Absolutely, it is essential to always run the numbers. I was once offered a sizable rebate if I accepted a non-0% car loan, but no rebate if I paid cash or had my own financing. Since their loan had no early-repayment penalty – and I demanded this in writing – I accepted their loan and paid it off upon the first statement.

My suspicion is that that sort of offer was to boost the commissions earned by the loan brokers, rather than to move cars. Or maybe both. Who knows.

0% interest offers show up fairly frequently in the USA, often as general-purpose credit cards, or for car or furniture payments, in addition to the many buy-now-pay-later services that allow financing almost anything. However, the motives for offering 0% are slightly different for each of these products.

But answering the question directly, a 0% offer is beneficial if you were already going to make the purchase and would finance it. Cheap credit makes it easy to overspend, since the payments will be “tomorrow’s problem”. For people who can afford to pay for something in full, it might still be beneficial to finance with 0% just to conserve cash on hand. But the tradeoff is having to service the debt with regular payments; missing one payment can cause the debt to resume at an exorbitant rate. It takes a decent amount of financial discipline to make a 0% offer work in your favor.

Going back to why 0% offers even exist, I’ll use furniture and cars as they’re the historic examples. Furniture is expensive, whether it’s a sectional sofa or a queen-size bed with frame and storage. There’s also a sizable markup for furniture, and competition between furniture stores is strong. Thus, to help entice people to buy furniture, sellers will offer 0%, outsourced to a loan company, with the loan subsidized by some of the profit margins.

For cars, the equation is slightly different. Sure, cars are an order of magnitude more expensive, but that also means the opportunity cost for dealers to offer 0% is correspondingly larger. Instead, 0% financing for cars is almost always subsidized by the manufacturer, not the dealers. This is a financial and business strategy that allows a car company to create more sales in a given quarter, if perhaps they need to meet certain year-end targets but are reluctant to reduce their list prices.

0% car loans induce more sales fairly quickly, but will draw on the company coffers in the years to come, because the loan company still wants their cut to be paid by someone. Consumers will usually benefit from these offers, as it’s rare for people to buy a new car outright.

It’s my opinion that if a car company has to subsidize loans to move their product, that’s a tacit admission that their product is wrongly priced or the competition is better. I would take this into consideration, although it wouldn’t necessarily carry the day when considering a purchase. After all, car payment interest is not insignificant.

Agreed. When I was fresh out of university, my first job had me debugging embedded firmware for a device which had both a PowerPC processor as well as an ARM coprocessor. I remember many evenings staring at disassembled instructions in objdump, as well as getting good at endian conversions. This PPC processor was in big-endian and the ARM was little-endian, which is typical for those processor families. We did briefly consider synthesizing one of them to match the other’s endianness, but this was deemed to be even more confusing haha

It never ceases to amaze me how prolific PowerPC/PowerISA was (still is?) in the embedded space

A quick “rule” is to see how old the word/concept is. “plaintiff” would have existed almost as long as the English legal system came into being, or probably even older to the court of Assizes pre-12th century.

Whereas firefighter as a profession might have only become a word after the establishment of fire departments by insurance companies, which I think might have been a 19th century development.

This entire series by Cathode Ray Dude is a wonderful dive into the world of PC boot sequence, for the folks interested in a touch of embedded architecture. His delivery is also on-point, given the complexity and obscurity of the topics.

From this video alone (41:15):

The way this worked was: they installed Xen hypervisor on your PC, put Hyperspace in a VM and Windows in another. Now, you either know what a VM is – and I don’t need to explain why this is terrifying – or you don’t and I need to make you understand so you never independently invent this.

And (43:59):

This is just a bad idea, ok? Virtualization belongs in data centers. Putting some poor bastard’s whole OS in a VM is a prank. It’s some Truman Show shit. It’s disassembling the coach’s car and putting it back together inside the gym. It’s not remotely worth the trouble and it probably didn’t work.

This sort-of happened in the USA, in a small way, during the fallout of the 2016 Wells Fargo scandal. Public sentiment of the big-name, national retail banks was awful and credit unions capitalized on the moment with advertisements contrasting profit-centric national banks with local, cooperatively-owned credit unions.

