Intel's i486 was the first "computer number" I ever really understood. Sure, my elementary school computer lab had both the Apple IIGS and Apple IIc, and one of them was slightly more useful, for reasons unexplained to me. But soon after my father brought home his office's discarded Gateway desktop with a 486DX 33 MHz inside, I was catapulted into my first Intel sorting scheme. I learned there was an x86 before this one (i386), and there were models with different trailing numbers (16–100 MHz) and "DX" levels. This was my first grasp of what hardware I was actually using and what could improve inside it.

More than 36 years after the release of the 486 and 18 years after Intel stopped making them, leaders of the Linux kernel believe the project can improve itself by leaving i486 support behind. Ingo Molnar, quoting Linus Torvalds regarding "zero real reason for anybody to waste one second" on 486 support, submitted a patch series to the 6.15 kernel that updates its minimum support features. Those requirements now include TSC (Time Stamp Counter) and CX8 (i.e., "fixed" CMPXCH8B, its own whole thing), features that the 486 lacks (as do some early non-Pentium 586 processors).

It's not the first time Torvalds has suggested dropping support for 32-bit processors and relieving kernel developers from implementing archaic emulation and work-around solutions. "We got rid of i386 support back in 2012. Maybe it's time to get rid of i486 support in 2022," Torvalds wrote in October 2022. Failing major changes to the 6.15 kernel, which will likely arrive late this month, i486 support will be dropped.

Where does that leave people running a 486 system for whatever reason? They can run older versions of the Linux kernel and Linux distributions. They might find recommendations for teensy distros like MenuetOS, KolibriOS, and Visopsys, but all three of those require at least a Pentium. They can run FreeDOS. They might get away with the OS/2 descendant ArcaOS. There are some who have modified Windows XP to run on 486 processors, and hopefully, they will not connect those devices to the Internet.

Really, though, if you're dedicated enough to running a 486 system in 2025, you're probably resourceful enough to find copies of the software meant for that system. One thing about computers—you never stop learning.

This post was updated at 3:30 p.m. to fix a date error.

Read full article

Comments

What's a reformed villain gotta do to impress the Justice League? That's the dilemma faced by John Cena's titular antihero in the first teaser for S2 of Peacemaker, James Gunn's Emmy-nominated series spun off from his 2021 film, The Suicide Squad. We've got the same colorful cast of characters, but the new season will serve as something of a "soft reboot" as part of the new DC Universe (DCU) franchise.

(Spoilers for S1 and The Suicide Squad below.)

The eight-episode first season was set five months after the events of The Suicide Squad. Having survived a near-fatal shooting, Peacemaker—aka Christopher Smith—is recruited by the US government for a new mission: the mysterious Project Butterfly, led by a mercenary named Clemson Murn (Chukwudi Iwuji). The team also includes A.R.G.U.S. agent John Economos (Steve Agee) of the Belle Reve Penitentiary, National Security Agency agent and former Waller aide Emilia Harcourt (Jennifer Holland), and new team member Leota Adebayo (Danielle Brooks).

Project Butterfly turned out to be a mission to save Earth from an alien species of parasitic butterfly-like creatures who took over human bodies. The misfit members of the project eventually succeeded in defeating the butterflies in a showdown at a ranch, and even survived the carnage despite some severe injuries.

Creating a spinoff series around the villain who killed Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman) in The Suicide Squad was a bold move, but my initial doubts proved unfounded. As I wrote in my 2022 review, "Gunn has successfully taken a seemingly irredeemable character and sent him on an emotional journey that made us love him—all framed in a blood-soaked, action-packed, cheekily irreverent main story that makes for top-notch entertainment." I wasn't alone in my assessment. So it wasn't surprising when HBO Max renewed the show for a second season just before the S1 finale was set to air, even though it was originally conceived as a limited series.

Gunn and Peter Safran have since become co-CEOs of DC Studios and are developing a 10-year plan for the DC Universe, starting with this year's Superman. Peacemaker S2 will build on the events of that film. As for the killer S1 opening title sequence—featuring cast members dancing to Norwegian metal band Wig Wam's "Do You Wanna Taste It?"—Gunn has said that we're getting a new title sequence for S2 set to a new tune.

Cena, Brooks, Holland, Agee, and Stroma are all back for S2, along with Nhut Lee as Judomaster and Eagly, of course. Robert Patrick is also listed in the S2 cast, reprising his role as Chris' father, Auggie; since Chris killed him in S1, one assumes Auggie will appear in flashbacks, hallucinations, or perhaps an alternate universe. (This is a soft reboot, after all.) New cast members include Frank Grillo as Rick Flagg Sr. (Grillo voiced the role in the animated Creature Commandos), now head of A.R.G.U.S. and out to avenge his son's death; Tim Meadows as A.R.G.U.S. agent Langston Fleury; and Sol Rodriguez as Sasha Bordeaux.

