If you are optimizing for making the current job take longer, then you should use a slower computer. However, if the reason people will pay you $150 per hour is because you are 10 times faster than the person who costs $50 per hour, you want to keep your speed as high as possible because that it what creates the long term demand for your services.
Any time we can get countries competing with each other on technology that doesn't directly involve blowing each other up, it is a good thing for the human race.
If you are billing at $150 per hour, people are probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer."
Imagine you go to see a lawyer who is charging you $750 per hour, but instead of using a computer, they are writing everything out by hand and then personally using a typewriter to type up their notes. You ask why they don't use a computer and they point out that they can make more money by billing you for the time it takes to use slower technologies.
There are some people who just waste their money, but there are also a wide difference in the value people get from their cars and computers. Someone billing $500 per hour is going to be a lot more willing to upgrade their computer for even a small improvement. They may even keep a spare computer just to make sure they have minimum downtime if something goes wrong. Someone who just uses their computer to watch youtube videos may be fine keeping their computer until it stops working.
Are you sure that what the Amiga was doing with 8 tracks is equivalent to what Logic is doing? I'd guess there is more to compare than just the number of tracks involved.
Perhaps the reason the two things are conflated is because there is an assumption that if you knew God exists, your choice wouldn't be to choose to reject doing what he commands. But as you point out that, that is an assumption that isn't necessarily true.
For statements like, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," sure. Lewis' point is that he made all kinds of other claims that are either true or false. And if they are false, they are false in a way that led to lots of people dying for no reason. So Jesus was either saying those things that led to all his followers being killed either because he was crazy and believed what he said, because he was a liar and evil, or because he was telling the truth and good.
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” ~C.S. Lewis
It's not like it is a fact of life that is outside of the unions control either. If they wanted the work, they could let people work on Tesla vehicles. If they don't need the work, then there isn't any reason to do so.
> "When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do" When in Sweden....
But you can also choose where you want to go and that sounds like what Tesla is doing. They aren't forcing Swedish unions to do anything that Swedish unions don't want to do. And Swedish unions aren't making Telsa do something they don't want to do. Sounds like a win win for everyone.
Are you saying that it would have sold $30 million in tickets, or that WB would have gotten $30 million from the theaters after the theaters get their cut?
Well it makes sense to NOT build a factory where the workers are prohibited from painting your cars. If the unions see this as a good thing then it is a win for everyone. Tesla build factories where people will work on their cars and Swedish unions don't have to turn down work that is available in their country.
There are schools out there where kids are writing a lot of high quality essays, creating good video presentations that would hold their own against a lot of popular YouTube content, creating great photography, music, etc.
I think most public schools tend to prioritize sports at the expense of most of those other activities.
It shouldn't matter if (and it is a big if) management is actually managing employees deliverable outputs. But if you have management that isn't capable of measuring and managing what the employees deliver, then they revert to just managing the employees time.
The recent push for return to office seems to indicate that many places are not capable of managing what their workers actually produce.
This announcement sounds like something mentioned in the background on TV while the soon to be hero eats breakfast before heading to work in an underpaid thankless position. 15 minutes later the audience learns that the protein has escaped the lab, become sentient, and is assembling plastic into Godzilla.
This appears to be an example of a company NOT miscalculating how many people they need, but how many people they need changes over time. Therefore headcount should be expected to change over time.
Companies hire workers when the need them and let them go when they don't. Just like workers take jobs when they need the pay and quit when they don't.
If management did not hire more people when they needed more workers it is bad for the company and also bad for the workers who could have been hired and earning those wages when there was increased demand.
Assume that laws gave people the expectation that they could just step out in front of a 3,500 pound moving vehicle and it would instantly stop. The world would probably be a lot less safe for pedestrians than it is today. The laws of physics come into play to at least some extent.
My experience with buying lower end intel based Macbook Airs is that they generally last 10 years before we replace them. Usually this comes down to asking if it is worth replacing the battery or better to invest in a new machine. I'm assuming the M processors will be similar.
If a school system is organized around providing each child with the same investment of education and expecting some to make use of that investment more than others, then answer would be no. If it is organized around trying to get the same outcome from each child regardless of how much it costs, the answer is yes.
I believe that most school systems do get more money for disabled kids. But kids that do their homework, pay attention in class, etc. cost a lot less to educate than a kid who isn't really interested in learning--even without any disabilities.
To your point about charter schools, there is a strong argument to be made that when parents have a choice where there kids go, public schools will have to make sure they are providing more academic opportunities if they don't want to risk losing the academically minded families (and their money). That seems like it would be a good thing for everyone.