Source?

One of the expressed reasons for cutting funding to PBS and NPR (via the Corp. for Public Broadcasting) is because they can’t influence what is being said by those entities.

This conversation is surreal because you don’t seem to understand how disagreement works. You said the price makes sense, I am saying it doesn’t. You are free to end the discussion there if you wish but I am going to keep responding to the person who keeps acting like their opinion is fact;

Tegra GPUs are specifically cost reduced, low power versions of previous generations of GeForce GPUs. The one in the Switch 2 has been rumored to be based on the 3000 series but I have not seen any confirmation of that as yet. I feel like you are making my point for me, you keep saying that everything else costs the same so why should this one cheaper part matter… and my response is because it’s cheaper. Note the lack of PCI and Thunderbolt for instance. There is also no Windows license to worry about.

If you don’t want to reply then don’t but seriously it seems like you are getting upset solely because somebody has a differing opinion.

Then it seems we got off on the wrong foot when you called my disagreement meaningless.

RISC has always been fundamentally cheaper than x86 which is one reason why Nintendo has used a RISC processor in all of their handheld consoles since the original GameBoy.

Your last sentence is pretty much my point though. There is no reason for that. Look at the iPad and the Mac Mini, look at the Raspberry Pi… there is no reason for a RISC machine to cost more than an x86 machine.

Your response was to Simple’s comment about price. From my reading it seemed that you were implying that the price was right because the performance was similar. I was agreeing with Simple and disagreeing with that perceived implication based on the fact that it uses a different and historically cheaper architecture. One that would typically make a dollar per hertz comparison useless, as you seem to have pointed out. Hence my confusion.

there are other aspects that impact performance, so you can’t make assumptions based on that

That is literally what I have been trying to say this whole time in response to you saying it looks comparable. I genuinely have no idea what you are arguing against at this point.

Huh? I’m not sure you understand what I was saying so I am just going to leave these links here:

CISC

RISC

I would have bet real money if you had asked me yesterday that it would have been limited to 1080p to reduce cost. I am very curious to know more about how it actually performs in each setting, how much of it is upscaling, etc. I imagine that most 4k games won’t have much in the way of better graphics than the Switch 1, the higher memory bandwidth could help with higher res textures though.

It’s not similar to PC hardware; It uses a Tegra processor like the Switch 1. Which means it’s more like a phone with a less than laptop grade Nvidia graphics chipset thrown in. Unlike the Steam Deck, for instance, which uses an AMD Z processor, a scaled down version of what is in the Xbox and PS5.

These things can’t think and they don’t reason no matter what they call the model. Toddlers can do both of those things.

Until we have another breakthrough at the level of neural networks AI will only be as good as the sum total of the training data and therefore only as good (or bad) as humans can be, never better.

I don’t understand it. It’s like people don’t just want AI to be the next big thing, they NEED it to be the next big thing. Suggesting that current AI is about as useful as NFTs is personally insulting for some reason.