In this article where consultants to credit unions were queried a year later, there’s still some questions as to the long-term effects that may have benefited the credit unions.

I once came across a comment somewhere online that suggested – sadly without hard evidence – that the scandal may have been a win-win, since the sort of customers willing to uproot themselves from Wells Fargo tended to have smaller balances while still incurring the bookkeeping costs. And that credit unions were able to scale up to take in new customers while saving on advertising dollars.

It’s a plausible idea, that a new equilibrium would be found in the banking market. Logically extending the idea further, though, would lay bare how much additional integration credit unions would have to do with each other to achieve a truly seamless customer experience. Of course, with more young people mostly sticking to online and mobile banking, this might come in the form of backroom operational improvements, rather than a revamped brick-and-mortar experience.

Most commercial publications in the USA and UK – UPC/ISBN or not, regular or not – will often send copies of their work to the national library (ie Library of Congress). That said, those copies might not be prioritized for digital viewing. So seeing them in-person might be the only way to access them.

As for whether the publishing houses keep them, it’s probably very individualized, so who can say.

The other answers have touched upon the relative efficiencies between a phone charger and a desktop computer’s PSU. But I want to also mention that the comparison may be apples-to-oranges if we’re considering modern smartphones that are capable of USB Power Delivery (USB PD).

Without any version of USB PD – or its competitors like Quick Charge – the original USB specification only guaranteed 5 V and up to 500 mA. That’s 2.5 W, which was enough for USB keyboards and mice, but is pretty awful to charge a phone with. But even an early 2000s motherboard would provide this amount, required by the spec.

The USB Battery Charging (USB BC) spec brought the limit up to 1500 mA, but that’s still only 7.5 W. And even in 2024, there are still (exceedingly) cheap battery banks that don’t even support USB BC rates. Motherboards are also a mixed bag, unless they specifically say what they support.

So if you’re comparing, for example, the included phone charger with a Samsung S20 (last smartphone era that shipped a charger with the phone) is capable of 25 W charging, and so is the phone. Unless you bought the S20 Ultra, which has the same charger but the phone can support 45 W charging.

Charging the S20 Ultra on a 2004-era computer will definitely be slower than the stock charger. But charging with a 2024-era phone charger would be faster than the included charger. And then your latest-gen laptop might support 60 W charging, but because the phone maxes out at 45 W, it makes no difference.

You might think that faster and faster charging should always be less and less efficient, but it’s more complex since all charging beyond ~15 Watts will use higher voltages on the USB cable. This is allowable because even the thinnest wire insulation in a USB cable can still tolerate 9 volts or even 20 volts just fine. Higher voltage reduces current, which reduces resistive losses.

The gist is: charging is a patchwork of compatibility, so blanket statements on efficiency are few and far between.

I’ve previously spoken with PSU engineers for enterprise power supplies – specifically for 48-54v PoE equipment – who described to me that today’s switch mode power supplies (SMPS) tend to get more efficient with increasing load. The exception would be when the efficiency gains from higher loading start to become offset by the heating losses from higher input currents.

This graph for a TDK PSU shows that North American 120 VAC nominal (see here for the small difference between nominal and utilization voltages) will cause a small efficiency hit above 75% or so. And this is exactly why data centers – even in North America – will run with “high line” voltage, which is 200 VAC or higher (eg North American 208VAC delta supplies, British 240/415 wye, European 230/400 wye).

Your primary issue is going to be the power draw. If your electricity supplier has cheap rates, or if you have an abundance of solar power, then it could maybe find life as some sort of traffic analyzer or honeypot.

But I think even finding a PCI NIC nowadays will be rather difficult. And that CPU probably doesn’t have any sort of virtualization extensions to make it competitive against, say, a Raspberry Pi 5.

