I'd never allow their router on my network. Turns out I was correct.
Except when you have to call support for something (like them randomly changing your service without your input or consent). No matter how many times you tell them "I don't have any of your hardware, you can't run tests past the ONT" there is still always a pause followed by "huh? I can't seem to communicate with the router/DVR".
Still, while I'm not netsec guru I still trust my hardware/software picks much better than the garbage they want me to pay a monthly rental for. The occasional hassle of dealing with an idiot that doesn't listen is worth it.
Thank you, it is interesting to read an American perspective. I knew US diesel often had more sulphur, but I did not know about the lower cetane numbers. I have also been told that it is common in the US to have a third party service even relatively new cars and that they often use cheaper non-certified engine oils and oil filters. This may also reduce oil service life.
Many actually use the dealer and get ripped off because they don't know better (and the dealers don't want them too). In the US we have a law named the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act which states that we can have work performed anywhere (including DIY) without voiding warranties as long as the work and parts meet MFG specifications. This means that I can tell my local Porsche dealers where to stick their $675 oil changes for my diesel Cayenne and either do it myself (about $100 + 60 minutes) or have my indy shop do it for about $200. It also means that instead of paying Porsche $5.75 for the drain plug crush washer I can buy the Touareg's for $0.75 (same motor and same part, just with a VW part number). Similarly rather than $100 for the fuel filter (which is different than the VW and Audi versions), I can get it with the Mann brand name on it for something like $30.
Unless you are just cutting corners by going to a shady shop, then you are still using the real parts and processes.
As far as an American's perspective, I'm not the typical American in that I've jealously followed diesels in Europe for a long time. The last time I bought a new car (2012) I decided it was time to finally get a diesel as we had a couple of options (BMW x5 and VW Touareg were the two SUVs) that fit what I wanted/needed. The Cayenne diesel popped up in the middle of my search and I went with that as I've liked the Cayenne's since they debuted. It's 6.5 years old now, is still going strong (though I've barely put miles on it compared to what diesels can do), looks good, puts a smile on my face in every drive, and between the fuel savings over the gas version and the TDI settlement it now has cost me less than the VR6 version of the same Cayenne would have cost (just on fuel savings it was going to take about 9 years to "break even").
I mean how can you not love a 5500lb monster that will do 80mph through the mountains of PA and NY and pull 732 miles out of a single tank? Or about the same doing around 90mph from north VA to south GA?
I dread the day I have to replace it (sans it being totaled that's hopefully another 6+ years off) as there simply isn't anything else out there that is as fun to drive and as practical (both in fuel consumption and utility). I had hoped that diesel was finally going to catch on this time, but oh well...
Really? In Europe, VW typically specifies 30 000 km service intervals, with 50 000 km for some diesels. It is interesting that they seem to think a car would require service more often in the USA. I wonder why.
I think it's two parts.
The first is that it's hard to find anything better than 40 cetane here. Additionally getting fuel from a station that doesn't have good industrial/transportation traffic means that the fuel has usually been sitting in the tank for a good period of time (this has improved since diesels took off, but I fear that will be an issue again as diesels are effectively dead here thanks to VAG). So overall our fuel quality sucks compared to what you have in the EU. Worse fuel requires more maintenance to keep the systems clean and functioning. I've done the filter drain (10k)/replacement(20k) myself a few times and while there wasn't significant water, it was horribly dirty.
Another item is overcoming the misconception that diesels are bad. With shorter intervals they simply refilled the DEF at those intervals and the owner barely had to know it even existed. Thus it's one less "extra" item the owner has to worry about over gas car maintenance. There are few owners like myself that skip the constantly topping off of the tank and instead prefer to run it down to as close to dry as possible and then refill it ourselves so we know what our consumption actually looks like.
Now I'd also be happy to argue the wisdom of those ridiculously high service intervals too. They are a good part of why older (since about 2000 when these exaggerated intervals started) used cars are less reliable. There is no oil that can really stand up to that work cycle regardless of claims. Get oil that has seen a 30k or 50k cycle analysed and you will not be pleased with the result. By that time it has long since stopped protecting your engine and damage is being done. It's minor and takes time which the MFGs are just betting on taking longer than their warranty coverage. Out of warranty it is in their best interests for the engine to develop issues as you'll either buy a new car or be buying replacement parts.
Well considering it's supposed to last until the service interval, having to refill it every 20000km is quite limiting given the service interval on most modern cars is 30000km.
The service interval on Audis and VWs is 10k miles in the US and Porsche is 5k. Both under the vehicle's DEF usage.
What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?
