It is two articles in a trenchcoat. One is about Arm making CPU’s. The other is about Arm poaching talent from companies it currently sells to.
Instead of posting two articles with two different links about Arm Toms decided one was enough.
Comment on Arm's to launch first self-made processors, poaching employees from clients: Reports
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
What the hell does that title mean? That sentence is so malformed.
SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 1 week ago
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Understanding the headline requires prior knowledge of the industry and ARM specifically.
Even without reading the article, I know that ARM is one of the only CPU companies I know of that designs CPUs but doesn’t actually manufacture any of them for sale themselves. They license their CPU designs to other companies that use them in their own products which is why Apple can make their M silicon ARM CPUS for iOS devices and Qualcomm can their Snapdragon CPUs smartphone CPUs.
What this article headline is saying that ARM, for the first time, is manufacturing its own CPUs and not just licensing their tech to others to do so. Further, ARM is apparently poaching employees from their licensees that have ARM CPU knowledge to do it.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
None of this makes the sentence less cumbersome. I understand what ARM does. I understand their relationship with other companies.
The sentence is objectively awful.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I didn’t say it wasn’t cumbersome, but your first post said you didn’t understand what it was communicating. Do you now understand what the headline was communicating?
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
I understand the article.
Grunt4019@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Even still you wouldn’t say “Arm’s”
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I’m not defending the grammar. It is/was horrible. I was saying it was possible to understand what the headline was trying to communicate if you had knowledge of the industry.
ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 week ago
It seems like OP added that 's for some reason. That’s not included in the article title.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 days ago
In defense of OP, OP didn’t add that by themselves. I saw the article when it was first linked and it had the apostrophe “s” in there just like OP’s headline. So the headline was corrected at the source after OP posted it here.