I will admit I had to look up what Pluton is, but I think Microsoft did a decent job of explaining it by themselves:

Microsoft Pluton is a secure crypto-processor built into the CPU for security at the core to ensure code integrity and the latest protection with updates delivered by Microsoft through Windows Update

Microsoft Pluton is designed to provide the functionality of the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) and deliver other security functionality beyond what is possible with the TPM 2.0 specification

In other words, Pluton is an enhanced TPM that’s baked directly into newer CPUs, for code integrity of Microsoft’s software. Here, integrity means the software was not tampered with, and will do exactly what Microsoft wanted it to do. That no guarantee that their software won’t spy on you or expose your data (see Microsoft Recall controversy), though.

Now, Microsoft can extend that integrity guarantee by blessing other software makers’s code. That is one of many avenues to use Pluton as DRM and/or anti-cheat, if game makers obtain the necessary blessing.

But this is still years away from fully rolling out, and it necessitates that everyone buys a CPU which has Pluton enabled. I personally wouldn’t want to pay money for something that historically would have given me full control. Game consoles have always been locked down, but I draw a line at PCs. Everyone will have to decide what they’re comfortable with, as we enter this brave new world.

Perhaps this is a matter of nomenclature, but I wouldn’t have thought that enforcing a ban is part of what anti-cheat software is meant to do. Sure, the anti-cheat is what alerts the game server, and then the server bans either the account or the actual machine. But the OP’s question was about anti-cheat and DRM software that impacts system performance. Someone that’s been banned from a game will not have in-game performance issues, because they’re not able to play the game at all.

I don’t think my omission of a TPM-based ban makes my answer “not entirely true”. I stand by my statement that TPMs are not suitable for the anti-cheat or DRM functionality when a game is running, and would not solve any performance issues if they were.

With that out of the way, yes you’re right that the TPM can be used for other, ancillary purposes. The typical use is to securely store certificates uniquely issued to a machine, such that the bearer of the certificate must be the certificate’s rightful owner. This is sometimes used to authenticate to corporate VPNs or Windows AD domains. But these certificates can be replaced, which makes them useless for enforcing a ban on a particular machine.

But TPMs also have a built-in, static certificate from when they were manufactured, which can only be challenged/responded using tokens from that manufacturer. If a game maker wants to coordinate with various TPM or mobo manufacturers to achieve that level of security, they’re certainly welcome to do so. But it also alienates users who don’t have or refuse to own such hardware, exactly as you’ve described. It’s a business decision, what they choose to do. Expedited manual review for broken TPM users is still fraught with issues, since there’s now an incentive to brick your own TPM and get a second chance at cheating.

There’s no free lunch in building secure systems, and that’s why anti-cheat makers will always face the uphill battle.

In a nutshell, the TPM works great as a trust anchor if it’s only needed once during boot-up. But anti-cheat and DRM software run concurrently with the software payload, so it’s not a one-time deal but a continual process to reverify. More so, the TPM is not self-enforcing so there would have to be software which issues a challenge to the TPM, and then interprets the response. This uses CPU power, at a minimum.

The crucial challenge – likely unsolvable in the general case – is that anti-cheat software has to try to monopolize some portion of the machine, to prevent running other software like hacks or keygens. But this is diametrically opposed to the goal for the past 60 years of multitasking operating systems and context-switching CPUs, which try to divy out the machine so different software appear to run almost simultaneously and independently.

As a result, some anti-cheat software is truly horrible, because they have to employ very strange tricks to coerce the system to either prevent something undesirable from happening, or to act as a canary when something undesirable has happened. The definition of “undesirable” is left to the software package makers to define.

The only plausible way I could see the situation improving is if OS makers integrated anti-cheat and DRM into the scheduler (the very core of an OS) in a uniform manner. But this is: 1) really complicated, and 2) a security nightmare if malware could exploit it. And that’s ignoring whether the Unix/Linux/BSD world would ever tolerate such a kernel feature.

The following will be a massive oversimplification of the complex laws and court cases over the 20th century trying to grapple with what, quite frankly, is a fairly modern issue. Not the AI aspect, but that of CSAM and how it intersects with American civil liberties (ie the First Amendment).

