TheOperator

It's essentially impossible to make Microsoft go in this direction for the right reasons the way the incentives and laws around corporations are setup so the pragmatist in me says YES unless you're willing to resort to revolutionary measures.

In my experience, self-perceiving myself as being less orthodox and more creative than my peers, is that making a bunch of changes is aggrevating to your peers. It often disrupts their workflow, it causes them to have to learn things again, and worst of all it can lead to unintended consequences because you didn't understand why things were being done the way they were and the pitfalls of your clever solution. Alternatively it can be the case the creative DOES have a better solution but for some reason such as communication people cannot understand WHY the solution is superior and reject it perticularly when the creative is fairly new or in a fairly junior position.

The creative finds themselves in the position of either underperforming their peers through overconfident cleverness, or overperforming their peers and in the process threatening their peers because they have depreciated the knowledge of their peers while positioning themselves as the only ones who know the new system at least in the short term. So regardless of how well they perform there is reason to try and beat them down. The creative employee has incentives to try to downplay their creative instincts or at least to limit their creativeness to their personal workflow where it causes less disruption.

Additionally if you take two engineers of equal ability, one by the book and relentlessly uncreative but never breaks anything, and one which breaks as many things as they improve coming out about even, the former is almost always preferred simply because the latter causes a lot more stress and distraction and more need for training. There is a cost to creativity that often goes unaccounted for and a creative solution has to be meaningfully superior to be worth implementing.

Probably the only consistent reasons I've seen creatives being favored is 1: Outright superiority perticularly when conservatism has gone unchecked for too long 2: Collective boredom and a desire for staff to learn different ways to doing things to round out their skills 3: Management wanting to put pressure on complacent mediocre employees who "go through the motions". In many cases an employee exceptional at following directions and process can be genuinely more useful.

It's not really that curious. Textbook publishers pay professors significantly more than Journal publishers. Hard to get a group of people on your side when you're exploiting their work for profit and giving them jack in return.

I agree yet at the same time I avoided it largely because it's a zero-redundancy setup and a desktop/laptop setup is fundamentally more reliable... and it allows the failure of one device to not involved panicked repairs. Plus I do like the ability to segregrate the devices by function, or use one device to repair the other device. Also I'm staggered by the price of these GPU adapters considering the often crap quality of the hardware.

Yet I wouldn't be surprised to see myself go this way in the future especially because my phone only becomes a more and more capable "Backup" every year.

Windows having DPI scaling problems is a good problem to have since it's mostly rooted in the fact that it supports much older software.

Marketing mostly. QHD screens seem superior to 4K in a laptop form factor at this point.

For that matter I see HD as generally superior to QHD in phones and think Apple has it right.

Some of Intels design decisions made them uniquely vulnerable to Spectre and it's not simply a matter of them being a "bigger target" if that's what you're driving at. Yes though every CPU has theoretical Spectre vulnerabilities.

well I made two claims but 1: Because Intel 14nm was more efficient than AMD 12nm. i'm not make this prediction with high confidence. 2: Independant of the competition 7nm should offer insane enough battery life in a 13" form factor to be "good enough".

Google and Amazon could have stole nothing and Sonos would still be doomed by their walled garden strategy in the long run.

The thing is you're speaking entirely about men of influence.

I would have a heck of a time finding the citation but I recall one study where subjects were shown one of two people. The general idea of it was that one of the subjects was shown to get better answers on a test and generally was more successful. The other was a neer-do-well. Then both of these subjects tripped. The neer-do-well who tripped was judged even more negatively. The achiever was judged more positively. Almost as if the mistake had "humanized" them.

I also notice that when people talk about men who are in touch with their feminine side, and open about things like being sexually assaulted, we see Terry Crews types who are built like a brick shithouse and are oozing with exaggerated masculinity and success. Can man who is already judged as weak and effeminette get away wiht crying and be treated well? I don't think that's the case and in fact I think the reverse is true. If a woman in the military trying to make a name for herself bursts into tears regularly will she be seen as strong enough to not break down in the midst of battle?

On top of that point... I think you're missing that the crying in all the cases you're talking about is quite controlled. To the point of Jibes about both Boehner and Obama playing up the waterworks to drive sympathy. Neither of these men are sobbing "I can't do this job... I'm not good enough". They're sobbing at some vague distant injustice to show how much they care about something. So I'm not even sure these examples demonstrate that crying is culturally accepted... and instead they merely show that specific circumstances allow for crying (high-status man, tragedy not caused by yourself, etc)

>Mandela

I think old men get an exception from cultural expectations around crying and i'm not sure why.

>I fully support the premise, but it clearly ignores the reality. A man has to first be convinced that the environment around him will not reject him for crying, before expecting him to be vulnerable in such an unfamiliar way.

It's irritating to read recommendations for people to effectively martyr themselves in the sake of progress.

>People talk about toxic masculinity as though it is a problem created only by men.

"Toxic masculinity" is an unfortunately named term that leads to a lot of people talking past eachother since what the term means academically, and what it means colloqually/what it implies are fairly different. I think the issue is intractable enough to justify doing away with the term entirely and eventually coming up with a euphemism that means the same thing.

Battery life, overall size, and warranty policy on airpods is very competitive.

I'll forever be baffled at people treating one of the biggest semiconductor companies in the world which has historically released products which easily outlast the rest of the components in the system as some fly-by-night alternative to Intel.

This sentiment also caused my family to get a Pentium4 over the superior Athlon64 years back and I'm still salty.

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Intel literally has a more power-efficient SoC? I wouldn't be surprised to see more 13" AMD laptops with the 7nm die shrink next generation but even then I don't see AMD being more efficient than Intel 10nm.

