode Island is 42.7%
California: 62.5%
New York: 41.4%
Florida: 50.9%
And the high states:
Wyoming: 79.4%
Louisiana: 86.5%
North Dakota: 73.7%
Alaska: 82.9%
Iowa: 72.5%
Texas: 76.1%
You're basing that on this https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/...
Also, much of the industrial use seems likely to be energy-industry related. I'm presuming: Wyoming (coal), Louisiana (oil), North Dakota (fracked natural gas), Alaska (oil), Texas (oil and gas).
Or it may be electric power. These states' energy use is dominated by coal, and see Table 26 which bundles "industrial" and "power generation": https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/table26.pdf
Texas is the only high-population state listed.
Note that small states have lower per-capita efficiencies across the board, though yes, those specific states have high industrial/transport usage. Note that per-capita variance in smaller states tends to be higher than large ones regardless (more of them, smaller populations, more opportunity for outliers).
The issue seems to be that the devices don't have low-power modes that meet the criteria for annual idle power usage. However "If the model is shipped at the purchaser’s request with either a limited capability operating system or without an operating system, or if the model is not capable of having an operating system, the model is not required to comply with the power management requirements of Section 1605.3(v)(5)(B)." So it should be possible to buy the system without an OS from an appropriate provider.
Same difference.
Though the laws typically have many exceptions and take effect over time, so saying “incandescent bulbs are illegal” is a somewhat strong statement.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_ligh...
Basically the law says Thou Shalt Not Ship a Computer Without Working Idle.
s/logical/lobbyist/
Handwashing wastes energy compared to using a dishwasher, because it uses significantly more water that costs energy to purify.
This must be based on a horribly inefficient method of hand washing. Google says that a modern, efficient dishwasher uses about 3 gallons of water per load. I just went and measured the volume of my kitchen sink to roughly where it gets filled to when I'm washing an equivalent of a full dishwasher's load of dishes, and it came out to a bit over 3 gallons.
If it's not summer, I then let my hot sink water sit until it's cooled down to room temperature to avoid wasting heat.
As a general rule of thumb, the guide here is to track heat and where it goes. Hot water down the drain is a bad thing to be avoided as much as possible. Dishwashers reuse a small amount of hot water repeatedly in an insulated box until it’s fully spent (from a cleaning perspective). Hand washing sends a continuous stream of hot, soapy water down the drain, wasting both water, soap, and the energy required to bring that water up to temperature.
Targeted incentives and regulations, in contrast, can force industries to adapt quickly in ways that we know are actually not economically painful. (You just gotta enable low power mode on your laptops Dell, seriously it’s not hard just stop whining and do it.) Yeah it is a bit annoying, but it’s just annoying, no worse - not like putting a carbon tax on concrete which would be super expensive, basically impossible to avoid, and drag down economic growth everywhere.
But in the case of dishwashing vs. hand washing you are already paying for the decreased efficiency in the form of your water and heating bill. The issue is that most of us have no way to measure the relative hot water consumption of either, so we’re left with the heuristic of “more convenient is less efficient”.
And the source should be cleaned up since that is a vastly bigger lever impacting all loads. This is just limiting consumer choice for a largely symbolic gesture. I would also be really surprised if the rule is kept up to date and relevant, vs left in the codebase to rot.
Half the issues you've listed are most certainly due to incompetence/mismanagement rather than PCs in CA/CO/HI/OR/VT using slightly more power. eg.
wildfires: Gov. Gavin Newsom cut the fire prevention budget by $150 million https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/gov-newsom-overst...
power outages: failure on PG&E's part to trim trees https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out-stock-...
Well duh, but since we're talking about climate change we should be comparing against a counterfactual where climate change hasn't happened. I'm sure heat/drought existed prior to global warming. Did wild fires not exist back then? Should Newsom be let off the hook for his budget cuts because the forest was going to catch fire anyways due to global warming?
The Climate may be famously closed to negotiation, but it doesn't mean human artifice need exacerbate the problem through avoiding doing necessary work.
You ask how to convert it into a rain forest? How about heating the ocean offshore, so more water evaporates?
