Not happening until after the next Elder Scrolls game is out.

Yup!

Shortage Likely

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWrt

OpenWrt (from open wireless router) is an open-source project for embedded operating systems based on Linux, primarily used on embedded devices to route network traffic.

OpenWrt can run on various types of devices, including CPE routers, residential gateways, smartphones, pocket computers (e.g., Ben NanoNote). It is also possible to run OpenWrt on personal computers and laptops.

OpenWrt also recommends choosing a device with a minimum of 16 MB of flash and 128 MB of RAM, preferably higher amounts.[77]

If you can install OpenWrt, you can probably get ahold of hardware that can run OpenWrt.

OpenWrt provides regular bug fixes and security updates even for devices that are no longer supported by their manufacturers.

You’ll probably also have a longer device lifetime.

So, I’d agree that he’s probably not doing a fantastic job of running Tesla as an auto company these days. However, if you consider Tesla to just be an auto company, its valuation is way too high. I think I heard someone put it along these lines a while back, that “Tesla is a solid auto company, but one valued at ten times what it’s worth.” The only way its present-day valuation can really be justified by an investor is if they think that the bulk of the company’s value is going to come from new things that it is doing and that those things will all be wildly successful, like robotaxi service and humanoid robots and all that. The value that would have to come to those for Tesla valuation not to already be wildly out of whack would have to be so large that what Tesla does as an auto company wouldn’t matter that much.

EDIT:

https://money.usnews.com/investing/stocks/tm-toyota-motor-corporation-adr

Toyota: Market Cap: $264.50B, P/E 11.08

https://money.usnews.com/investing/stocks/tsla-tesla-inc

Tesla: Market Cap: $1333.16B, P/E 354.33

https://money.usnews.com/investing/stocks/gm-general-motors-company

General Motors: Market Cap: $65.77B, P/E 24.93

Elon Musk’s xAI and SpaceX merged in February, valuing the company at over $1.25 trillion. SpaceX is now preparing for an initial public offering (IPO).

One of the things that Musk has to do to get his trillion dollar pay package fully paid out from Tesla as CEO is to crank up Tesla’s market capitalization. Many people, including myself, would say that this is a pretty wildly unreasonable payout, that Musk, via the aid of a friendly board, is transferring a lot of shareholder assets to himself that a company acting in the interests of its shareholders probably would not. I’ve wondered if this is a gyration to advance that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2025/09/05/tesla-proposes-compensation-plan-for-musk-that-could-be-worth-as-much-as-1-trillion/

Elon Musk Threatened To Quit Tesla Before $1 Trillion Compensation Deal

To receive his full compensation reward, Musk will need to meet the ambitious goal of raising Tesla’s market cap from around $1 trillion at present to $8.5 trillion within a ten-year period.

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2026

Just saying.

https://xkcd.com/2347/

The guy in Nebraska probably has fewer resources to protect against you than the sum total of all of the downstream companies that you’re trying to attack.

It’s just an Apple fanboy

checks article history

Almost all of their articles are about Linux.

I use “mono-9” in all my terminals, including for emacs. On my Debian trixie system, that maps to DejaVu Sans Mono in the fonts-dejavu-mono package.

$ cat ~/.config/foot/foot.ini
[main]
font=mono-9
$ fc-match mono-9
DejaVuSansMono.ttf: "DejaVu Sans Mono" "Book"
$ fc-list|grep DejaVuSansMono.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/truetype/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono.ttf: DejaVu Sans Mono:style=Book
$ dpkg -S /usr/share/fonts/truetype/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono.ttf
fonts-dejavu-mono: /usr/share/fonts/truetype/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono.ttf
$

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DejaVu_fonts

The DejaVu fonts are a superfamily of fonts designed for broad coverage of the Unicode Universal Character Set. The fonts are derived from Bitstream Vera (sans-serif) and Bitstream Charter (serif), two fonts released by Bitstream under a free license that allowed derivative works based upon them; the Vera and Charter families were limited mainly to the characters in the Basic Latin and Latin-1 Supplement portions of Unicode, roughly equivalent to ISO/IEC 8859-15, and Bitstream’s licensing terms allowed the fonts to be expanded upon without explicit authorization.

The full project incorporates the Bitstream Vera license, an extended MIT License, which restricts naming of modified distributions and prohibits individual sale of the typefaces, although they may be embedded within a larger commercial software package (terms also found in the later Open Font License); to the extent that the DejaVu fonts’ changes can be separated from the original Bitstream Vera and Charter fonts, these changes have been deeded to the public domain.[1]

There are some memory latency benefits to putting memory on a single chip, but to date, that’s largely been handled by adding cache memory to the CPU, and later adding multiple tiers of it, rather than eliminating discrete memory.

The first personal computer I used had 4kB of main memory.

My current desktop has a CPU with 1MB of L1 cache, 16MB of L2 cache, 128MB of L3 cache, and then the system as a whole has 128GB of discrete main memory.

Most of the time, the cache just does the right thing, and for software that is highly performance-sensitive, one might go use something like Valgrind’s cachegrind or something like that to profile and optimize the critical bits of software to minimize cache misses.

I could believe that maybe, say, one could provide on-core memory that the OS could be more-aware of, say, let it have more control over the tiered storage. Maybe restructure the present system. But I’m more dubious that we’ll say “there’s no reason to have a tier of expandable, volatile storage off-CPU at all on desktops”.

