I think you'd find that a slight shift in perspective on this will do wonders. Try imagining that the person posting is your best friend on a good day. Or your mom. Or your dog. Or anyone/thing else you unconditionally hope receives good things in life. That might turn some of them into boosts to your happiness (I want good things for person x: imagine good things happening to person x = good thing for me).
Short selling is not revolutionary at all. Options and short selling are perfectly normal market instruments that have far ranging utility, including both hedging securities and insurance on tangible goods (e.g. a pork farmer buying puts on pork to ensure he can sell his product at a specific price).
Neither is it "radical" in any type of market. It just means selling something you don't actually have yet (something you're "short"). Think of a middleman who sources classic cars. He contractually agrees to sell a 1991 Ferrari for $60k. He doesn't yet own the vehicle, but knows he can source them for $50k. Unfortunately for him, a recently popular meme has gassed the price of Ferraris, and he now has to pay $70k for the car. He's still obligated to sell at $60k, so he begrudgingly takes delivery and loses $10k, having "sold short" the car. Is he revolutionary or radical?
Forward contracts and futures contracts have a number of important differences. Most notably, futures contracts involve assets that already exist, but will be traded in the future. Forward contracts involve assets that do not (typically) exist at the time of the contract, and will not be traded if they do not exist at the contract's specified date.
They also serve quite different purposes for a society/economy.
Whilst there are difference, I'm not sure it's really true that the underlying always exists for futures. The main difference between the two is that futures are standardised contracts traded on an exchange and typically subject to daily margining/price settlement which has some impact on the behaviour of their price over time.
Futures are useful to a broader group of people precisely because they don't need to involve physical settlement. Many people use commodity futures to hedge exposures to the price of assets which are not the underlying in the future but where there is a relatively predictable relationship between the two prices. Others use them to speculate on prices despite having no ability to deliver or take delivery of the underlying. Some contracts are even purely cash-settled.
(Edit: made clear that it was the point that futures always involve an underlying which already exists I disagreed with.)
Apple's poor support for Linux on Mac hardware may reverse if the company gains data center ambition for the M1. Partnering with a cloud provider (maybe Microsoft?) to deliver seamless Linux deployment on M1 would be significant...
Microsoft already has a good partner in Ampere, a company fully dedicated to servers and standards.
Apple clearly doesn't seem interested. The M1 is just a scaled-up version of the iDevice SoCs. From the reverse engineering we've seen so far, it is extremely clear that not even a single step towards any standardization was taken. It's very much the ad-hoc hodgepodge of embedded crap companies build when they only care about their own complete product and don't allocate any budget towards any "refactoring" that doesn't directly benefit the end product.
They use some ancient Samsung UART for debug (because the first iPhones used a Samsung SoC?), old P.A. Semi I2C controller, the Synopsys DesignWare USB 3 controller (just like some random cheap Allwinner/Rockchip/etc), and here's the fucking kicker, a custom Apple interrupt controller and a custom IOMMU too. These probably predate GICv2/3 at least. But there was no reason for them to switch to the standard Arm GIC and SMMU so they didn't >_<
