shantly

It’s mostly for fast food and take-out places in the US, too.

All my wife’s Steam games (mostly solitaire type games and search-based narrative games) are 32-bit only, and so was her copy of Scrivener. Every Mac-capable Steam game I have that I checked doesn’t work, either. So yeah, we did.

Luckily I haven’t paid for any “serious” software but it was really annoying to have I install Win10 on a desktop machine again so my wife can remote-play her games. Between that and usb-c she kinda hates her new MacBook Air.

> It seems inevitable that Apple will launch an Arm laptop form factor with iOS.

Dropping 32bit already killed all the paid software my wife and I had, so please, Apple, go Arm soon before we buy any more. At least that way anything we buy for our Intel machines will probably be multi-arch and ready for the future.

Shit it takes me about four hours just to get a few basic services set up & configured for a new business idea, before any kind of product work can start. Could throw up an experiment without doing that but it wouldn't really be ready for customers, just faux-ready enough to prove demand (which is still nice and all). Having done that one would not yet have "literally built a business", though.

> Nowadays people want to have a TV, a phone, a computer, lots of software and entrainment on these devices etc

That's not where the money goes. That stuff's nothing. You can get working TVs all day long for peanuts on Craigslist. I just last week grabbed a hell of a used business workstation PC on Ebay and threw in an SSD for funsies, under $200 total including the brand-new SSD. Thing screams for all normal tasks. Will probably last years. Basically nothing in the scheme of things. Can someone on a low income reasonably buy one on a whim? No. But having a TV, phone, and computer is not why people are poor.

Housing, medical care, child care. School (see also: housing costs). Those are expensive. Our modern conveniences are nothing in comparison.

This or (especially) 3x8 is what I've thought is about the "right" amount of work to count as full-time when you're selling your labor, for some time now. It's past the tipping point where your employer stops dominating your entire week, but still enough to remain good at whatever you do at work, with enough multi-hour time blocks to still get plenty accomplished.

That goes for passing, trivial questions, too. One pops in your head now, you itch until you answer it, because you can answer it. Pre-ubiquitous-web, fewer such thoughts reached the level of conscious awareness and they were rarely actionable, so, if not important, maybe you ask the people you're with ("hey, who was that guy in that one movie?") and if no-one knew or had the relevant coffee-table trivia book handy (so, most of the time), it went unanswered and the thought just went away. No itch.

I also find I burn a lot of time on meta-media (best-lists and such) and low-value reading (cough) because there's a ton of it available at the command of a whim, where before one had to spend real time seeking out or paying for that sort of thing (magazines and such). It's a pretty serious indictment of my Web activity that I wouldn't pay any money at all for most of it, if the choice were to pay or not to have it (Internet service doesn't count—I pay for it for the few things for which it actually is very useful, not for those).

Actually that word might best describe what we've done with this new environment: we've given vastly more power to whims. The Age of the Whim.

Ah, that the companies in SV are less forward thinking than the population of, specifically, SV. That could be.

I've heard it applied to a totally normal conversational level of volume, but with a serious edge/tone to it.

> Very different from the general population, not forward thinking.

IDK about SV tech companies, but I don't think it's accurate to characterize the general population as "forward thinking" on those issues.

High-level parenting guideline: never do anything you don't want to have to keep doing basically forever. Like giving your kids snacks or a phone or whatever when you're out, to keep them quiet. Now you have to give them a phone and carry crackers everywhere, forever, or else deal with a period of much worse outburst & behavior problems than before, when you fail to produce them.

Addendum: if there's something you must do that you don't want to keep doing forever, aggressively cut it out as soon as possible. Or you're just deferring and increasing the eventual pain.

My parents and one remaining grandparent have cable TV—mostly news channels—on about 16 hours a day in their house. TV's always on in whichever room one of them's in. The one of them who gets out of the house more than a single-digit count of hours a week spends most of the time driving, which means AM radio (ahem) that entire time.

Counterpoint: comment was fine and non-toxic, describing siloing as weak no matter who's doing it is an accurate and a pretty tame criticism, and ensuring that's not happening is indeed the only real point of scheduled daily stand-ups. As long as we're gonna have the term "senior"—and we do have it—I'd abso-friggin'-lutely reserve it for people who can avoid siloing without a formal, daily ritual, and a team of such folks don't need stand-ups. Don't worry about it, ozim.

> Nobody should be an asshole. Nobody should be working alone.

Ozim advocated neither being an asshole nor working alone, so is perpetuating neither. Standups have a place and it's to fight both of those problems, when some ICs on a team can't handle it on their own.

Ah. Yeah, thick-enough cast iron might do it. Doesn't break fast enough.

[EDIT] I mean I guess I hadn't counted on the bins so strongly resembling actual bomb casings. Heh. Yeesh, that sucks.

[EDIT EDIT] doesn't break fast enough and is brittle. I was thinking something like sheet steel.

In the current environment one can get away with a lot of push-back because managers with any fraction of a clue know if they piss you off too much you'll be giving them your notice, new job in hand, in a few weeks, if not days. That won't last—which is why if we're going to organize for better leverage against abuse in bad times, now'd be the time to do it, but I guess enough people've been convinced unions will impoverish them that we're not gonna, maybe next boom, see y'all then—but for now it's pretty nice.

I do think well-functioning development processes & teams, with good integration with business is something every company wants, but very few companies are willing to pay for, and most just cannot accept that they're opting out of what they claim they want by not paying enough, so they try to get it anyway.