I don't understand that part of TFS and the linked article isn't any more clear. I am a (very happy) owner of a TDI motor. Prior to having it "fixed" I was getting ~2.5k miles per 1 gallon (imperial) of AdBlue. I don't know what it's getting since the "fix" as I haven't gone through a full tank, but with it's 5 gallon tank I've already had to refill it's fuel tank 5 times (~2.5k miles) with no sign of the low fluid warning. Maybe it's me, but that doesn't feel very limited...
An iPad pro? I believe you can run multiple external monitors through Lightning connector. 512GB memory max.
From everything thing I've seen it only supports a single external monitor, you are still limited to a single app at a time, and most apps simply mirror to the external display (though there is a growing list that recognize it and show different content). It also does not support a mouse which makes use "as a laptop" clunky at best.
Unless the parent post meant 'real tablet' in terms of other factors like battery life, but there has to be a compromise
I was pretty clear what I meant and b0s0z0ku reiterated it as well. The Surface is a laptop that will act like a tablet, but it is not a tablet first and foremost. I also agree with b0s0z0ku that (like most 2:1 style devices) it doesn't really do either roll well.
Your argument was that laptops can be replaced by a tablet with little qualification. If the user has to "compromise", then it is not an effective replacement for their use case.
Tablets have their place and they can be very useful tools, but the same is true for phones, desktops, laptops, and even mainframes. Saying any can replace the other is ignoring the strengths of one and weaknesses of another.
Hell, even your argument as to why desktops aren't going anywhere is flawed in that serial ports are nothing special and even a simple search turns up serial cables for tablets. That doesn't mean I want to do embedded development on my phone though (but being able to debug something in the field without my laptop is handy).
And a tablet with a keyboard is now indistinguishable from a laptop.
Really? What tablet has 8-16GB (or more) of RAM, multiple cores/cpus, 500GB of space, really supports a mouse, and supports multiple external monitors? Sure there are the Windows laptops that will double as a tablet, but they are still laptops first and foremost. Show me a pure tablet that can do all those things.
Certainly if all you are doing is things that can be done on a Chromebook then it may be possible to live happily on a tablet. If, however, you actually need the functionality of a laptop then there is simply no pure tablet out there that can replace it.
They won't get it right. But if there is an option to deemphasize such comments, such as greying them out but still showing them, and providing an easy way to declare whether they are right or wrong in their classification, then they could have the start of a learning classification system that could eventually work as advertised.
Not likely. If you give the users direct interaction with the learning mechanism it will become horribly polluted. How long has/. been around now and we continue to see Troll mods to express disagreement.
However you can't just pretend that needing less hands doesn't lead to the management decision and that the workers are thinking in terms of having an easier job not losing their job at some point.
In my time I have yet to work in a situation where there was an adequate amount of manpower to cover the needed work as currently implemented where automation would thus reduce the need for manpower. Every group I have ever worked in has been so far under water with what they need to be doing vs the resources they have to do it.
In fact quite the opposite my automation work has actually added head count to 5 of the groups I worked for. This was because we had good management who made sure it did not go unnoticed that we were getting more done and made us the "go to group" for getting shit done.
I have always heard stories about over staffed groups, but I will go so far as to say that if someone has part of their job automated and decides not to productively use that newly freed time, then they do deserve to have their job disappear. That they are opting not to contribute is not the fault of either the person doing the automation or management that terminates them.
"The ones losing their job due to automation are dumb people, factory workers, people pushing shelves. They truly desrve it."
Big myth, the people losing their jobs are tech workers and most of them automate themselves and their co-workers out of the job.
I disagree with who they disparaged, but I also disagree with you too.
I have been doing process automation for 24 years now and no one has ever lost their job because of my work. That was because they were smart enough to not be tied to dead end monotonous jobs and when I presented them with the ability to do a tedious job faster (or not to have to do it manually at all) they used that extra time to perform other tasks.
There is simply always more that needs to be done and automation frees us to work on other things. If someone isn't willing to invest in themselves to learn new skills and find new things to do to stay relevant, it's not the fault of the automation if they lose their job.
Users just need the ability to approve this on a per- app basis, not censorship.
I've been an Android user since about the end of 6 and it has always had that ability on my phones (Nexus 6P and Pixel 3 XL). You have to go out of the way to change the permissions though so it would be nice if it would pop up the list for you to verify the first time you run it after an install or update.
What pisses me off is the apps that refuse to work at all if they don't have a specific permission even if you don't use the related feature. For example I have a heart monitor that requires microphone permission so you can record notes, but it also allows you to write simple text notes too. If you don't give it permission to use the microphone it refuses to work at all. I've run into plenty of others too, but that's the only one where my answer couldn't simply be to delete the app.