“This PC cannot be shipped to CA, CO, HI, OR, VT or WA because the ability to run unsigned code makes it an environmental and digital weapon.”
https://www.govtech.com/security/Drivers-License-for-the-Int...
"This PC cannot authenticate to your ISP because the ability to run unsigned code makes it an environmental and digital weapon."
1. widespread trusted computing (we're close)
2. banning encrypted comms over unregulated spectrums (done)
3. political will to ban such freedoms (growing)
How can those that prefer such freedoms preserve them? Political activism can. Can censorship resistant tech help in that situation? Plausibly deniable mesh networks? Sneakernet?
I've allowed politicians to get away with a lot of bullshit, but if they come after my PC and homelab, it's time to water the Tree of Liberty.
Are we advocating for murder on this site now? Really?
That sentiment was all well and good back in the 18th and 19th century. But in the next civil war, the Mason-Dixon Line will run through your and my back yard.
There is a reason the Declaration of Independence went to Great Lengths to articulate, and warn, future generations that it is their Right and Duty to rise against a tyrannical Government.
I'll be frank. The promulgation of "It's for your own good" types continue chipping away at liberties which should be some of the most prized things we cherish as a nation, has put an edge on life I've seen no precedent for in my life excepting firearm regulations, and plotted against a curve over time, it's only becoming faster to implement, more hospitable in the National Rhetoric, and less transparent as the Government goes the route of ignoring getting buy-in from the populace at large and contents itself with Industry collusions through influencing the means of production.
> Are we advocating for murder in this pub now? Really?
An early American exchange. Probably.
This nightmare scenario was proposed in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digit... for combatting piracy, and instead we have settled on a lesser evil of limited DRM to access Netflix. This permits torrenting, but torrenting is less prevalent now.
A carbon tax is inevitable, and will alleviate the concerns such as OP's.
Control over E2E encrypted messaging is an ongoing policy dispute. I don't have a good feel for how the pieces will land. A lesser evil solution might be to require warranted escrow for popular messaging clients. This permits two malicious actors communicating over unpopular platforms, but catches cases like threats/harassment on popular platforms.
Wow, they banned 2.4 GHz wifi? And all the other ISM bands?
I’m not looking forward to having to fight hardware / software locks on my computer that make it go to sleep all the time.
Sounds more or less like you were using the desktop OS version for a server device.
Edit: looks like 617/2013. Weird that I've never heard about this. This is about total power consumption per year though, so that thing would probably either be inefficient as hell or misclassified for some reason. None of the sleep mode regulations should apply to your case.
I think we'll do just fine.
If someone took some new laptops with them in their carry-ons or checked luggage when they flew from one state to another, or even acted as an official courier, would that be illegal?
If their plan is to sell them when they arrive then it probably is illegal.
A quick example: My apartment block was just "upgraded" to meet some new energy-efficiency building codes, and the result is that the car park now looks like a cave. The new LED lights turn on and off automatically, but they turn on seconds after you drive past them. So you're basically driving along in the darkness, but followed in the distance by some lights. It's a lot like the glowing trails of bioluminescence you see behind dolphins sometimes. It's insane.
A more IT-focused example relevant to this article: I have made a name for myself running around to various customers doubling the performance of their core business applications by turning off dynamic power management on their database servers. There's a literal turbo button (in software) on every piece of server kit sold for about 15 years now because of some stupid regulation that was started by some hippie moron in California.
Think about how absolutely crazy it is that to be "energy efficient", companies all around the world are buying servers twice as powerful as they actually need, just to save $50 in electricity per annum. The amount of time, money, and resources wasted waiting around for CPUs running at 50% of their rated clock speed is just mindboggling.
This extra computer power they've been forced to buy isn't energy neutral! More chips have to be made, more assembly is required, etc... It burns up an unbelievable amount of resources in order to save a negligible amount of electricity, which is now becoming increasingly clean anyway...
I'm not making this up. A large telco here kept doubling down on the scale of their new LOB application server platform because the performance was bad. The irony is that the more hardware you throw at something like this, the slower it gets because the percentage load drops, which lets the power management kick in more often and more aggressively. Last I hard, they were planning on buying another 100 blade servers, despite 5% or lower loads on what they already had.
