On Friday, July 30, 2021, 10:38:22 PM PDT, Shawn K. Quinn
   <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
   On 7/30/21 23:59, jim bell wrote [quoting a Republican Daily article]:
   >> Americans know California is fond of banning all types of pleasure
   and
   >> progress. So it may come as no surprise that the state has adopted
   new
   >> regulations that have ended up effectively banning a new
   top-of-the-line
   >>> gaming PC from Dell. The reason? The new technology uses too much
   >> energy. That’s right, a highly advanced PC cannot be sold in
   California
   >> – the state with the fifth largest economy in the world and that is
   home
   > to the heart of the tech industry – because it uses a lot of power."
   >I'm confused by this article. If it's just energy consumption related
   to
   actual computing power and these computers are no less energy efficient
   factoring in the higher computing power, I have a huge problem with it.
   I very much doubt that California has made an intelligent distinction,
   here.  My understanding  is that over the years, measures like 'watts
   per gigaflop' for computer equipment has very much improved.  If
   anything, the total power consumption of computers hasn't increased
   (much) since 1990, but they get a lot more compute done for those
   watts.
   >However if it's really about energy efficiency, as in these computers
   could be built with the same amount of computing power and use less
   energy to do the same work without sacrificing performance, then that's
   a problem Dell needs to fix.
   I think that's highly unlikely in this case.  With a given level of IC
   technology, you're probably going to get a very similar rating in
   'power/gate-hertz'.  The main way to improve that figure is to build
   ICs using tinier components, and they are already down to 10 nanometers
   (and well below that).
   >I'm hesitant to make any kind of decision based on a blatantly right
   wing story, that actually has "Republican" as part of the publication
   title no less (!). I'd like to see a more balanced story from, say,
   Wired."
   As I just pointed out to Prof, this was merely the first article I
   encountered.  I figure that everybody has his own 'spin' to put on this
   story.  And finding such a different article is as simple as
   'california ban computer'.
   I could add, with my legal knowledge, that I believe it would violate
   the US Constitution's guarantee of free interstate commerce for a state
   to obstruct transporting products across state lines for this kind of
   reason.  The Founding Fathers didn't want the various states to act
   like independent countries, and erect trade barriers between
   themselves.
   If anything, it's a rarity that Congress granted California the power
   to erect lower pollution-control standards in about 1972 than applied
   to the rest of America.  I understood California needed it, at that
   time:  I visited LA in 1969 (for the moon landing) and yes, I saw the
   smog.  But I don't think they justified maintaining such heightened
   standards for the next 5 decades.
               Jim Bell