https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-wood-behind-few...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-phrase-putti...
> The background seems an oft-used phrase in Sun Microsystems by the former CEO, "all the wood behind a single arrow" which means focus on a single product and be the best in it.
> When deer hunting .. "Real men bring only one arrow. They know how to aim (and they remember to take plenty of time when aiming), and they put all the wood behind that one arrow."
They even managed to find a usage of the same space of metaphor from Apple!
> While the layoffs are intended to reduce operating costs, Apple said it trimmed its technology portfolio to streamline development efforts. “Time to market is very important to me,” Amelio said. “With the narrowing of our focus, we can put more wood behind the arrow.”
> —Stephen Howard, “Narrowing tech focus, Apple cuts 4,100 jobs,” MacWeek, March 17, 1997
(Of course, if I want to shoot birds the reverse would be true)
Raise the mass of the arrow and it'll hit with more force. There's a sweet spot for piercing heavy cloth armor. If the arrows are too light, they'll bounce right off.
Enough thrust will make anything fly: if your bow's range is halved by a heavier arrow, maybe switch it out for a crossbow.
It only doesn't make sense if you choose the position that arrows can be switched out but not bows.
Is there a proven evolutionary advantage to birds rising earlier in order to catch the worm?
The meaning is clear as you got it, despite you never hearing it before, so it undeniably works.
It's a saying. I've heard it so it could be a britishism?
It is not that it has happened, more that it would be desirable
> Is there a proven evolutionary advantage to birds rising earlier in order to catch the worm?
I think anyone collecting worms as fishing bait will tell you that worms favour dawn to daytime, so yes.
I'm British, and I think the arrow thing sounds like US corporate BS rather than a traditional saying
Well I did business studies aswell so it might be management speak.
In videos I've seen of tests of arrows against armour the shafts usually break, so that the weight of the shaft does not fully go into the penetration.
Stiffer shorter arrows have, therefore, a better chance. Thus the men fighting heavily armoured troops may choose crossbows, which with their long reloading time would literally trade number of shots for heavier shots.
This is the metaphor that keeps giving
The fletchings have less of a moment arm to correct things.
The soda can anecdote made me realize that “We give you free soda and after-hours pizza, so you can ruin your health for the company.” matured unceremoniously into “If you want to ruin your health, pay for it like any other member of society.”
Realize it, and “embrace the warmth of leaving home.”
Killing it just wasn't as painful.
I personally don't expect tech conglomerates to be the ideal solution for niche markets. But I don't see many people providing good arguments why alternatives like Feedly didn't take off if there was really a strong market demand for RSS.
And I say that was an uber-fan of RSS back in the day.
Sure they still work and will continue to work but let's be honest it's a super niche technology and it didn't survive/flourish because it was flawed and fundamentally nerdy option people stopped caring about.
Supporting RSS takes the bare minimum of effort. Yet even in 2013 (aka a decade ago) RSS was declining in usage before Reader was killed.
I support open platforms but RSS had a super noise-to-signal UX and I personally don't miss it.
Google didn't kill RSS, they killed the best RSS product at the time and accelerated a dying protocol that would still be only used by HN's demographic and little else.
Using NetNewsWire and subscribing to subreddits with NNW on one half of my iPad and the Reddit app on the other half is still a great experience for instance.
I click on the date on NNW and the post opens in the Reddit app.
HN also has an RSS feed.
If it is a niche technology it will fall out from requirements docs and from CMS implementations.
One can already see that many news sites only provide headlines, not even teasers in the feed and different site generator based blogs (using Hugo and such) forget to create feeds as well.
My feed reader still provides value to me, but I regularly stumble over sites providing interesting content irregularly but no feed. (For irregularly posting blogs it is especially important as manually checking is annoying)
DaringFireball and a few other blogs get around this by having native ads as an RSS entry.
The problem is that nothing arose that adequately replaces it.
I was actually just looking for RSS feeds for some of the top news sites, and a lot of them have specialized RSS feeds for a certain category but not for the entire site. (I had to eventually settle for Newsweek)
I genuinely don't know, so this is an honest question. Nowadays, outside of podcast feeds, what's the incentive for media outlets to provide RSS feeds? Isn't it just a fringe assortment of techies still using it? (To be clear, I'm part of that fringe.)
Programmers get nostalgic about their pet technologies that even the majority of tech-denographic (and often themselves) don't even use when given the option. I don't blame them but they aren't always honest about their favourite niche tech simply being niche technology.
(I get HN headlines via RSS)