I use the hobby i2s oled displays (common with arduino projects).
after 1 year of a calendar project being displayed on my oled single color display, there IS burn in.
Display a static-ish image 24/7? If so then after a year burn in would not surprise me in the least. Any display will burn in when subjected to enough "abuse".
When I bought my Plasma (viewed as the best screen by many sources at the time), it took a very short time for a static channel logo that was only displayed maybe a 10th of it's daily on time to become forever (8 years) visible as a ghost. My OLED, however, is 4 years old now and has seen very similar usage over it's life that the Plasma yet still shows no ghosted images.
I'm not saying burn in is not possible (I understand how OLED and Plasma work), just stating my own experience that OLED appears to be much more tolerant Plasma ever was while giving almost the same quality image (comparing to Plasma's heyday before MFGs started focusing on LCDs).
I keep reading about OLED burn in, but I have yet to see it on my now 4yr old LG TV. It only took a few weeks of watching 2 hours of news almost daily for my old Plasma to forever have NBC's logo burned into the corner. No such issues with the OLED.
For once, I agree with Tom Cruise. May be the first thing he's said in 20 years that I agree with.
The Soap Opera setting is terrible. I turn it off immediately, even in hotel rooms. Cannot abide the weirdness of it.
I feel the same on both accounts.
What I don't get is how some people just don't see it. Both my wife and I notice it, but we've had the conversation with her mom so many times it's not funny and she just doesn't see the difference even when we put two TVs (one with the smoothing on and the other with it off) next to each other. Boggles my mind...
I will give it credit (on my LG OLED anyway) that it does actually offer an improvement for live TV and sports with a lot of motion (e.g. soccer, hockey, (presumably basketball), but it's such a PITA to get to the option and we aren't interested enough fans to bother changing it when "needed".
So you want federally mandated software development standards that, because they don't know a damn thing, would require 100% unit and functional test coverage along with passing a State approved linter and vulnerability scanner?
Ahhh yes. DISAster, I remember working with them well. In 2008 I spent 6 months fighting with them to get approval to use SSH host key authentication for host automation rather than the already approved RLOGIN method. They are only "slightly" behind the times...
Yes they do have some very useful recommendations, but working in an environment where those recommendations actually have weight proves my point. They can at times be a major hindrance and getting changes or exceptions made is a nightmare task. This can range from having to rewrite already existing tools/packages (and all the associated bugs and support headaches) due to complications bringing in 3rd party (OSS) items or them simply being behind (sometimes by a decade or more) the power curve of modern standards.
My argument isn't that we don't need any regulation, just that regulation is not it is all it's cracked up to be.
This is delightfully naive. Design faults in one part of a system must be compensated for by all other actors in the system, not just the immediate operator. If 18-wheelers started having a big usability issue, then truckers, truck makers, trucking line operators, unions, state agencies, politicians, and the DOT may all jump in (depending on severity) to get the problem fixed.
Not at all. If such bodies exist around a product there is a significant time lag involved in identifying the problem, arguing about who is to blame, arguing about corrective action, designing the solution, implementing it, and finally getting it rolled out. Some times this is months and others it is years (or never). In the meantime if you continue to operate the "defective" system then it is entirely up to you to make sure that you do so in a safe manner. Just look to the GM ignition switch fiasco or Tata airbags to see how "quickly" those agencies get something resolved...
There are all types of regulations, laws, and safety equipment around driving a car, but if you pick up someone's junker that doesn't have working airbags then the responsibility is 100% on you as to how to deal with it (drive anyway knowing that if an accident happens you are at a higher risk for injury/death, go get the parts (in another car) and fix it, tow it somewhere to get it fixed, etc..). There is no law that prevents you driving it and there is nothing built into the car to prevent it's use. It's all you.
When it comes to C/C++ there are pretty much no engineers that manage to avoid these problems. There are millions of engineers who think that these problems only affect other people. They are all deceiving themselves.
While this is true, this is true in any language as is evidenced by the continued life of SQL-I attack vectors because most "developers" simply google a problem and take the first answer. That is not a fault of the language though, it's the idiot behind the keyboard.
The vast majority of code written in C/C++ probably should have been written in a safer programming language
Really? What safer options do you have in embedded programming? What safer alternatives are there for kernel and driver development? Outside of those areas there are really only a few niches that seem to be actively selecting C/C++ (e.g. where "50% of the performance" is unacceptable) other than to support legacy code/systems.
Beyond that, just what do you think the underpinnings of most of the "safer" languages is written in? While it's not nearly as big as it used to be in terms of visibility, C/C++ are still at the core of making things work. I think most of us that have spent any time with the languages would love to see them replaced with something better, but so far nothing has stepped up to the challenge in a meaningful manner.