In the USA, the freedom of speech is very broad, save for very specific, already-established exceptions. These include “imminent threats/fighting words”, obscenity (not the same as the dictionary definition), defamation (false statements that tarnish someone’s character), and the cause or result of crimes. Whole courses could be taught on just the exceptions to the First Amendment and their contours.

Actual CSAM is exempt from freedom of speech because – among other reasons articulated by courts – it can only be produced through abuse of a child, which is a crime. Simulated CSAM, however, has to meet the obscenity standard in order to be exempt, which the Supreme Court articulated as:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Every word of those guidelines has been deeply analyzed for the 50 years of its existence, and until a better set of guidelines are issued, that’s the best guidestar we have. Which is to say, if a lawyer can craft an argument within those parameters, the scenario you’ve described could indeed be recognized as a crime.

But a small caution: please be very careful when asking to carve exceptions into free speech. As a civil right, it’s something which must be jealously guarded, by citizens, lawmakers, and courts. These things are complex precisely because they’re trying to avoid criminalizing thoughts and ideas, while also enabling a society to function.

In American English, “corrupt” can refer to both the crime of corruption (eg quid pro quo deals with public officials) as well as seemingly abuses of discretion. For example, a city engineer has some amount of discretion when designing a new street, whether to dedicate more public space to automobiles or to restrict the space to become more like a public plaza, ie a living street with places to sit, eat, shop, and take in the air.

By objective professional standards, either approach could be appropriate if properly justified. But public sentiment could result in that engineer being called “corrupt” because they’re giving less favor toward automobiles, for example. That is, “corrupt” is an epithet to voice one’s displeasure at a discretionary decision. Also see sports umpires, who face similar (or worse) vitriol.

My limited experience with provider bills is that even two months “late”, none have ever referred the bill to collections. Nor did they ever charge the “late” fees that their bills had threatened. I’ve never come across a provider that demanded a credit card on file – and chargebacks would ensue if they did run the card without notifying me – but my experience certainly won’t be a consistent across the country.

I’m not sure what you mean about the part involving tax evasion, but broadly speaking: if a card is going to be held on file – whether for a rental car or something else – debit cards are not advisable. Also, my cursory understanding is that HSA cards should only be used for point of sale transactions, since apparently it could sometimes be declined for card-number-entered transactions.

As an aside, regarding USA health care public policy, I think provider-issued bills need to be abolished, where the only bill that insured patients receive is a single, consolidated bill that comes from the insurance company, at the same time the EOB is sent, with plentiful payment and financing options.

Not only does this reduce patient confusion, it saves money for providers (who don’t need to follow-up on late payments), it reduces the need for providers to issue refunds, and patients benefit because it’s a single bill at the end. The only downside – maybe – is that forgiveness of a medical expense must file paperwork with the insurance company, to be reflected on the consolidated bill. But this would still be a massive improvement.

Or, instead, maybe just go the full shilling and have a national, single-payer, universal health care system. Baby steps or big leaps; take your pick.

Most (all?) health insurance companies in USA have clauses in their agreements with in-network providers (ie doctors, hospitals, pharmacists) to permit a covered patient to first receive the Explanation Of Benefits (EOB) document from the insurance company first, before having to pay a provider. In fact, waiting for the EOB is highly advisable, because paying a provider’s bill in-full and then later having to obtain a refund because the insurer paid out is akin to pulling teeth (that is, painful and difficult).

The EOB also shows which claims the provider actually filed with the insurance company, which if full-and-complete means you should not expect to make any further payments for services received.

To be clear, the EOB also includes any amount which the covered patient is known to have paid at the time of service. For example, most in-network doctor’s offices will charge the insurance policy’s copay on-the-spot before seeing the doctor, since this is a known, fixed amount and insurance will pay the doctor some sort of negotiated remainder.

You should verify the EOB reflects any copays you’ve already paid, and that the costs have accrued toward whichever deductible applies to you – more than one deductible can be at play.

To answer your question directly, I would not start any negotiation until you have the EOB in hand, because otherwise you are negotiating blind: you won’t know which claims have been filed, and you won’t know how much insurance has agreed to already pay.

At last, the justification I needed for wearing a chainmail undergarment!