Literally same. Changed my daily driver from windows a year or so ago and its been night and day. Having to be intentional about acquiring games and getting them running with proton/lutris (not too much work these days thanks to Valve and GloriousEggroll) made me less of a collector and much more focused on what I want to play. Which means I play a lot more. Also this year has had some phenominal titles for indie and AAA.

I’m lucky to have a high paying job and a wonderful community around me where most of my needs are met, so my cost of living is low even with two children.

Ive been working on early retirement wince the day I started my career and Im a little over halfway there :) If I could double even one of my accounts I’d be set.

I’d retire.

Ah, yes - exactly! The article is also fully unrelated from OPs title - really weird post all around.

I work on networking for distributed rendering for a major cloud provider- very familiar with gpu architecture and use-cases :)

Saying they do more math is a bit tricky. The CPU does crazy types of very complicated math and accomplishes tasks we still have a hard time offloading to GPUs.

I agree with the rest of your statement as a good explanation for why GPUs can do faster and more efficient batch processing of the workloads that can be fit to the SIMD set up we use for most modern GPUs (ignoring general purpose gpu and fancier compute options)

1. GPUs predate 1995
2. They solve a set of problems different from those handled by cpu’s
3. The existence of GPUs wouldnt ‘curb the growth’ of the other processors
4. The government would be best positioned to benefit from that rapid growth, since it is a state level actor that can regulate the use and acquisition of technologies
5. GPUs have also developed very quickly since their advent.

So like the previous comment mentions - No.

Yeah thats a pretty good summary of what I was trying to convey. If this didn’t levitate, no one would’ve blinked twice. But since it did, its being investigated more thoroughly to check if its one of those other things that levitate (or actually a superconductor)

What I’ve gathered from many of the discussions around this topic is that the levitation is a notable feature of superconductors due to th Meissner(?) Effect. So if it couldnt levitate, there would be no reason to suspect that it is a superconductor. Because it does levitate, superconductivity is one of a few possibilities.

There have been indicators it may be a semiconductor instead, but apparently the conditions to accurately produce the material are vague/not fully understood - so attempts at reproduction have failed to rule it in or out 100%