But somebody mandated seat belts. And airbags. And crumple zones. And lights. And licences plates. And inspections. And I hope you get the picture.
So you want federally mandated software development standards that, because they don't know a damn thing, would require 100% unit and functional test coverage along with passing a State approved linter and vulnerability scanner?
The stupidity of the notch is having the default behavior be allowing apps/photos/video playback to spill over into the obscured portion of the display. It would've been absolutely fine if kept as a reserved area for status indicators and system notifications.
What phone does that? Not my 3xl, at least not on any of the apps I use. Google Play kinda does that, but it quickly goes away when you start scrolling. It does the same thing on a non-notched phone though which has always irritated me as I can't read the status bar until I scroll.
Thanks for that! I need to play with it and see if it disables touch in that are too. I'm finding I hate this "edge to edge" display idea as the touch also stretches to the edges and I'm finding my hand holding the phone is making enough contact to register as a touch and annoying me
The notch is stupid. Everyone wants screen space and now everyone wants part of it missing. WTF people.
No, people want to make use of the otherwise dead space on either side of where the camera and speaker usually is. I'm not really a fan of the notch as it visually looks terrible, but I get idea of freeing up the extra pixels for the application.
Allowing people to edit reviews after the fact is probably just as bad in terms of having a trustworthy platform.
Case in point:
I bought a cheap xbox 360 compatible controller from some rando Chinese company. It of course, was a total piece of shit. (battery terminals had a faulty contact, thumb-stick's were lacking in sensitivity. poor battery life etc) -- it was just materially inferior in every way to a proper model.
So I post a scathing review; stating these facts. A few days later I get a message from the company offering to refund my purchase entirely (and let me keep the item) If i'd change the review to at least 4 stars, and list something positive about it.
I'm assuming this is a pretty common practice. And a consumer lacking scruples might just go ahead and take the bait.
I don't know if it's common, but I had it happen once. I simply forwarded their request to Amazon and left the review as it was.
On the flip side I've also had a company respond to a bad review (which had more to do with the stupid rounded edges phones MUST have now rather than the screen protector I was applying). They offered me an early version that they were about to release specifically to address my complaint. Had I accepted I would guess that they would have appreciated an update, but there was no ask for it.
As to editing in general, I think it is very useful. The most helpful, to me, reviews are where people have come back and reported their on-going impression. Most things can get through a few days, but how does it stand up over time? It's also very possible that your rating value could change based on that on going experience too. Maybe they need some way to allow the updates, but in a way that still shows their original comments and rating. That way you could spot what you are worried about easier.
Start by not accepting EVERY FUCKING INVITATION you receive. My entire network is 250 people. I consider them all a part of my professional resume.
DING! DING! DING!
People think it's about your number of connections, but it's about the quality. I'm been using it since 2007 and have a whooping 136 connections. I only accept people that A) I actually know and B) am willing to suggest to others for a job.
I don't use any of the silly social features of it and most of the people I connect to don't either. In fact I only log into the site when I need to update my resume.
Between those two things I don't get anything I would consider spam. I do get invites from random people, but I simply ignore them. There are of course the weekly "we think you'd be perfect for this job that we won't tell you about because we did a keyword search and didn't bother to actually read your profile" BS, but again that is easy to ignore. I also get at least one real (that actually fits my profile) ping from a recruiter a week.
As far as an impact on my career, my current employer (3 years and counting) found me via LinkedIN and my job before that (5 years) came from me being able to use it to see where previous co-workers had ended up and using them as contacts to move there too.
So yeah, as long as you treat it professionally (e.g. skip all the FB-esque garbage) and use it to manage your career, it's a very useful tool. If you treat it as some type of scoring game, then it's going to be garbage.
This is what I did, HOWEVER you are miss-representing the cost as you must also get a license and a support contract to keep it up to date.
Depends on your level of comfort really. I got a 210B when they first came out and a 4 year contract. When that expired I didn't re-up as the only time I tried to use it was a waste (the community actually got me an answer before the Juniper tech could even grasp the problem...). After really borking the config once I picked up a 210HE to replace it and then I could use the 210B as my test bed for major changes and a backup if the HE failed.
I went with the SRX (from dd-wrt) as I am not a networking person, but wanted to learn. It was a good experience and I'm glad I did it, but I got tired of fiddling with it and have recently switched to ubnt.com gear. 80% of the functionality, but much easier to manage.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd never allow their router on my network. Turns out I was correct.