Why's it expensive? I think people who are capable of building and managing such teams, and dragging organizations into a set of processes that truly work, exist at a rate of about 1/1000 the demand for them. Meanwhile the people who can discern useful practices from useless ones or good implementation from bad are similarly rare and overlap largely with that same group, leading to an ecosystem of development practices that's almost entirely snake oil and wishful thinking, and where almost no-one can tell when they're looking at one of those 1/1000 folks who've got the knowledge and skills to make it work if you give them the authority, or some delusional schmuck or huckster.

The best most companies can do is to learn to live with a ton of uncertainty and work humanely and effectively with that, and few achieve even this lesser outcome, which tends to come with its own (lower) costs in hours and less-than-ideal predictability that many orgs just can't accept they have to pay to keep things running even sort-of smoothly.

The shrapnel thing really trips my "that doesn't seem right" intuition WRT how explosions work, unless those bins had some really unfortunate design features. I believe someone official may have said that at some point and it may have been picked up in popular culture as a reason, but it strikes me as kinda "truthy", pending more info—I'd expect a container of that sort, especially with a bit of a gap between most of it and the device, to tend to break into a small number of large pieces with terrible aerodynamics, much of it bound generally upward and slowing a ton before reaching human-height again (assuming the bins were fairly big and the bags/bombs tended to end up at the bottom or middle), making shrapnel that's at best (well, worst, but you know) very marginally more effective than the bomb sans same shrapnel, if at all. Shrapnel that's big (tending to strike over a large surface area) and rapidly-slowing is fairly useless shrapnel.

The explanation that they were a good place to hide a largish bag so no-one would get suspicious about them seems entirely sufficient to explain why they were used, and why it might be a good idea to remove/disable them and replace them with something you can see the inside of.

> Hmmmm... if anything the performance of a graphql query should generally outshine REST in nearly any category of performance.

I'd love an explanation for why you'd think this to be generally true, and for any category.

Khan Academy has some lessons aimed at fairly young kids—counting, spotting gaps in counting, talking that simple. I tried to sit with my son on the Khan Academy iPad app a few weeks ago to do some with him, thinking it'd be great. Unfortunately it is (or seemed to be to such a degree that I'm about 99% sure it is) janky webtech, so glitches and weirdness made it too hard for my son to progress in without my constantly stepping in to fix the interface. Things like, no feedback that a button's been pressed? Guess what a kid (or hell, adult) is gonna do? Hammer the button! Which... then keeps it greyed out once it does register the press, but doesn't ever progress, so you're stuck on the screen and have to go back and start the lesson over. Missed presses galore, leading to confusion and frustration that nothing was working the way he though it was (and it, in fact, supposed) to work.

I don't mean to shit on Khan Academy exactly because it's not like I'm paying for it, but those lessons may as well not exist for a 4 year old with an interface that poor. It was bad enough that more than half my time intervening wasn't to help him with the content, nor to teach him how to use the interface, but to save him from the interface.

This is utterly typical, too. We just get so used to working around bullshit like this, and we're so good at it and usually intuit why it's happening, that we don't notice that it's constant, especially on the web.

The first thing I do when teaching someone Redux is tell them that Action just means Event, and "action creator" just means an event dispatcher, which is to say, any function that dispatches an event. Naming the least-active part of the system Action is really confusing—it doesn't even describe an action, necessarily, nor force any action—and naming a function that happens to emit an event an action creator as if it's creating actions (huh? what does that mean?) is misleading.

There were like 100 major-publisher books that clearly modeled their title, if nothing else, on Gone Girl in the years after it came out. Didn't see that with 50 Shades. Both got a movie. Gone Girl seemed to have wider and more lasting cultural impact outside its immediate readership, as more than a joke or rapidly-fading reference.

For the record I haven't read either nor seen their movies, but I see the influence of Gone Girl around way more than I see 50 Shades.

Ah, yeah, looking into it more it seems the "barefoot" fit is really important to some folks. That explains what I was missing.

Hadn't heard of them, just looked at the site, product, and pricing. Curious—who's their market?

Laborers can't collectivize as soon as capital can't collectivize (incorporate). I'm on board this train, let's do it. Ban collective action in the economy, especially that supported and enabled by the government. In all its forms. Where's the petition I can sign?

Heh, OK, that would grate more than a little, makes more sense now.

Corporations are capitalists performing collective action. Our governments not only allow this, but provide special provisions in the law to support and encourage it.

We can get rid of collective action for workers when we get rid of it for capital. Until then, if anything we need a shift away from enthusiastically encouraging collective capital while barely tolerating collective labor, to something more equitable and beneficial to the individuals whose government suffers those corporations to exist in the first place, whose interests lie overwhelmingly on the side of labor.

I see the general principle guiding this and agree with it, but "free" food from an employer is just another form of comp and complaining about it's no more ungrateful than complaining about health benefits or salary. It's not like complaining about a Christmas gift or something.

Cool then we can stop providing structures that make the demand side of labor much stronger at the negotiating table than the supply side. I'm in, let's do it.

Sure, then we can keep corporations around as long as we balance their government-enabled incredible labor rate negotiating position with something comparably effective for workers.

Well the high labor-rate negotiating power, relative to individuals, of corporations—legal entities created by our government(s)—is why we need unions, so I figure if we ditch one we can/should ditch the other, too.