To be fair ActivityPub is a pretty shitty protocol in terms of scaling up with all the quadratic communication and caching growth it requires. Not that ATprotocol is better, just that there is room for improvement on ActivityPub before it could be used on a world-wide scale for the entire human population the way major social media sites are right now.
It is called "going gold" because it is the gold standard for measuring the tolerance level for embarrassment from releasing the pile of garbage a project produced. Going gold is done at exactly the point when that drops from intolerable to tolerable to the stake holders.
We don't have one of those. We call it a chancellor (Kanzler) and we also have a (largely ceremonial) president (Bundespräsident).
Yeah, to rephrase my post the other way around, buying a console and just a few games is only really possible because it is carried by people who don't carefully weigh if that is a financially sound decision.
Probably very few among the people who carefully weighed which system gives them the better bang for their buck.
Even if it can't tell how much load you put on your system because that is a complex interaction of various bottlenecks, it would at least be nice if they labelled which settings are likely to contribute to the CPU, CPU, RAM, VRAM,... bottlenecks.
Those are individual games though, console games are just much more expensive on average. There isn't as much available on the cheaper end of the market.
People are less likely to own a TV already these days though than they used to be so the price calculation for consoles favors them a lot less if you take that into account. Not to mention that console games tend to be more expensive than PC games, especially indie PC games now that triple A is more of a warning label than an indicator of quality.
The idea itself of tracking everything everyone does has been awful since long before the internet even existed.
Usually that phrasing in a news context is used for things like research breakthroughs or actual finished builds of prototypes or their first run, not just small, necessary steps to get to the point where you can start doing something actually related to technological progress.
Thank you, this is the kind of context I was thinking of but I must have missed that particular story in the news.
Neither the position to keep all the old solutions because they are old nor to adopt all the new solutions because they are new is sensible.
Some old solutions worked in the past and don't work anymore because the actual world around us changed (the bits outside our control, e.g. some resources might be more sparse but were more plentiful in the past, human populations are larger, the world is more interconnected,...).
Some old solutions appeared to work in the past because we didn't have the knowledge about their flaws yet but now that we do we need new ones.
Some new solutions are genuine improvements, others are merely sold by marketing and hype.
Some new solutions have studies, data or even logic and math backing them up while others are adopted on a whim or even contrary to evidence or logic.
We can not escape the fact that the world is complex and requires evaluation on a case by case basis and simplistic positions like "keep everything old" or "replace everything old" do not work.