Except when you have to call support for something (like them randomly changing your service without your input or consent). No matter how many times you tell them "I don't have any of your hardware, you can't run tests past the ONT" there is still always a pause followed by "huh? I can't seem to communicate with the router/DVR".
Still, while I'm not netsec guru I still trust my hardware/software picks much better than the garbage they want me to pay a monthly rental for. The occasional hassle of dealing with an idiot that doesn't listen is worth it.
Thank you, it is interesting to read an American perspective. I knew US diesel often had more sulphur, but I did not know about the lower cetane numbers. I have also been told that it is common in the US to have a third party service even relatively new cars and that they often use cheaper non-certified engine oils and oil filters. This may also reduce oil service life.
Many actually use the dealer and get ripped off because they don't know better (and the dealers don't want them too). In the US we have a law named the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act which states that we can have work performed anywhere (including DIY) without voiding warranties as long as the work and parts meet MFG specifications. This means that I can tell my local Porsche dealers where to stick their $675 oil changes for my diesel Cayenne and either do it myself (about $100 + 60 minutes) or have my indy shop do it for about $200. It also means that instead of paying Porsche $5.75 for the drain plug crush washer I can buy the Touareg's for $0.75 (same motor and same part, just with a VW part number). Similarly rather than $100 for the fuel filter (which is different than the VW and Audi versions), I can get it with the Mann brand name on it for something like $30.
Unless you are just cutting corners by going to a shady shop, then you are still using the real parts and processes.
As far as an American's perspective, I'm not the typical American in that I've jealously followed diesels in Europe for a long time. The last time I bought a new car (2012) I decided it was time to finally get a diesel as we had a couple of options (BMW x5 and VW Touareg were the two SUVs) that fit what I wanted/needed. The Cayenne diesel popped up in the middle of my search and I went with that as I've liked the Cayenne's since they debuted. It's 6.5 years old now, is still going strong (though I've barely put miles on it compared to what diesels can do), looks good, puts a smile on my face in every drive, and between the fuel savings over the gas version and the TDI settlement it now has cost me less than the VR6 version of the same Cayenne would have cost (just on fuel savings it was going to take about 9 years to "break even").
I mean how can you not love a 5500lb monster that will do 80mph through the mountains of PA and NY and pull 732 miles out of a single tank? Or about the same doing around 90mph from north VA to south GA?
I dread the day I have to replace it (sans it being totaled that's hopefully another 6+ years off) as there simply isn't anything else out there that is as fun to drive and as practical (both in fuel consumption and utility). I had hoped that diesel was finally going to catch on this time, but oh well...
Really? In Europe, VW typically specifies 30 000 km service intervals, with 50 000 km for some diesels. It is interesting that they seem to think a car would require service more often in the USA. I wonder why.
I think it's two parts.
The first is that it's hard to find anything better than 40 cetane here. Additionally getting fuel from a station that doesn't have good industrial/transportation traffic means that the fuel has usually been sitting in the tank for a good period of time (this has improved since diesels took off, but I fear that will be an issue again as diesels are effectively dead here thanks to VAG). So overall our fuel quality sucks compared to what you have in the EU. Worse fuel requires more maintenance to keep the systems clean and functioning. I've done the filter drain (10k)/replacement(20k) myself a few times and while there wasn't significant water, it was horribly dirty.
Another item is overcoming the misconception that diesels are bad. With shorter intervals they simply refilled the DEF at those intervals and the owner barely had to know it even existed. Thus it's one less "extra" item the owner has to worry about over gas car maintenance. There are few owners like myself that skip the constantly topping off of the tank and instead prefer to run it down to as close to dry as possible and then refill it ourselves so we know what our consumption actually looks like.
Now I'd also be happy to argue the wisdom of those ridiculously high service intervals too. They are a good part of why older (since about 2000 when these exaggerated intervals started) used cars are less reliable. There is no oil that can really stand up to that work cycle regardless of claims. Get oil that has seen a 30k or 50k cycle analysed and you will not be pleased with the result. By that time it has long since stopped protecting your engine and damage is being done. It's minor and takes time which the MFGs are just betting on taking longer than their warranty coverage. Out of warranty it is in their best interests for the engine to develop issues as you'll either buy a new car or be buying replacement parts.
Well considering it's supposed to last until the service interval, having to refill it every 20000km is quite limiting given the service interval on most modern cars is 30000km.
The service interval on Audis and VWs is 10k miles in the US and Porsche is 5k. Both under the vehicle's DEF usage.
What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?