PS: Some cloud platforms like Azure leave this on the default settings at the hypervisor host level, so now there is nothing I can do to improve this situation. The control has been taken away from me, so I guess everyone just has to learn to live with 3 GHz CPUs running at 1.5 GHz forever...
For example, pure hosting providers care deeply about the electricity usage, because they have to pay for the air conditioning needed to cool the waste heat. From their perspective, that $50 extra in power is actually more like $100 in electricity + cooling costs for a server that might only bring in $500 in revenue to them in the same time frame.
Meanwhile that server could be running a database that costs $300,000 per year in licensing alone, hosting software that cost $100M to develop, and supports 10K staff managing $2B in turnover.
So of course, it's going to be slowed down to 50% by the guy in charge of the air conditioning to save him $50...
That reminds me of how turning off "EuP mode" in the BIOS of an Atom nettop (it's an Atom, they're going to be using very little power even at full throttle) stopped complaints of stuttering and lag from its owner, several years ago.
What regulation is this? AFAICT, this one doesn't regulate dynamic power management, it only requires a sleep mode for some computers (and the only mention of servers is "small-scale servers", which are exempted from all the sleep mode stuff)
Netflix 4k isn't illegal despite being a completely frivolous use of electricity, but somebody professionals buying their own workstations is. Datacenters use 1% of power usage globally, the focus is on desktops.
See tables V-6 and V-7
What's insane is trying to find this information directly on california gov website. all the links are broken.
From this article:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/16/505856155...
They cite:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2016publications/CEC-400-2016-010/
Searching the website for anything related to `computer` on the CA website doesn't give me the thing I'm looking for which is that table V-7 on a gov source (not a lawyer's website).
ctrl+f for Desktop. It looks pretty complicated upon first glance.
Knowing Dell, it’s probably the power supply not meeting 80+ gold efficiency.
EDIT: I guess there’s max allowed power during ACPI S3 state as well. 10.3W max for a system <32GB of RAM. That’s pretty rough, given even good quality DDR4 is going to need ~1.5W per DIMM during S3. But given base models of these systems will almost exclusively use 2 DIMM’s that still leaves 7W to idle with, tough but manageable.
Not that it matters - nobody should be buying any of Dell’s Alienware desktops. The chassis provides terrible airflow and the components inside will thermal throttle like crazy.
Regardless, the standard is that the sleep mode must be ACPI S3 or if it is not S3 it must meet the stated power criteria criteria, (and for most desktops the limit is only 5W if under 32GB). I'm not sure why an S3 sleep is good enough to not need to meet the specific limits.
"This product cannot be shipped to the states of California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont or Washington due to power consumption regulations adopted by those states. Any orders placed that are bound for those states will be canceled."
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-computer-efficienc...
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/cec-energy-efficienc...
I haven't found a lot of information about this, but it appears that this is about idle power draw in electronics. I've been seeing a few things say that they they aren't California Title 20 compliant (like lightbulbs).
https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-ef...
(expand the section titled Computers)
+ 87% + PSU efficiency
+ Incorporate Energy-Efficient Ethernet functionality
+. Transition connected displays into sleep mode within 15 minutes of user inactivity
+ Transition the computer into either the computer sleep mode or computer off mode within 30 minutes of user inactivity. If the transition is to a computer sleep mode, that sleep mode shall either as described in ACPI as S3 or
Consume power less than or equal to 10 + 0.03 * C, where C is the system memory capacity in gigabytes minus 32 gigabytes (see Table V-6 in Title 20 Section 1605.3(v))
Umm what? Who came up with this? Is there any scientific basis behind this?
Power factor of 0.9 at 50% load.
(Monitors must go to sleep within 15 minutes of no input)
the monitor itself has to go to standby if the port it is switched to has no input (as in, the computer is not outputting anything on that port)
and
the computer has to switch the monitor into standby mode on user inactivity.
> Has power supply of 600 watts or greater and either
+ discrete GPU with 600GB/sec framebuffer bandwidth or more
+ a total of 8 gigabytes or more of system memory with a bandwidth of 632 GB/s or more and an integrated GPU
how closely did the console makers work with them on that language i wonder.
