phyller

"Timeline ======== 09-28-17 - Vulnerability reported to AMD Security Team. 12-07-17 - Fix is ready. Vendor works on a rollout to affected partners. 01-03-18 - Public disclosure due to 90 day disclosure deadline."

If the new chips were going to have a 30% performance boost, now it looks like they will have a 50% performance boost. Much more compelling.

They recommend 4,000 IUs of vitamin D as the maximum safe dose, not because higher doses were found to be less helpful but because 4,000 was the most helpful and also the highest amount they actually tested. It is possible (but untested) that 6,000 and 8,000 IUs could have been even better.

However, it does appear that at 16 weeks both the groups getting 2,000 and 4,000 IUs of vitamin D leveled out at the same blood serum level of vitamin D.

Let's say I want to enforce a color palette across my app. I define color variables, and only use those predefined color variables. If the palette changes, I just change the variable, and everything changes. Great, an easy way to have simple and consistent colors on a large project with multiple devs. Even better, I can do this now, with prepocessors like SCSS. After years of using it in an increasingly large project I have zero regrets, I only wish we did it sooner.

But think of this further use case: we want to have different color palettes based on different situations. For the same markup. We want the user to be able to toggle between dark mode and light mode. We want to change the colors when the user is printing something (especially in dark mode). I can't do this in SCSS directly without native CSS variables. I have to compile multiple CSS files from our source ahead of time, and dynamically switch between them, which feels like a hack and causes a lag while the files are fetched.

With CSS variables, I can change the variable to another value inside a certain class. So to toggle between light or dark mode I can just add a class to the body element on the page. I can use the print @media rule to change the variable values when printing. I can do the same with sizes based on the screen dimensions.

This is so simple and clear. When devs are maintaining or adding code they don't need to think about it. Just use the right variable and everything will work out. The alternative to using variables (the new CSS ones or by generating multiple stylesheets using CSS preprocessor variables) is to redefine all the styling that you need to change under a new class. So I have a stylesheet for a feature, then a smaller one that changes all the colors for that feature when the "dark-mode" class is on the body tag, and another for @media print. And then every dev needs to be aware of that and maintain and check all 3 versions whenever they make a change.

Needless to say, I entirely disagree with this article :) I don't think I am the only one who has struggled to understand why CSS is so difficult to use. We've had a few decades to refine it, we should be in a better place by now.

You also have to pay for upkeep of your house, but an offset to that is that real estate can often increase in value over time. And the best thing is, it's your house. Pride of ownership is a real thing, it's nice to be able to do what you want, have a garden (if you have any land which many houses do), paint it how you want, add an addition, upgrade the kitchen or bathroom.

People who do not make a lot of money, but have a steady income and good credit can get a mortgage for a house they can afford, with just 10-20% down payment. But the poorest or those who do not have good credit must still rent, and even that is hard because many landlords check credit histories and want a big deposit up front.

Yes, I think that is the main point, and what we should be talking about. I feel like as a country we have lost the ability to have a discussion at that level of depth. So instead we dumb down our arguments to the point where we mislead people just so they will accept our point of view.

If the low income earners were included two things would be clear. 1) Many low income earners don't pay federal income taxes at all, many actually get paid by the IRS instead 2) Low income earners actually still benefit by getting either lower taxes or higher credits.

The only example I saw of a regular person was in the Bloomberg article that was mentioned. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/how-the-t... The "renter in Milwaukee" went from paying $515 to actually being credited $400.

At this point, there is no way of having a reduction in tax bills that doesn't overwhelming favor the top 50% of earners, because they pay almost all the federal income taxes. In 2015 the top 50% of those that filed tax returns paid over 97% of income taxes (the last table cell at the bottom all the way on the right https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls )

EDIT: Based on experience on this board I knew this post would be downvoted, but I'm not exactly sure why. Please help make me a better contributor by telling me what I did wrong as you downvote, thanks!

So if I could focus like it was 6 feet away but it was big enough it took up most of the screen from that distance, and it had a 1080p resolution, that would be good enough. And then I'd buy the upgrades when they came around :) The rough math I was doing in my head was that anything that wasn't 1:1 would need probably 4 pixels for every one virtual pixel. So 4K would about do it.

I pick 1080p because most laptops today still have that resolution, and several laptops that I still use have less resolution than that and are still usable.

I want the portability, and then the resolution just has to be good enough. If we could get a virtual 1080p display that would be amazing and good enough. But to your point, the VR display would probably have to be 4K just to be able to properly represent a 1080p virtual display.

At the same time, we have built our organizations, relationships, even our own brains to work in a certain commonly accepted way. Everyone can visualize what I mean when I describe a virtual display, which themselves have basically represented virtual pieces of paper as you mentioned. We would be instantly better off. But yes, it would be a tragedy if the better, more revolutionary way of working was discarded for an incrementally better version of what we are used to. I'd hope somehow we could do both.

But this and other comments are vastly underestimating the resources that people would be willing to exchange to make their work better. For what I described, a "reasonable" price point could easily be around $10,000. Apple is selling their new iMac at a starting price of $5,000 and there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it, it's an upgrade of what is already available. When you are spending all day using it, and it is the tool you use to make your money, it is worth a lot.

And anything that increases productivity will always have plenty of money thrown at it. Think about standing desks, for example. My employer is happy to drop $3,000 on a high end laptop so I can be that much more productive.

There are two things that would absolutely revolutionize how I work that I would pay big money for: 1) Any sort of glasses that would allow me to view virtual displays in high definition. I don't care if I have to turn my head to see more than one display, I don't care if they are VR instead of AR. Should be high enough resolution to be able to use busy Excel spreadsheets and see enough details on a page to do web development 2) Some sort of glove where I could move my fingers to type. It doesn't need to represent an actual keyboard. I could learn whatever new gestures are required for each character.

Those two innovations would mean freedom for me. You could effectively work anywhere in any position, laying in a hammock, on a crowded train, at night in bed when inspiration hits without waking your significant other. It would have to be AR to use while running or working out :)

If these can be made with enough quality to enable equal productivity to a laptop the creators will have an addressable market of about 3 billion people.

I wonder if that is possible. The weight of the car is much less than the 140,000 pound payload it could carry, so it could be sent much further if they wanted to.

But basically having higher wages for jobs that are harder to fill, or are more important to have highly qualified people in them, seems to be a system that works pretty well. Paying everyone the same wage seems to be a system that has largely failed anywhere it has been tried.

Have you found that management gets frustrated by a lack of visibility in when and how things will get done? Or that when it comes time to involve other people in a project or turn it over to another team, that there is much friction? My concern would be a "cowboy" coding style that is familiar to you but inscrutable to others and unmaintainable.