I don't understand that part of TFS and the linked article isn't any more clear. I am a (very happy) owner of a TDI motor. Prior to having it "fixed" I was getting ~2.5k miles per 1 gallon (imperial) of AdBlue. I don't know what it's getting since the "fix" as I haven't gone through a full tank, but with it's 5 gallon tank I've already had to refill it's fuel tank 5 times (~2.5k miles) with no sign of the low fluid warning. Maybe it's me, but that doesn't feel very limited...
An iPad pro? I believe you can run multiple external monitors through Lightning connector. 512GB memory max.
From everything thing I've seen it only supports a single external monitor, you are still limited to a single app at a time, and most apps simply mirror to the external display (though there is a growing list that recognize it and show different content). It also does not support a mouse which makes use "as a laptop" clunky at best.
Unless the parent post meant 'real tablet' in terms of other factors like battery life, but there has to be a compromise
I was pretty clear what I meant and b0s0z0ku reiterated it as well. The Surface is a laptop that will act like a tablet, but it is not a tablet first and foremost. I also agree with b0s0z0ku that (like most 2:1 style devices) it doesn't really do either roll well.
Your argument was that laptops can be replaced by a tablet with little qualification. If the user has to "compromise", then it is not an effective replacement for their use case.
Tablets have their place and they can be very useful tools, but the same is true for phones, desktops, laptops, and even mainframes. Saying any can replace the other is ignoring the strengths of one and weaknesses of another.
Hell, even your argument as to why desktops aren't going anywhere is flawed in that serial ports are nothing special and even a simple search turns up serial cables for tablets. That doesn't mean I want to do embedded development on my phone though (but being able to debug something in the field without my laptop is handy).
And a tablet with a keyboard is now indistinguishable from a laptop.
Really? What tablet has 8-16GB (or more) of RAM, multiple cores/cpus, 500GB of space, really supports a mouse, and supports multiple external monitors? Sure there are the Windows laptops that will double as a tablet, but they are still laptops first and foremost. Show me a pure tablet that can do all those things.
Certainly if all you are doing is things that can be done on a Chromebook then it may be possible to live happily on a tablet. If, however, you actually need the functionality of a laptop then there is simply no pure tablet out there that can replace it.
They won't get it right. But if there is an option to deemphasize such comments, such as greying them out but still showing them, and providing an easy way to declare whether they are right or wrong in their classification, then they could have the start of a learning classification system that could eventually work as advertised.
Not likely. If you give the users direct interaction with the learning mechanism it will become horribly polluted. How long has /. been around now and we continue to see Troll mods to express disagreement.
However you can't just pretend that needing less hands doesn't lead to the management decision and that the workers are thinking in terms of having an easier job not losing their job at some point.
In my time I have yet to work in a situation where there was an adequate amount of manpower to cover the needed work as currently implemented where automation would thus reduce the need for manpower. Every group I have ever worked in has been so far under water with what they need to be doing vs the resources they have to do it.
In fact quite the opposite my automation work has actually added head count to 5 of the groups I worked for. This was because we had good management who made sure it did not go unnoticed that we were getting more done and made us the "go to group" for getting shit done.
I have always heard stories about over staffed groups, but I will go so far as to say that if someone has part of their job automated and decides not to productively use that newly freed time, then they do deserve to have their job disappear. That they are opting not to contribute is not the fault of either the person doing the automation or management that terminates them.
"The ones losing their job due to automation are dumb people, factory workers, people pushing shelves. They truly desrve it."
Big myth, the people losing their jobs are tech workers and most of them automate themselves and their co-workers out of the job.
I disagree with who they disparaged, but I also disagree with you too.
I have been doing process automation for 24 years now and no one has ever lost their job because of my work. That was because they were smart enough to not be tied to dead end monotonous jobs and when I presented them with the ability to do a tedious job faster (or not to have to do it manually at all) they used that extra time to perform other tasks.
There is simply always more that needs to be done and automation frees us to work on other things. If someone isn't willing to invest in themselves to learn new skills and find new things to do to stay relevant, it's not the fault of the automation if they lose their job.
Users just need the ability to approve this on a per- app basis, not censorship.
I've been an Android user since about the end of 6 and it has always had that ability on my phones (Nexus 6P and Pixel 3 XL). You have to go out of the way to change the permissions though so it would be nice if it would pop up the list for you to verify the first time you run it after an install or update.
What pisses me off is the apps that refuse to work at all if they don't have a specific permission even if you don't use the related feature. For example I have a heart monitor that requires microphone permission so you can record notes, but it also allows you to write simple text notes too. If you don't give it permission to use the microphone it refuses to work at all. I've run into plenty of others too, but that's the only one where my answer couldn't simply be to delete the app.
I use the hobby i2s oled displays (common with arduino projects).
after 1 year of a calendar project being displayed on my oled single color display, there IS burn in.