Set to "Oh Lord" by Foxy Shazam, the teaser opens with Leota driving Chris to a job interview, assuring him, "They're gonna be doing backflips to get you to join." It turns out to be an interview with Justice League members Green Lantern/Guy Gardner (Nathan Fillion), Hawkgirl/Kendra Saunders (Isabel Merced), and Maxwell Lord (Sean Gunn), but they are not really into the interviewing process or taking note of Chris' marksmanship and combat skills. They even diss poor Chris while accidentally keeping the microphone turned on: "This guy sucks." (All three reprise their roles from Superman and are listed as S2 cast members, but it's unclear how frequently they will appear.)

The other team members aren't faring much better. They saved the world from the butterflies; you'd think people would treat them with a bit more respect, if not as outright heroes. Leota is "living in the worst level of Grand Theft Auto," per John Economos; Emilia Harcourt has anger management issues and is diagnosed with "a particularly severe form of toxic masculinity"; and Vigilante is working in the food service industry. There's not much detail as to the plot, apart from Chris going on the run from A.R.G.U.S., but the final scene shows Chris walking through a door and encountering another version of himself. So things are definitely about to get interesting.

The second season of Peacemaker will premiere on Max on August 21, 2025.

Read full article

Comments

Mac users of a certain age may remember Ambrosia Software, maker of iconic shareware hits like Maelstrom and Escape Velocity. For over a decade, the Ambrosia website included this quotation on its homepage:

“Virtue does not come from money, but rather from virtue comes money, and all other things good to man.” ―Socrates

In other words, don’t try to make money. Try to make great things, and the money will surely follow. It’s a strategy that’s simple to explain, but almost impossible for any company to follow.

Folks in the C-suite will try to tell you that these two goals are perfectly aligned—that making great products is part of being a profitable company. But they mean it in the same way that Frosted Flakes is part of a complete breakfast. It’s on the table, sure…along with a glass of milk, a poached egg, toast with jam, and a piece of fruit. It turns out that, as far as big corporations are concerned, one part of this spread is actually kind of optional.

From virtue comes money, and all other good things. This idea rings in my head whenever I think about Apple. It’s the most succinct explanation of what pulled Apple from the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s to its astronomical success today. Don’t try to make money. Try to make a dent in the universe. Do that, and the money will take care of itself.

Turn, Turn, Turn

Dissatisfaction with Apple among its most ardent fans has, at various times, reached a crescendo that has included public demands for a change in leadership. The precipitating events could be as serious as Apple bowing to pressure from an authoritarian regime, or as trivial as releasing an unsatisfying new version of an application or operating system.

Despite making my living by criticizing Apple, I tend not to get caught up in the controversy of the moment. When Apple ruined its laptop keyboards, I wasn’t calling for Tim Cook’s head. I just wanted them to fix the keyboards. And they did (eventually).

But success hides problems, and even the best company can lose its way. To everything, there is a season.

As far as I’m concerned, the only truly mortal sin for Apple’s leadership is losing sight of the proper relationship between product virtue and financial success—and not just momentarily, but constitutionally, intransigently, for years. Sadly, I believe this has happened.

The preponderance of the evidence is undeniable. Too many times, in too many ways, over too many years, Apple has made decisions that do not make its products better, all in service of control, leverage, protection, profits—all in service of money.

To be clear, I don’t mean things like charging exorbitant prices for RAM and SSD upgrades on Macs or taking too high a percentage of in-app purchases in the App Store. Those are venial sins. It’s the apparently unshakable core beliefs that motivate these and other poor decisions that run counter to the virtuous cycle that led Apple out of the darkness all those years ago.

Apple, as embodied by its leadership’s decisions over the past decade or more, no longer seems primarily motivated by the creation of great products. Time and time again, its policies have made its products worse for customers in exchange for more power, control, and, yes, money for Apple.

The iPhone is a better product when people can buy ebooks within the Kindle app. And yet Apple has fought this feature for the past fourteen years, to the tune of millions of dollars in legal fees, and has only relented due to a recent court order (which they continue to appeal).

In the (Apple-mandated) absence of competition in the realms of app sales, payment processing, customer service, and software business models, Apple’s exclusive offerings in these areas have stagnated for years. What should be motivating Apple to make improvements—the desire to make great products—seems absent. What should not be motivating Apple—the desire for power, control, and profits—seems omnipresent.

And I don’t mean that in a small way; I mean that in a big way. Every new thing we learn about Apple’s internal deliberations surrounding these decisions only lends more weight to the conclusion that Apple has lost its north star. Or, rather, it has replaced it with a new, dark star. And time and again, we’ve learned that these decisions go all the way to the top.

The best leaders can change their minds in response to new information. The best leaders can be persuaded. But we’ve had decades of strife, lawsuits, and regulations, and Apple has stubbornly dug in its heels even further at every turn. It seems clear that there’s only one way to get a different result.

In every healthy entity, whether it’s an organization, an institution, or an organism, the old is replaced by the new: CEOs, sovereigns, or cells. It’s time for new leadership at Apple. The road we’re on now does not lead anywhere good for Apple or its customers. It’s springtime, and I’m choosing to believe in new life. I swear it’s not too late.

