Doing stuff that makes peoples lives better with no short-term financial incentive? Sounds like a mission for public-funded institutions :)

Really great answer. Kudos for taking the time and energy to write it !

I don't get the comment here, they didn't 'express their opinion' about Israel. They behaved like a bunch of lunatics within Google's offices.

Yes, they did express their opinion on the ongoing genocide. They did that in a fashion that disturbed the workplace - which some comments seem to deem holy ground that should never be disturbed by anything - but they did express their opinion.

If you want to protest Google's actions send a signed letter of resignation stating the reason, send it to the press and form a union of techies that won't work for companies that work with Israel recursively.

Iirc they tried some regular stuff before resorting to this method. Also, it's always funny how when people try to change things, they never seem to do it the right way.

On a side note, I like how none of them mind building mass surveillance tools, pushing ads, Google-China relations, etc... But Israel's genocide is trending, so they jump on that. What a bunch of shallow fucks.

Well congrats on being less of a hyprocrite than the rest of us.
The world is shit, nothing goes in the right direction, and some of us are more sensitive to some issues than others.
I mean I despise alphabet and their business model, but I also understand than people are less horrified by their work being used to serve ads than it being used in a genocide. And again, I hate that ads exist.

Protestation and strike are supposed to inconvenience the higher ups, please stop advising to use methods that don't disturb anything.

First, thanks for doing the work of checking sources for articles posted here, I believe you add value to the conversation.
This being said, I happen to disagree with you - here's why.

There seems to be a common misconception about bias and trustability.

The site you linked to has two ratings: factual reporting and bias.

Factual reporting is determined by how they do their jobs: do they check their facts and sources before they publish?
ABC news australia is voted 4/5 on that scale, which I'd say makes them pretty trustworthy - most of the time, they report accurate and verified information.

Bias is the way you choose the informations you report and how you comment on them. For exemple, while reporting the same information "billionaires are now x% richer than last year", a left biased paper could comment on how non billionaires are getting poorer and a right biased paper could list the billionaires and applaud their financial choices. As a strongly left biased person myself, I'll ignore the right biased paper nit because I think they're lying, but because I don't find their commentary relevant.
Everybody and every news source is biased, and it's okay. There is usually no neutrality possible when you do journalistic work, because your job is to provide context and commentary around the facts that you report.

IMO, bias is not a metric helpful to determine credibility, and I find it a little detrimental that the site you linked to has bias and fact checking displayed at the same place without providing a better differentation between the two.

On a side note, the pursuit of a fictionnal "journalistic neutrality" supposedly devoid of any bias has been and still is weaponized in the french news, where women, muslils or people or color are told they can't report on subjects that they know well because they are supposedly too close to the topic and wouldn't be able to stay neutral. While of course cishet white privileged men can report on those subjects because they are more "objective"...

Thanks for this summary that's a lot better than the title which implies they went to Russia voluntarily to "get wives".

Thanks for sharing, this looks awesome ! I can't waut for the opensource release.

Btw, did I skip through the article too fast or is tomhardware unable to provide links in its content ? /rant

Anyway, here are the ones that seemed relevant to me.

Official website (kinda empty at the moment, but it's going in my bookmarks)

Author's Youtube channel

Hackernews original discussion in which the author states:

Let's be clear here, this is a toy. Beyond being a fun project to work on that could maybe get my foot in the door were I ever to decide to change careers and move into hardware design, this is not going to change the GPU landscape or compete with any of the commercial players. What it might do is pave the way for others to do interesting things in this space. A board with all of the video hardware that you can plug into a computer with all the infrastructure available to play around with accelerating graphics could be a fun, if extremely niche, product. That would also require a significant time and money investment from me, and that's not something I necessarily want to deal with. When this is eventually open-sourced, those who really are interested could make their own boards.

In France it's illegal not to allow them to unlock your phone once they take you to the station. That's why most of the time we clean our phones or use burners during civil desobedience actions.

Waoh, someone invented frequent incremental auto-save !

IIRC the vaccine was not free. Governments paid for it, so we all did pay for it.

Too bad this is not included in the title (or subtitle) !

Thanks, I didn't know that Time was supposed to do journalism. I get it now !

That's a Darwin Award waiting to happen !