Display a static-ish image 24/7? If so then after a year burn in would not surprise me in the least. Any display will burn in when subjected to enough "abuse".
When I bought my Plasma (viewed as the best screen by many sources at the time), it took a very short time for a static channel logo that was only displayed maybe a 10th of it's daily on time to become forever (8 years) visible as a ghost. My OLED, however, is 4 years old now and has seen very similar usage over it's life that the Plasma yet still shows no ghosted images.
I'm not saying burn in is not possible (I understand how OLED and Plasma work), just stating my own experience that OLED appears to be much more tolerant Plasma ever was while giving almost the same quality image (comparing to Plasma's heyday before MFGs started focusing on LCDs).
I keep reading about OLED burn in, but I have yet to see it on my now 4yr old LG TV. It only took a few weeks of watching 2 hours of news almost daily for my old Plasma to forever have NBC's logo burned into the corner. No such issues with the OLED.
For once, I agree with Tom Cruise. May be the first thing he's said in 20 years that I agree with.
The Soap Opera setting is terrible. I turn it off immediately, even in hotel rooms. Cannot abide the weirdness of it.
I feel the same on both accounts.
What I don't get is how some people just don't see it. Both my wife and I notice it, but we've had the conversation with her mom so many times it's not funny and she just doesn't see the difference even when we put two TVs (one with the smoothing on and the other with it off) next to each other. Boggles my mind...
I will give it credit (on my LG OLED anyway) that it does actually offer an improvement for live TV and sports with a lot of motion (e.g. soccer, hockey, (presumably basketball), but it's such a PITA to get to the option and we aren't interested enough fans to bother changing it when "needed".
So you want federally mandated software development standards that, because they don't know a damn thing, would require 100% unit and functional test coverage along with passing a State approved linter and vulnerability scanner?
Well, in some cases... those already exist.
Ahhh yes. DISAster, I remember working with them well. In 2008 I spent 6 months fighting with them to get approval to use SSH host key authentication for host automation rather than the already approved RLOGIN method. They are only "slightly" behind the times...
Yes they do have some very useful recommendations, but working in an environment where those recommendations actually have weight proves my point. They can at times be a major hindrance and getting changes or exceptions made is a nightmare task. This can range from having to rewrite already existing tools/packages (and all the associated bugs and support headaches) due to complications bringing in 3rd party (OSS) items or them simply being behind (sometimes by a decade or more) the power curve of modern standards.
My argument isn't that we don't need any regulation, just that regulation is not it is all it's cracked up to be.
This is delightfully naive. Design faults in one part of a system must be compensated for by all other actors in the system, not just the immediate operator. If 18-wheelers started having a big usability issue, then truckers, truck makers, trucking line operators, unions, state agencies, politicians, and the DOT may all jump in (depending on severity) to get the problem fixed.
Not at all. If such bodies exist around a product there is a significant time lag involved in identifying the problem, arguing about who is to blame, arguing about corrective action, designing the solution, implementing it, and finally getting it rolled out. Some times this is months and others it is years (or never). In the meantime if you continue to operate the "defective" system then it is entirely up to you to make sure that you do so in a safe manner. Just look to the GM ignition switch fiasco or Tata airbags to see how "quickly" those agencies get something resolved...
There are all types of regulations, laws, and safety equipment around driving a car, but if you pick up someone's junker that doesn't have working airbags then the responsibility is 100% on you as to how to deal with it (drive anyway knowing that if an accident happens you are at a higher risk for injury/death, go get the parts (in another car) and fix it, tow it somewhere to get it fixed, etc..). There is no law that prevents you driving it and there is nothing built into the car to prevent it's use. It's all you.
When it comes to C/C++ there are pretty much no engineers that manage to avoid these problems. There are millions of engineers who think that these problems only affect other people. They are all deceiving themselves.
While this is true, this is true in any language as is evidenced by the continued life of SQL-I attack vectors because most "developers" simply google a problem and take the first answer. That is not a fault of the language though, it's the idiot behind the keyboard.
The vast majority of code written in C/C++ probably should have been written in a safer programming language
Really? What safer options do you have in embedded programming? What safer alternatives are there for kernel and driver development? Outside of those areas there are really only a few niches that seem to be actively selecting C/C++ (e.g. where "50% of the performance" is unacceptable) other than to support legacy code/systems.
Beyond that, just what do you think the underpinnings of most of the "safer" languages is written in? While it's not nearly as big as it used to be in terms of visibility, C/C++ are still at the core of making things work. I think most of us that have spent any time with the languages would love to see them replaced with something better, but so far nothing has stepped up to the challenge in a meaningful manner.
