As selfish as this is (if it plays out the way the article suggests), it just further reinforces the pattern we see over and over: every spec, every standard, e

As selfish as this is (if it plays out the way the article suggests), it just further reinforces the pattern we see over and over: every spec, every standard, every intellectual property has a poison pill that prevents us from progressing. I just keep wondering how we can all come together and pull the plug on this stuff. I want a computer built of at least 1000 (RISC-V, MIPS, I would have said ARM before this announcement) chiplets to process the workloads I've explained in my comments since I joined this site. The future of computing is humans cultivating algorithms rather than writing them directly. That looks like genetic algorithms and simulating as many permutations as possible so we can pick and choose the ones that work. And better testing paradigms and formal verification. No more getting lost in the weeds having to learn yet another 3D rendering library or AI runtime. Although the computer I'm talking about can certainly simulate that stuff. I got my computer engineering degree in 1999 so I could do something like the above paragraph, only to see every attempt to do so be stifled by the main players every step of the way for the last 20+ years. Nobody gets it. They're never gonna get it. They're gonna proprietarize and cripple and dilute every last magical idea until some Evil Corp somewhere can make a dime on it. Upon rereading the comments, I realized that it might still allow a chip with an array of the same core like I'm suggesting, which would fit with the architecture I've been proposing. Even if that's the case, I'm still against ARM's position. They're basically trying to control how we use their core in something we own, which is the hardware equivalent of DRM.