bradenb

I feel like every year for the last decade I've been reading about how AMD is just about to make major strides in the CPU and GPU markets. It feels like it never comes. I would welcome it, but it doesn't feel like enough to catch up to perceived Intel performance; at this point, it seems like they need to really exceed it.

Part of me thinks that they should just archive SO as it is now (making it accessible and read-only from a specific secondary location) and just reset stackoverflow.com. I know a lot of programming problems are timeless, but many are not. Seems like hitting reset every few years could be useful.

Does this just incentivize them to spend a lot of time without actually selling the house? While I think 3% is outrageous, it at least incentivizes selling it quickly (even if it doesn't incentivize getting the best price).

I was expecting to see an article about yet another retro pi but I’m seriously impressed by this. Not only is the hardware really cool but your tooling and software setup is equally impressive. Great job.

$1500 is a LOT for a phone, but $2000 is a whopping $500 more than that. It's not exactly a "little" more than the top iPhone model.

This looks a lot nicer than I thought it would. I even kind of like that in phone mode it's a slim bar like mid 2000s phones. As an avid and long-time iPhone user I look forward to seeing how this thing performs in the wild.

The article hits on this, but I think it probably makes sense for Apple to do this as they plan to run all their hardware on Apple chips in the near future. That said, I think it will likely result in lazy UX that's "good enough" for multiple device types.

Speaking for myself (as a huge fan of C# and WPF), I didn't feel like there was enough of a phone/tablet/Store/Xbox market for UWP apps that made it worth restricting myself to UWP. I feel like it was a case of trying to make one tool useful for all jobs instead of choosing the right tool for each job.

Also, I can't remember the source (maybe it was a "What If?"), but I seem to recall that it's actually to create a lens that allows us to focus a point on the moon to allow us to make out current man-made items on the surface of the moon.

> If you don't currently have a cash flow that would allow you to make a $500/month student loan payment, don't take out that loan.

Student loans are all about future earnings potential, right? This argument seems to fall apart when you realize you aren't shopping for a mortgage or car that you can _currently_ pay for.

I think the author is wrong on nearly all counts. I think Steve Jobs loved to see what people were interested in and find a way to make it easier to have and use. The iPod was a way of taking something people loved to do (listen to music) and make it easier with "1000 songs in your pocket."

At the risk of romanticizing: from what I've read, he wasn't about creating brand-new concepts, he was all about taking existing concepts and turning them into what people really wanted them to be.

Lastly, I think the author gives Apple and Steve Jobs far too much credit. Apps didn't become successful on these platforms because of app vendors, they became successful because people started asking "what else can I do with this phone?" People _want_ to constantly feel "in the loop" and "productive."

To add another data point: I've never experienced any of these things, not even close. The closest I've come is a DBA brother-in-law that wanted to code full time asking me how I liked a particular language. Outside of work, I rarely even encounter other software developers.

I like the advice to not overthink it or try to write a perfect letter. I have this same problem, especially when it comes to condolence cards. I recently signed one with several coworkers for another coworker and I tried so hard to write something profound that I ended up writing something that I felt was really awkward to read. I should have just said what I felt: "I'm so very sorry for your loss."

Why? And where do you draw the line? The rules allowed one man (i.e., one married couple) to acquire that much wealth in the first place, so why should the rules change once there's a divorce?

The designer was being hyperbolic.

I've been way too close to 300 pounds for all of my adult life. This article really hits home hard. I can completely empathize with every statement the author made. I have realized his same struggles with weight loss and how hard it is to keep the weight off. I've had some success with Keto, but I seem to love eating carbs way too much to stick to it for longer than 3 months. I've told myself I'm trying a similar approach to the author: trying to do just enough to reduce slowly, but honestly to me it feels like a cop out. A way I can say that if I mess up then it's OK because most days I'm doing right. Hopefully some day I can finally snap myself into a life-changing mindset.

> How do you know she didn't have her own career and the multi billionaires didn't have hired help to take care of their home? Should she be entitled to less than 50% if she worked as a regular employee in the company and they shared their domestic responsibilities equally?

Whether she had a career or not doesn't matter. If they found an amicable way to share responsibilities and during the entire 25 years of their marriage and Amazon's growth they became fabulously wealthy then it should be shared evenly. If Jeff Bezos felt like his wife was somehow undeserving of his wealth then he could have divorced her during the early years of Amazon's success.

> Driving your own kids to activities and washing some dishes is absolutely not key to the success of a huge company, or any company.

How do you know? Every moment you can spend working on your business instead of washing dishes is a moment you're contributing to your business' success. There's a reason for the phrase "Behind every successful [man|woman] there's a strong ____."

