241 karma · joined August 21, 2013
After having gone through it, I agree with other posts that the main annoyance is the verification process and weeks of delays/back-and-forth. That, and the inconvenience of now having a single point of failure in the build process (unless multiple certs are purchased).
I sold a house just before the pandemic struck. The realtor I chose, via a friend-of-friend connection, operated several agencies each with several agents; I would guess he had a few dozen people total working under him.
One thing quickly became apparent as we moved through the various processes involved in selling a home – he had his agencies and his agents optimize for volume. In the regions of CA where he operated, "throughput" was definitely not an issue, and so deliberately pricing homes low would cause them to sell faster and allow him / his agents to move onto the next client faster. Given the context, it seems clear to me this would yield more over the long term than fighting tooth and nail to drag out individual transactions to eke out every possible penny.
I caught onto this just before officially listing my house, and insisted we increase the asking price (recommended by him / his team) by 10% – a move he / his team objected to rather frankly. Nonetheless, the sale was completed within 6 weeks or so, at my asking price.
(And seems worth adding he never said thank you for the 10% [relative] extra he earned on the commission)
This is not the same question as “why become involved in a committed relationship in the first place”; the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
The older I get, the more I see (with the advantage of hindsight) those close to me jump into marriage essentially unprepared for all its ramifications. In many cases they would have faired much better by simply committing to their partner without getting married, as it is wholly possible to live a full, complete, (be)loved life with another person without a legal certificate.
Then, similarly, my hackles go up every time someone says “Apple has the right to make money off their platform” and no one remembers to bring up that, in fact, Apple does: $99/year per developer account. I recall digging through the stats a while back and estimating the total sum is hundreds of millions of dollars per year for Apple - whether or not a dev actually makes a cent from a customer.
And for the entirety of the following year.
Tell that to people in the market for pro-level Mac hardware.
Do you have a source for this? Curious to read more about it.
Anyone seen anything about the precise location yet?
In 2019, cumulative PSPS time was nearly one week (though I logged it at the time I forget the exact number now, something like 150ish hours).
For clarity: living outside SV, my ISP is Comcast (Xfinity).
EDIT: I'd like to add that phone tethering isn't a great fallback (though it's better than nothing), as literally everyone begins using their cell connection for everything which causes the latency to be very high and the speed to be frustratingly low.
I mean, short of enabling declarations like:
char *a, *b;
Before learning these things I was feeling excited about Apple's re-committing to the Mac around that time, but man these things made it feel like such "commitment" was just surface level - such low-hanging fruit not being handled is a shame. But, this is a rant for another day.
Anyway, I built my own very simple utility to poll the internal display for its brightness and write that same brightness to the LG via DDC, but never had the time/energy to make it more robust for publishing to the web. I have yet to try Lunar but I definitely will; much appreciated.
We use the hell out of this at my company. Mercurial's hooks have made a wide variety of automatic tasks much easier to systematize across all our repos for any repo-related action that any dev makes.
Here's one of our use cases. Mercurial, at least in the early days, had much better support (IMHO) for large/binary files than git (perhaps git is on-par now, not sure). We needed some of the projects in our repos to be fully compilable against any binaries/assets at any point in time in the repo's complete history. We implemented this with a combination of Mercurial's first-party "largefiles" extension, high compression of our binaries/assets (via 7z), and a variety of scripts/hooks to (de)compress the relevant files whenever `hg commit`, `hg up`, `hg revert`, etc. is performed.
Sure, you greatly increase the size of a repo on whatever machines are serving it, but storage is cheap these days so who cares. Devs also have to deal with more disk space being used, but a) storage is cheap and b) it is trivial to clear old binaries/assets from their disk on an automated schedule. Whenever they update/revert to another revision/branch the binaries/assets download automatically anyway.
Copland never shipped, and as such was not a transition at all, because the public was not directly involved in the internal failure. Taligent basically never shipped anything, and so the same argument applies.
The replacement OS that Apple actually shipped (OS X) aided a legacy transition that I think went down basically as well as it possibly could have (given the inherent dissimilarities between the two OSes).
