Stupid article by people who can’t do percentages.
Downvoted for false info.

with unit pricing expected to range between $180 and $200. In contrast, Qualcomm’s latest premium SoC reportedly costs smartphone manufacturers as much as $280

How is 180 less than half of 280? The saving is “only” 36%.
What is actually the case is that the Qualcomm is 55% more expensive, which is a huge difference from the claim of the headline.
MediaTek being 55% cheaper would be: $280 -55% = $126.

That’s a weird thing to say, since top Mediatek for a couple of recent generations were actually more powerful than top Qualcomm, including on graphics.
Qualcomm typically has an edge on efficiency, but it’s only an edge, not like they are in different leagues, and MediaTek is absolutely a great option if you want a high end very powerful phone.
IMO it’s by far the best (only really good) place to save cost if you want to make a flagship killer, and at half the price it ought to be a no-brainer.

HOWEVER!
After actually reading the article:

with unit pricing expected to range between $180 and $200. In contrast, Qualcomm’s latest premium SoC reportedly costs smartphone manufacturers as much as $280

The 180-200 price is repeated in the table shown. <so how is 180 less than half of 280?
Seems to me more like a saving of 36%.

I 100% dress for others, I don’t really care about clothing, and I hate to buy new clothes. I only do it because I think I may be nearing some limit of what is considered decent to wear in the presence of other people, who 100% always are better dressed than me.

The other day I was at the supermarket, and had seen they had a special offer on “plaice” I think it’s called.
Well the special offer was sold out, and I asked an employee if they had anymore.
The employee was extremely nice, and asked how many I had planned to buy? And I said 2, then he took 2 bags that had 50% more content, and wrote the price of the special offer on them, and said I should just mention his name at the register.
I though Wow that stellar service, and it was only when I came home I realized I had some of my worst pants on that are so warn they had holes in them.
I have newer pants, but I don’t like them, because they have no sway and they are some sort of stretch material to be tight, and I absolutely hate that. And I also hate shopping for clothes.

Anyways because my clothes are (to put it mildly) sub par for normal people, I figured he probably thought I was some sort of destitute.

I am married, and our economy is absolutely fine, we own an almost paid out house, and we have a car that was bought cash without borrowing, and we have a good amount of money in the bank.

Anyways I don’t care, maybe because I don’t have to. I just want clothes that are comfortable.

There is no dietary requirement for exogenous glucose in our food.

This is true, we can make all the glucose we need without eating any sugar at all.

glucose is still quite bad

True.

Fructose is twice as sweet as Glucose, and while we do use Glucose for energy the same is not true for fructose, and fructose is way way more harmful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetness

OK, that only confirms to me that he was in fact insane. There is no way we are supposed to eat only fruit, it simply doesn’t provide any real energy, but consumes as much to digest as it yields, meaning there is no way to survive on fruit alone.

So where’s does he claim to only eat fruit?
Are you confusing it with him recommending to use Apple? 😋 (/s)

Also the man was insane. If you based on false beliefs make decisions against professional advice, that are detrimental to your well being, and even put your life in danger, that is AFAIK a very key aspect of being insane.

That’s what Google did with Android:

Not really, the part Google makes money on is Google apps, and that’s all proprietary.
If you use AOSP without Google Apps, Google isn’t making any money on it. Just like they aren’t making money on f-droid.

And now they’re killing off AOSP

I rest my case.

Because Google is an evil empire that is governed by money, and opensource can’t be monetized for advertisements.

You made 2 false claims, and now you say you don’t actually know what you are talking about.
Yes, I kind of figured that out already.

If lembot_0004 is a bot, it is in fact a shitty bot as was commented, that gives clearly false information.
It was clearly an error in judgement by the moderator to remove the above post.
Please restore!

Fructose is the element in sugar (Sucrose) that actually taste sweet, it is also the part that is unhealthy. it acts somewhat like alcohol.
Giving similar problems and can also cause dependency.

If you want to know the basics about sugar I don’t think there is much better info than this out there, absolutely worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Average disregarding race or culture, spanning thousands of years.

Your question seems mostly nonsensical, we are not “house trained”, and what do you mean by “rather than controlled”?
Is your question based on biblical or another form of faith?

But in short regarding our social behavior, the principle of it is not very different from social behaviors of other group animals like dogs or chimpanzees. We “behave” because we are social animals and it’s in our DNA to work for the benefit of the the group.
Obviously misbehavior is generally rooted in conflict of interests, which can naturally occur in all groups. They are absolutely not generally a result of mania. Psychological illness is not a very significant driver for what you seem to consider “primitive” or criminal behavior.

That still doesn’t mean 30 was the maximum possible age for humans 30,000 years ago.

Yes actually it does, above 30 would be an outlier.
Of course genetically they had about the same potential as modern people, but life was simply too harsh for people to survive above 30. The struggle to survive meant they were simply worn out at that point.
We see this even today in nomadic tribes in the rain forest of South America.

Average lifespan used to be shorter because of the amount of infant mortality.

That is completely wrong.
Lifespan is NOT the same as life expectancy:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/lifespan

Lifespan is the maximum length of time that a person can live

https://www.discovermagazine.com/what-was-the-life-expectancy-of-ancient-humans-44847

Other research reveals that the lifespan of Homo sapiens may have changed from the Middle Paleolithic to the later Upper Paleolithic, since the ratio of older to younger remains increases. The same research shows that starting about 30,000 years ago at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, the average lifespan began to push past 30 years.

So 30000 years ago 30 years was pretty much the maximum age a person could achieve. Life expectancy would probably have been more around 15.

Read my other comment, the study is probably pretty close to the truth.
https://lemmy.world/comment/19682894

Tribal nomads of 100000 years ago did not live anywhere near to their 60’s.
AFAIK they rarely lived beyond 30.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/what-was-the-life-expectancy-of-ancient-humans-44847

Other research reveals that the lifespan of Homo sapiens may have changed from the Middle Paleolithic to the later Upper Paleolithic, since the ratio of older to younger remains increases. The same research shows that starting about 30,000 years ago at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, the average lifespan began to push past 30 years.

Note that Lifespan is not the same as life expectancy:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/lifespan

Lifespan is the maximum length of time that a person can live

So 30000 years ago 30 years was pretty much the maximum age a person could achieve.
Life expectancy would probably have been around 15.

It’s OK, we have evolved to be intelligent enough to also evolve our society and science to enable us to live far beyond what was needed as a tribal nomadic species.

I don’t like to reveal too much personal info here, but to me you are still a child.

beginning of civilization

Beginning of civilization is not the natural lifespan either, even early civilization has advantages that can extend natural life.
Clearly we are already ageing at 38 years old, meaning that from an evolutionary point of view, our lives don’t matter much after that point.

Nobody dies “naturally” of old age at 38.
But genetically we come from nomadic tribes, and the nomads of a 100000 years ago, had a far shorter average lifespan than after we settled and began farming. Also people of nomadic tribes in the rain forests of South America today, often don’t live longer than that on average AFAIK.

When we look at animals, it is also not uncommon that a tamed animal pet can live twice as long or more than they usually do in the wild. For humans if modern environment has similar impact compared to the harsh life as a nomadic people, the double of 38 is 76 years, and that’s pretty close to life expectancy today.

So I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the claim outright, but the article is a bit thin on details on the science.

But it’s not just medicine (as speculated by OP), it’s also hygiene, food safety and work safety, so we avoid many external factors often until our body is simply too week to continue. We basically all reach an age where we are definitely ageing, and are very far from peak condition. Strength, speed and agility wise, very few sportspeople can compete over 40 years of age, despite the advantage of experience and more years of training.