> But the idea that your wife or husband contributes half of your work is not something I agree with.

How do you know what would have been accomplished without that person's spouse managing the home? What if Jeff Bezos couldn't devote nearly as much time to Amazon if he had to take kids to appointments or be there when a contractor was at the house? And what if those diversions caused Amazon to be a flop? I would say that those contributions which were key to the success of the company absolutely do entitle you to 50%.

Now, I do think there's a legal argument to be made if that is clearly not the case, but a healthy person should have cut ties in that type of relationship before wealth was developed anyway. Presumably staying in the relationship after 25 years and after the accumulation of so much wealth meant that both parties were fine with an equal division of the assets.

From my perspective, his wife was there to help enable the creation of Amazon. Jeff Bezos entered a contract when he got married where he believed an equal division of assets made sense. He apparently believed that contract made sense for 25 years. Who are we to say now that she shouldn't be entitled to half?

> why would anyone stay married if they could gain $x billion from a divorce?

Why not? Two people share a pool of $50b (obviously it's not _that_ simple). Seems like plenty to me. Divorce means you are 1 person with your own $25b pool. Unless she was somehow prevented from using the shared pool of money I'm not seeing a huge benefit here. If her goals with money were so drastically different than that of her husband's then I think that's as valid a reason for divorce as any: diverging goals and interests.

> I don't know how much control she has at the moment being married to the person that actually owns the stocks, but if she gets 50% in a divorce that sounds like a financial jackpot. That's akin to state sponsored theft IMO.

I don't understand this comment. Marriage is not a social convention, it's a legal contract. Saying that she won a jackpot or somehow did something devious shows a huge level of misunderstanding.

They've been married 25 years, well before Amazon became the huge success it is today. Saying she got married for a payday is terribly disingenuous.

I wonder how we got to this. I'm all for parents being protective over children that aren't theirs, but when did we develop the entitlement that we should police the parents of other children?

Obligatory "When I grew up...": When I grew up (I'm 32), there were still murderers, kidnappers, drug dealers, gangs, etc. My parents and the parents of all my friends let us roam free from the minute we finished our chores until dark. They often let us decide for ourselves how we wanted to get our lunch, dinner, snacks, etc. We could choose our own transportation, our own paths. I treasured that freedom.

What's crazy is that it's my same generation of parents that now seem to be doing the policing. I had "heard" of this happening around me, but I was still dumbfounded when it first happened to me. One Summer, my 6 year old was playing in the front yard. My wife was sitting inside on the couch in front of the window so she could keep an eye on her when suddenly the neighbor walks up to my daughter, grabs her hand and brings her to the front door. "Did you know your daughter was playing outside alone?" in a very accusatory tone. This isn't a call to CPS, but it still made us feel both angry and ashamed.

As a Utah resident, one thing I'm happy to see is the new "Free Range Parenting" law [1]. I still think it's crazy that it was needed, but I think in today's parenting culture it really, really is.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/utahs-free-range-parenting...

I recently heard the following analogy:

IaaS => Owning a home

PaaS => Bed and breakfast

Serverless => Hotel room

Lambda I guess would be like using the coffee pot in a hotel room? Don't worry about power, don't worry about beans. Every time you come into your room it's ready to go, just press "on".

Well this sucks. I have CenturyLink for residential gigabit fiber. Honestly, they've been a fantastic ISP for me. I also haven't received the notice and I'm one of those "SOL" customers that uses non-CenturyLink DNS. We'll see what happens. I'd be surprised if they didn't stop this immediately as soon as it blew up.

I have been noticing comments from people in my area on social media over the last month with the recurring theme "Is anyone else's CenturyLink down?" This must have been it.

I feel like the OP was making a totally reasonable argument. Your comment was a huge overreaction.

I guess I feel like I don't have a screen time problem because for me my phone is (in order):

1) A communication device 2) A music player 3) A glorified search engine when I'm not at a computer

I think because I never really dived head-first into social media I don't have a strong desire to use my phone beyond when I need it for the above functions.

I would love to see pictures or a video of this in action!

I don't think it's irrelevant. Sure, you can get immediate free support, but long-term help is not cheap.

I found this comment to be really distasteful. Nothing about your "signature" proves you're any smarter than engineers that choose not to work at Facebook. It just makes you appear to be mean-spirited.

> It's because you love your job, you have to pay for that.

I don't buy that. I don't think enjoying your job and being paid well need to be mutually exclusive. I think it's in an employer's best interest that their employees enjoy their job. Part of that is that an employee has to not feel the stress of being underpaid or overworked.