Go fash, go broke:

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft struck a deal with President Trump last month intended to secure the future of New York’s oldest law firm. Instead the pact is backfiring, adding to an exodus of lawyers that has placed the firm on uncertain footing.

Cadwalader already was facing troubles, including imminent attorney departures, before its April 11 deal with the White House in which it avoided a punitive executive order by pledging at least $100 million of pro bono work to support the president’s priorities. The agreement now is pushing more lawyers to leave, people familiar with the matter said, spurred by anger that the firm capitulated to Trump instead of fighting back against an administration campaign that many in the industry believe to be unconstitutional.

A key partner in the firm’s litigation group is in late-stage talks to join a boutique firm and several other litigators are planning an exit, the people said. J.B. Howard, who is counsel at the firm and a former Maryland deputy attorney general, is also leaving and sent a letter to firm leadership protesting its capitulation, people familiar with his departure said.

It’s really important that the law firms who preemptively capitulated to Trump’s illegal demands be shunned by everyone who supports multiparty democracy.

The post Speaking of Collaborationalists appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

"Well, I think we can do at least $2 trillion."

That was the cut to federal spending promised by Elon Musk at a Trump campaign rally in late October. As he defined the objectives of the Department of Government Efficiency for the first time that day, Musk was shooting from the hip. The centibillionaire was supposed to commit to a $1 trillion cut, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who helped plan the speech. But Musk doubled the number in a moment of fervor.

A few months later, with Donald Trump having secured the White House and DOGE well on its way to existence, Musk took a step back. "If we try for $2 trillion, we've got a good shot at getting [$1 trillion]," he said in early January. Musk remained committed to $1 trillion in cuts until last month, when he adopted a much more conservative tone, treating DOGE's $150 billion in claimed savings as mission accomplished.

With Musk now preparing to scale back his work for the White House, he joined a farewell Cabinet meeting last Wednesday, during which he took credit for saving the federal government $160 billion. However, the real number appears to be much lower, particularly when considering how much DOGE could save taxpayers in future federal budgets. For fiscal year 2026, Musk Watch's DOGE Tracker could verify just $5.02 billion in savings produced by DOGE.

Of the $165 billion in savings DOGE now claims — another $5 billion was added to DOGE's website following Musk's comments last week — it has only itemized $69.3 billion. But in many line items, DOGE claims savings but provides no information about the contract or grant. This makes these claimed savings impossible to verify.

In other cases, DOGE includes theoretical savings, counting unexercised government options to inflate the value of the contract. To correct for this, Musk Watch calculated savings by subtracting the amount already obligated from the total current value of the contract.

Tallying DOGE's savings that way, and excluding unidentified grants and contracts, we found that DOGE identified about $16 billion in verifiable cuts from grants and contracts. But that figure still doesn't tell the full story.

Musk promised to cut $2 trillion from the annual federal budget. But the $16 billion in verifiable cuts from grants and contracts will be realized over several years, since many of the contracts and grants that were cut spanned many years. DOGE made it difficult to calculate the annual savings because, in many cases, once it canceled the contract or grant, DOGE changed the termination date of the contract to the date of the cancellation.

To estimate the annual savings in 2026, Musk Watch analyzed about 5,000 grants and contracts terminated by DOGE where the cancellation date had not been changed. The lifespan of those commitments averaged 1233 days, or about 3 years and 3 months. So, to determine how much DOGE's cuts could save in Trump's first full fiscal year, Musk Watch calculated one year of prorated savings. We found that DOGE's verifiable cuts to contracts and grants would produce about $4.73 billion in fiscal year 2026. Adding in DOGE's full claimed cancellations of $291 million in real estate leases (even though many of those cuts are dubious) brings the total verified cuts to $5.02 billion.

$5.02 billion is about 0.25% of the $2 trillion Musk touted.

Since entering the White House in January, Musk has overseen an increase in federal spending. The Wharton School's federal budget tracker recorded a 6% rise, or about $156 billion, in federal spending under Trump compared to the same period last year.

DOGE, meanwhile, could end up costing the federal government $135 billion this year when accounting for the lawsuits its cuts have triggered and loss of tax revenue from a depleted IRS, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a good government nonprofit. The PPS model is a conservative estimate; it does not factor in new costs arising from the 260,000 federal workers who have been fired or have accepted buyout and early retirement offers as part of DOGE's workforce reductions.

Republicans have also used the promise of Musk's austerity treatment to justify extending Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which would largely benefit wealthy taxpayers at the cost of trillions to the federal government.

Although Musk failed to produce the savings he said he would, Trump has described the work of DOGE in glowing terms. "He found $160 billion worth of fraud, waste, and abuse," he said of Musk during a Meet the Press interview that aired on Sunday. "I think he’s done an amazing job." The president, when pressed about Musk's unmet $2 trillion pledge, replied, "Well, we're not finished yet."