EDIT: That argument is mostly a technical one, but another, this one from a business standpoint. I expect PC builders have a pretty substantial business reason to not want to move to SoCs. Right now, PC builders can, to some degree, use price discrimination to convert consumer surplus to producer surplus. A consumer will typically pay disproportionately more for a computer with more memory, for example, when they purchase from a given vendor. If the system is instead sized at the CPU vendor, then the CPU vendor is going to do the same thing, probably more effectively, as there’s less competition in the CPU market, and it’ll be the PC builder seeing money head over to the CPU vendor — they’ll pay a premium for high-end SoCs.

In Apple’s case, that’s not a factor, because Apple has vertically-integrated production. They make their own CPUs. Apple’s PC builder guys aren’t concerned about Apple’s CPU guys extracting money from them. But Dell or HP or suchlike don’t manufacture their own CPUs, and thus have a business incentive to maintain a modular system. Unless one thinks that the PC market as a whole is going to transition to a small number of vertically-integrated businesses that look like Apple, I guess, where you have one or two giant PC makers who basically own their supply chain, but I haven’t heard about anything like that happening.

You don’t need to as long as you’re getting sufficient speeds from non-soldered DIMMs, and desktops are generally still using non-soldered DIMMs.

Aside from them, discrete graphics cards are history, just as disk controllers were a few decades earlier. DIMM slots are going too. The primary storage will be built in. (The industry missed a great deal there.)

Discrete disk controllers are still around.

My last desktop had a PCI SATA card that I added after I exhausted all of the on-motherboard SATA slots.

My current one has a JBOD SATA USB Mass Storage enclosure.

I’m not sold that modular desktops are going away in general. SoCs have some benefits in terms of power usage, but those are most-substantial on phones and least-substantial on the desktop.

My understanding is that memory may move away from DIMMs to CAMM2 to permit for higher speeds, but that’s still a modular system.

As to the first step in narrowing it down…normally a fan spun up is going to be because either your CPU or GPU is hotter than normal. I’d exit the game, give it a bit, then look at your CPU and GPU temperature to see whether either is elevated as a first step. If not, then the problem is the fan running unnecessarily. If so, the problem is (assuming you stopped the game) something keeping the thing hot.

This only stops when I restart my laptop.

Assuming that OP tried stopping the game (which, to be fair, he didn’t explicitly say that he did), that doesn’t sound normal.

cheaters

Steam store

If I were set on that, I’d probably play on a console. I prefer keyboard+mouse for shooters, but…

The PC’s strength is that it’s open. You can do whatever you want. Want to mod a game to have more features or make it look prettier? Go for it. Tweak it? Sure. Get more-powerful or newer hardware to get a more-attractive appearance in a lot of games? Sure. Cheat to skip that annoying grindy bit in game X? Sure thing. Use whatever new and interesting input devices you want to add quality-of-life features with an extra button or macros? Sure.

Works beautifully for single-player games.

But by the same token, attempts to resist cheating in multiplayer competitive games are ill-suited to the platform and rely on developers trying to hack together attempts that tend to have performance and compatibility implications and work imperfectly. It’s hard to try to lock down an open platform.

Whereas the strength of the console is that it’s closed. You can’t do whatever you want. You don’t get to mod or tweak games much, which eliminates routes to get an edge via exploiting that. Everyone has (more-or-less) the same hardware, so nobody can “pay-to-win” in the sense of getting a performance edge in multiplayer competitive games — there’s a level playing field. A lot of PC gaming hardware is ultimately driven by trying to sell some way to basically let players pay-to-win, to get some edge in competitive multiplayer, which isn’t something that most players much like having around — and consoles don’t have that problem. Cheating is a pain. I understand that these days, console vendors blacklist and authenticate alternative input devices, so that players can’t use alternative controllers and the like, which prevents them from getting an edge.

Works beautifully for competitive multiplayer games.

To cue anyone’s memory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_based_on_films

That’d be quite high compared to historical inflation-adjusted launch prices.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/game-console-launch-prices-adjusted-for-inflation-1975-2024/

Game Console Launch Prices Adjusted for Inflation (1975-2024)

https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/995e4917-5bb0-4dee-8b7d-f43e8ef21d62.webp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_generation_of_video_game_consoles

The ninth generation of video game consoles began in November 2020 with the releases of Microsoft’s Xbox Series X and Series S console family and Sony’s PlayStation 5.[1][2][3]

The duration from the eighth generation until the start of the ninth was one of the longest in history, having started in 2012 with the release of Nintendo’s Wii U. Past generations typically had five-year windows as a result of Moore’s law,[10] but Microsoft and Sony instead launched mid-console redesigns, the Xbox One X and PlayStation 4 Pro.[11] Microsoft also launched a monthly console lease program, with the option to buy or upgrade.[12] Some analysts believed these factors signaled the first major shift away from the idea of console generations because the potential technical gains of new hardware had become nominal.[13]

The eighth generation video game console period ran for about eight years, so there’d be precedent for the ninth generation consoles to do the same, which would take us to a 2028 release date for the tenth generation.

searches

https://www.ign.com/articles/nintendo-switch-2-production-cut-33-following-weak-holiday-sales-report-claims

Nintendo Switch 2 Production Cut 33% Following Weak Holiday Sales, Report Claims

Nintendo has reportedly cut back on manufacturing Switch 2 consoles following weaker than expected holiday sales for the console.

That’s according to Bloomberg, whose sources say Nintendo now expects to make 4 million Switch 2 units this quarter, down 33% on the 6 million it previously planned to manufacture.

Nintendo recently confirmed it had sold fewer Switch 2 consoles internationally over the holiday period than it had once hoped, particularly in the U.S. — though the impact of this had also been dulled somewhat by stronger sales in its homeland of Japan.