But somebody mandated seat belts. And airbags. And crumple zones. And lights. And licences plates. And inspections. And I hope you get the picture.
So you want federally mandated software development standards that, because they don't know a damn thing, would require 100% unit and functional test coverage along with passing a State approved linter and vulnerability scanner?
What if the 18-wheeler were designed in such a way that it was very awkward and painful to check mirrors....
Then it is still up to the driver to be aware of and manage those limitations.
The stupidity of the notch is having the default behavior be allowing apps/photos/video playback to spill over into the obscured portion of the display. It would've been absolutely fine if kept as a reserved area for status indicators and system notifications.
What phone does that? Not my 3xl, at least not on any of the apps I use. Google Play kinda does that, but it quickly goes away when you start scrolling. It does the same thing on a non-notched phone though which has always irritated me as I can't read the status bar until I scroll.
Granted, there is a developer option to hide the notch,
Thanks for that! I need to play with it and see if it disables touch in that are too. I'm finding I hate this "edge to edge" display idea as the touch also stretches to the edges and I'm finding my hand holding the phone is making enough contact to register as a touch and annoying me
The notch is stupid. Everyone wants screen space and now everyone wants part of it missing. WTF people.
No, people want to make use of the otherwise dead space on either side of where the camera and speaker usually is. I'm not really a fan of the notch as it visually looks terrible, but I get idea of freeing up the extra pixels for the application.
Allowing people to edit reviews after the fact is probably just as bad in terms of having a trustworthy platform.
Case in point: I bought a cheap xbox 360 compatible controller from some rando Chinese company. It of course, was a total piece of shit. (battery terminals had a faulty contact, thumb-stick's were lacking in sensitivity. poor battery life etc) -- it was just materially inferior in every way to a proper model.
So I post a scathing review; stating these facts. A few days later I get a message from the company offering to refund my purchase entirely (and let me keep the item) If i'd change the review to at least 4 stars, and list something positive about it.
I'm assuming this is a pretty common practice. And a consumer lacking scruples might just go ahead and take the bait.
I don't know if it's common, but I had it happen once. I simply forwarded their request to Amazon and left the review as it was.
On the flip side I've also had a company respond to a bad review (which had more to do with the stupid rounded edges phones MUST have now rather than the screen protector I was applying). They offered me an early version that they were about to release specifically to address my complaint. Had I accepted I would guess that they would have appreciated an update, but there was no ask for it.
As to editing in general, I think it is very useful. The most helpful, to me, reviews are where people have come back and reported their on-going impression. Most things can get through a few days, but how does it stand up over time? It's also very possible that your rating value could change based on that on going experience too. Maybe they need some way to allow the updates, but in a way that still shows their original comments and rating. That way you could spot what you are worried about easier.
Start by not accepting EVERY FUCKING INVITATION you receive. My entire network is 250 people. I consider them all a part of my professional resume.
DING! DING! DING!
People think it's about your number of connections, but it's about the quality. I'm been using it since 2007 and have a whooping 136 connections. I only accept people that A) I actually know and B) am willing to suggest to others for a job.
I don't use any of the silly social features of it and most of the people I connect to don't either. In fact I only log into the site when I need to update my resume.
Between those two things I don't get anything I would consider spam. I do get invites from random people, but I simply ignore them. There are of course the weekly "we think you'd be perfect for this job that we won't tell you about because we did a keyword search and didn't bother to actually read your profile" BS, but again that is easy to ignore. I also get at least one real (that actually fits my profile) ping from a recruiter a week.
As far as an impact on my career, my current employer (3 years and counting) found me via LinkedIN and my job before that (5 years) came from me being able to use it to see where previous co-workers had ended up and using them as contacts to move there too.
So yeah, as long as you treat it professionally (e.g. skip all the FB-esque garbage) and use it to manage your career, it's a very useful tool. If you treat it as some type of scoring game, then it's going to be garbage.
Can get one for $200 or less if you shop around
This is what I did, HOWEVER you are miss-representing the cost as you must also get a license and a support contract to keep it up to date.
Depends on your level of comfort really. I got a 210B when they first came out and a 4 year contract. When that expired I didn't re-up as the only time I tried to use it was a waste (the community actually got me an answer before the Juniper tech could even grasp the problem...). After really borking the config once I picked up a 210HE to replace it and then I could use the 210B as my test bed for major changes and a backup if the HE failed.
I went with the SRX (from dd-wrt) as I am not a networking person, but wanted to learn. It was a good experience and I'm glad I did it, but I got tired of fiddling with it and have recently switched to ubnt.com gear. 80% of the functionality, but much easier to manage.