The scheduling is even worse for free services where hours the services are offered are limited especially if you're holding down a job, and once you make it work by waking up a couple hours earlier thna normal and jumping through a bunch of hoops... the care is temporary and you need to find something else in a few months.

If anything I think part of the value of seeking out mental healthcare is symbolic. I.E. it's so difficult and costly you convince yourself that you must really want to get better, can work hard, and that something so burdensome must work or nobody would bother with it (a sort of placebo effect). Yet it's easy to get jaded and easy to find yourself going through some ineffectual therapy at great personal cost.

I also think that people are really hung-up on two specific approaches, namely talk therapy and drugs, when they can simply not be cost-effective. It's really costly to put a specialist through years of school, and heat up those counselling offices, and all of that. If you're poor enough that money can make a HUGE impact on the diet you can afford and the exercise you can get. People seem to have this funny idea that somebody living an impoverished miserable life will be happy if somebody says some kind words to them and drugs are altering their neurotransmitter levels.

I took a lot of psychadelics, stopped, and started using them again rarely. I'll occasionally take extremely small doses to self-medicate acute depression but it makes me overly impulsive.

I read a lot of experiences from people who went down both the paths you're talking about so I just avoided them. Rather than not using and considering it inevitable that for years I would be using psychadelics in a degenerate way. I approached them with the mindset that they are a tool to look at problems from a different perspective and accelerate certain forms of thinking. However this tool, independant of actual self-improvement, was not only useless but self-destructive.

I ended up having subjectively worse mental health after the psychadelics. Although the psychadelics were a desperation attempt in the first place so take this with a grain of salt. At the same time my life OBJECTIVELY became much better. Better diet, more exercise, more social life, stronger, more cash, all that jazz. I basically turned around a situation where I was completely trapped in poverty and despair to one where by a good number of measures I was pretty successful. So I do find it interesting to read about how people who take psychadelics are all deluded into thinking they're doing well when they're doing awfully. Since that's precisely the opposite of what I experienced.

Not having thousands of dollars you may have otherwise to use for various productive purposes had can also have a detrimental effect on health.

I can't wait after all these stories about companies doing away with bullet points to see some bullet point using maverick shaking up the industry.

>can someone explain this

Gotta love cryptography. I read through the article, read it again, and started googing things I didn't understand.

I couldn't look past the irony of that either.

It's actually somewhat amazing how isolated you can get from the average person if you stick to settings & persuits associated with "intellectuals". I recall ended up in a friend group of 8 people once that included 3 geniuses.

Sometimes you really have to take a step back and realise that you're not as normal as you feel. You can spend your time on hackernews feeling very insecure and then apply 5% of what people talk about here and then the average person will treat you like you invented fire.

When companies find out their employees have automated their jobs but are at the end of their useful output they don't even blink before kicking them out on their ass but saving their sweet-ass automation. Honestly why is it the employees duty to give their employer information which would have been to wholly the employer's benefit and none of his own when the employee is the less powerful party here? Employer basically had no choice but to fire him even if he was worth keeping in isolation just because they can't normalize getting gamed by their employees.

There's often political downsides for the employee as well for automating their job. You become an existential threat to incompetent employees and/or employees doing automatable jobs. If you're TOO productive people may go hardball and attempt to crush you with their social connections. So you have political incentives to herd your productivity to something in proportion with other employees by reducing your actual hours working.

I have the opposite knee jerk reaction and see people openly talking about their biases and dubious incentives to be an indication of honesty and forthrightness. It's when people make a big song and dance about how pro-independance they are and make a whole song and dance about it that I get suspicious. It reflects not just a lack of honesty towards others but even a lack of honesty towards oneself and an inflated view of their own ethics.

Vertically EVERYBODY with a conflict of interest will put their finger on the scale given enough opportunity.

Most of the performance increase also seems to be from scaling out cores so there is little you're losing by buying more cores now. Of course things will get cheaper and slightly faster.

>80s/90s

>Deeply cared about the customer experience.

>Cared

And then they started installing rootkits on their customers computers.

My personal favorite has been the enthusiasm of which it has been pointed out by certain elements of the millenial crowd how your employer has a legal right to fire you for social media musings, your political activities, etc. The presumption being that such retaliation will be in the interests of social justice. Rather than the interest of say maintaining a companies business interests in China or to quash organizers.

There is a lot of naivety.

Chess masters have long been combining human and computer analysis... even before computers were able to actually beat humans at chess.

Due to the needs to reduce complexity and have less vendors to deal with most companies use a limited amount of suppliers for datacenter equipment as well like Dell or HPE or whatever.

Data center customers care about support, vendor relationships, keeping complexity down, politics, reliability (= aversion to new products), lots of things. If anything the custom PC market is more focused around specs and prices solely.

Yes they absolutely do and AMD vs Intel is more than a matter of branding. It's fundamentally switching vendors. If something goes wrong it's on the head of the person who pushed for the change. There's also some things you can't do seamlessly between two servers that don't have a processor from the same brand.

Enterprise if anything has more inertia than say the custom PC market which will turn on a dime to chase the best deals.

I bought into the rhetoric about the superiority of using real tech when I was studying for IT. It will make you more competent when you actually get on the job. It gets you used to encountering issues that come up in real environments far more than virtualized/simulated ones E.G. loose cables.

Yet to be honest I wouldn't recommend going the real tech route because I don't think it justifies the time and money investment when you can learn the lessons it teaches you on the job. One thing I realised is that it really doesn't really help you pass certs or look good in interviews aside from your ability to say "I made an k8s cluster out of raspberry pis". I might endorse it from a strict fun standpoint.