HyperCard was merely killed off, so there was clearly no transition at all. That's like saying Newton->(nothing) failed as a transition.
It usually comes down to some NIC, Bluetooth, or audio device not working nearly as well as is claimed by whoever put together one of these lists, and then of course the updates to macOS will break something after having finally configured the machine correctly after several weekends of painful forum searching.
Also, I guarantee they would regard this info with a lot of skepticism. I compete in powerlifting, Austin @ BBM is my coach, and I have been to several of their seminars. Austin's lecture on pain and injury included a strongly worded statement (verbatim): "Weakness does not cause pain" (along with a thorough explantation that there is no evidence to support that it does).
> pain very much does indicate tissue damage
These statements are not supported by modern research. The bio-psycho-social model indicates that pain is a threat detection and deterrent mechanism, NOT a "status report" from the painful tissue to the brain. In other words, the brain is concerned that something might lead to physical trauma, yet none need to have taken place for pain to be generated.
There are certainly biological inputs to the "pain generator" function of the brain (like sensing a foreign object touching one's skin), but psychological factors/contexts and social factors/contexts can be equally strong inputs (and ultimately generate a significant pain experience without any, or with very little, biological input).
Think of the magnitude of pain response to a given situation as an indicator sitting somewhere on a spectrum between "benign" and "dangerous". The more psychologically threatened one feels, the more the pain response will be shifted toward the "dangerous" end (i.e. higher magnitude). The more socially threatened one feels, the more the pain response will be shifted toward the "dangerous" end.
Here is a somewhat contrived but favorite example of mine. One night, you wake up to go to the bathroom. In the dark, you unexpectedly step on your child's lego brick left on the floor, and it hurts immensely - it feels like the pegs are actually spikes! This is mainly because of how it has surprised you; the context is that it's dark, you expected the trip to the bathroom to be just a few simple steps, and (for sake of argument) have never stepped on a lego before. Your brain feels rather threatened by this surprising situation and generates a large pain response. Now, a night or two later, it happens again, and though it hurts it definitely isn't as bad. Another night or two later, it happens a third time, and barely hurts at all (you're basically to the point of expecting it now). I think we can agree that no tissue damage has really been done, and if pain was simply a state-of-tissue indicator then the magnitude of pain should have been the same each and every night. Additionally, if tissue damage need be present for pain to be present, why did it hurt at all?
Lastly, I'll note that lack of apparent examples != lack of evidence.
Let's start with injury - what constitutes an injury? As in, how should the word "injury" be defined? This is a more complex issue than one might initially assume; not all pain is associated with an insult to tissue, not all insults lead to mechanical damage, insults that do lead to damage do not necessarily lead to pain, etc. So, mostly, injury tends to be defined as anything that leads to a reduction in function/performance in an organism. The ramifications of this definition are important, because things like a compound fracture, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and pain with no (known) underlying cause all meet the definition's criteria.
That last bit is the most important (and why I strongly recommend watching the video), because pain is not an input to the brain, rather it is an output of some function in the brain that takes a large number of inputs other than pain. This is basically the crux of the whole bio-psycho-social model, and why I said the original question is sort of the wrong question regarding injury. So here's the revelatory part, as it relates to the original question: aside from large and obvious traumas like a compound fracture, one cannot conclude that, because they are experiencing pain, physical damage to tissue has taken place. So looking for a heuristic to determine the state of some tissue after experiencing an event that led to pain is not really the right approach from the beginning, as one cannot be confident (and should not assume) that the tissue's state is awry at all.
To address this specific point (not the rest of your comment, which I largely agree with): this is in line with the "old" bio-medical model of pain, and not up to date with the modern bio-psycho-social model of pain. In many cases, the biological insult to tissues will fully heal far in advance of pain subsidence, or conversely will heal long after pain subsidence. The point being that a pain experience is not an accurate indicator of the state of one's tissues.
For a primer on this more modern model of pain experiences, please give this excellent video a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCF1_Fs00nM
Source: have written plugins for Adobe products for many years.