Appears to cover everything from desktops up to big iron, too. chunky.
More details on this reddit discussion, but it's not just APC affected. https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/ijmgnm/apc_ups_no...
I did get the 30L from eBay without a GPU, but Best Buy was willing to ship the GPU-encumbered version to me (Full disclaimer: I don't game, I develop FreeBSD in my spare time and need a powerful PC to compile kernels/packages, I am nc@ in FreeBSD).
Maybe HP is already complying since they are based in California versus Dell being Texas-based, who knows?
Obviously they're not singling out these specific laptops...
Anyway the laptop is probably not actually banned. Dell's probably trying to hit a threshold for eco tax benefits or something.
What? That makes no sense. Unless you're off the grid and using solar - where do you think the electricity from your outlets comes from?
People still pay for the car and the gas - just like you do for the electricity that is result of work that pumps shit into the air too.
Power generation sources that can and should be made cleaner. And those sources can be made cleaner regardless of how much individuals use (and pay for).
> People still pay for the car and the gas - just like you do for the electricity that is result of work that pumps shit into the air too.
An individual's selection of vehicle directly affects carbon emissions in a way that can't be mitigated in a society-wide fashion. Electrical power generation, on the other hand, can get cleaner without the end user changing anything. So it makes more sense to have regulations about the carbon emissions on a car. A laptop doesn't have carbon emissions directly, it just uses electricity, so at a societal level that seems better managed by improving electricity generation.
For those who will retort with “but those are regressive taxes and hurt the poor”, I will say that if you want to fix people being poor, then give them cash. It is unrelated to the goals of reducing electricity usage, and there is no need to mix the two.
For those who will say there is no money to give poor people cash, I will say that the difficult task of enacting even more wealth transfers is the only solution there.
Edit: It is the same exact thing with fuel efficiency in cars and gas taxes. There is no need for CAFE standards or mandated fuel efficiency if a simple gas tax was ratcheted up until usage dropped. Then we would not have pickup trucks twice the size they were 20 years ago consuming even more gas.
Of course this does not happen, because it is politically unpopular to enact legislation that broadly forces people to lower consumption. So we end up with these discriminatory band aids where you get screwed if you do not have sufficient political clout.
The point is that it's not "hitting their wallet." Idle power draw is an externality — it's negligible per individual (i.e. something people neglect to care about), yet adds up to real money at the municipal level.
And yes, you can make electricity cost more until it's not nelgigible. But you (as a tax-code legislator) don't want to do that. With economic "force-multiplier" utilities like electricity or gasoline, you don't want consumption to stay constant — you actually want it to increase, because consumption of such utilities is in the direct causal chain for GDP growth. Spending energy is necessary-but-not-sufficient to drive your country's economy; disincentivizing your population as a whole from spending energy, is disincentivizing them from driving the economy!
An electricity tax is like a corporate income tax: it indirectly disincentivizes people from making money. Which, as a tax-code legislator, is the last thing you want.
The point of this weird and arcane approach to incentivization that you object to, is to simultaneously incentivize useful electricity consumption, while also disincentivizing useless electricity consumption. To ramp up productivity, by saying "use as much of this as you can — but only in such a way as to drive the economy!"
What? Haven’t you heard of tax brackets? If you are so keen to tax electricity more than it already is , and are concerned it would affect the poor, then use tax bracketing just like income tax does. The poor pay less by being in a lower bracket.
Having said that, higher taxes on electricity may affect businesses in a way you don’t intend.
Imagine if your neighbor got a car that just sat in the driveway with its engine running 24 hours per day.
YOU should.
If you want to drive a 50 MPG Prius, do it. If you want to drive a 12 MPG PowerStroke Diesel V-10 Ford F-350, do it.
I'm not an expert in cars, automakers are. They can do a better job.
One wonders where you think these chips were designed?
I used to live between the AMD and NVIDIA campuses.
Stop with the moral high horse, the left in this country fell off long ago. We're all on the ground now so it's time we look around and accept reality.
Astounding.