Right? You'd think that we would invest more resources in understanding something that concerns 100% of us in a very profound way (health, maybe even life)
Ah, but are those going to be different brands across companies? After all, most auto manufacturers have multiple brands (traditionally, the big three automakers had a low-end, middle-tier and high-end brand, e.g., Ford’s Mercury-Ford-Lincoln trinity, although in the last thirty years a number of brands were shuttered. Add in international consolidation (Chrysler was owned for a while by Daimler-Benz and now by Fiat, Ford used to have an ownership stakes in Jaguar, Volvo and Mazda among others) and you might be seeing intra-corporate part sharing, not inter-corporate.
It does happen that smaller car makers will use parts from other makers in their cars because it is too expensive to design and produce all of the parts themselves. Switches, tail lights, etc are often done this way.
It is not uncommon for parts that are made by third parties will be used in cars by different makers. Aisin makes transmissions used in many brands. This can backfire when the third party maker has a production problem which affects a wide range of cars in multiple makers. The Takata air bags were used in many brands of cars until they were found to blast shrapnel into the faces of occupants. Takata has been struggling for years to produce enough replacement parts to fulfill all of the recalls.
Manufacturers try to reuse as much as possible for efficiency's sake but one size does not fit all. If you try to have the same underlying blocks powering your super low-power ultra-portables, as well as the high power server chips, and everything in between (including the monstrosity in the article) the definition of efficiency starts to need a very subjective understanding.
Look if they want funding for their for profit venture they should just ask for your credit card number then go spend on AWS where the hardware is modern and the energy is efficiently used. But if they were upfront and asked directly for peoples hard earned money in exchange for nothing every sane human would say no, so there's this racket called boinc where they trick you into giving them your money indirectly and they laugh at you. You get a gold star if they find something with your "contribution". But they get a billion dollars for finding the next lucrative drug
The insistence in both of your comments that the people at Boinc are not only taking advantage of people but "laugh[ing] at them" is odd. Why must your boogeyman be as unlikeable as possible?
It’s a simple any easy way to donate which you can start and stop and any time without handing over any financial details. You could, for example just decide to crank it up when your solar panels are generating an excess and the export rate is low.
It's the responsibility of the society to do research and just because some capitalism based entities also do this and also benefit from this doesn't matter.
Start being less 'sane' if this holds you back formulating your own opinion or actions making society better ...
not all research benefits society and what does usually benefits the wealthy, which boinc users almost certainly aren't. The wealthy expect a return on an investment
I'm easily able to contribute to a lot of open source projects either out of the box or with little onboarding time.
When I read about those optimization blog articles it feels to me that I need to take at least half a year or a year as a sebatical to understand all of it
